Announcement

Collapse

LDS - Mormonism Guidelines

Theists only.

Look! It's a bird, no it's a plane, no it's a bicycle built for two!

This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to the LDS - Mormons. This forum is generally for theists only, and is generaly not the area for debate between atheists and theists. Non-theists may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Religions Department.

Due to the sensitive nature of the LDS Temple Ceremonies to our LDS posters, we do not allow posting exact text of the temple rituals, articles describing older versions of the ceremony, or links that provide the same information. However discussion of generalities of the ceremony are not off limits. If in doubt, PM the area mod or an Admin


Non-theists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Do Mormons Still Believe Smith will be "checking passports" in Heaven?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
    You repeating your opinion on this over and over does not dissuade me in the slightest.
    And your kissing up to a false prophet and adhering to a phony "scripture" doesn't dissuade me in the slightest.

    But feel free to type lots of stuff I won't bother reading.
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • #32
      So, would mormon cosmology make any sense in a work of fiction? Or do fictional solar powered aliens make more sense?
      If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by seven7up View Post
        It has everything to do with what Brigham Young was expressing about Joseph Smith.
        Here's the problem with quoting your nutcase "prophets", Seven. You can find a quote to support your goofy ideas, but there's always another nutty Mormon "prophet" who says something otherwise. In fact, this is why you have had to come up with "continuing revelation" as an excuse.
        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by seven7up View Post
          7up wrote: As previously mentioned by many LDS apologists, this is similar to the Christian image of Peter at the "pearly gates," who opens and closes the gate to admit people in or not, according to the righteous judgments of God.

          The interpretation identified Peter into the mythology because Peter is the person who asked Christ in Matt 19:28,
          Then Peter said to Him, "Behold, we have left everything and followed You; what then will there be for us?" 28And Jesus said to them, "Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
          Why can't you just admit that you were wrong on this? Huh? The "Peter at the pearly gates" was never a doctrine of the church. No one teaches that we need Peter's permission to get to heaven. The thief on the cross believed nothing other than that Jesus could lead him to paradise. There is no indication that he followed Torah or anything resembling Moses' teachings. Yet, he was still told that he would be with Christ in paradise that very day. He did not need baptism, temple ordinances, or belief in any prophet's word on the matter. Just Jesus.

          Many of the tribes have since been scattered around the world, particularly the 10 northern tribes of Israel. The 12 apostles went preaching the gospel and much of what they wrote is found in the New Testament. The tribes will be judged based upon the revelation of Christ as given by the Apostles.
          No they won't. They will be judged by the actions of the Apostles in believing in Messiah that was sent from God. That's the plumb line that Israel will be judged by, and that's what Jesus meant that they would judge Israel.

          7up wrote: Brigham Young and Joseph Smith are comparing themselves to other prophets who revealed the truth about Jesus Christ to the world. That is why I quoted Jesus who said, "Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words? (John 5:45-47)" Obviously, in the scriptural context, these apostles are not autonomous. They are not going to make judgments that are contrary to the will of God. Like Joseph Smith, they are merely tools or instruments in the hands of God.

          The ticket/pass is accepting the revelation of God and Christ as given through Joseph Smith, just as it was with the Old Testament prophets and the New Testament apostles.
          And that is completely bogus. The "ticket" is faith in God to provide a Savior. It has nothing to do with "accepting revelation".

          There is no actual gate where Joseph Smith will actually be standing. There is no stopping by Joseph Smith on the way either. Brigham was using poetic imagery like a "certificate" or a "passport", which are not meant to be literal in any way. Brigham did not say that they had to literally "stop by Joseph Smith" on the way to Heaven either. You are obviously misleading your audience on purpose.
          It must be nice to be able to excuse his pretty clear comments about the ”sphere” that Joseph is now “ruling in” now, and that we must “pass by” his sphere first. So, is it poetic that Joseph is ruling in his “sphere”? Brigham made it clear that without believing in Joseph Smith in his “sphere”, we can never pass on to where God is. Do you deny that is true? Can we attain to where the Father is without believing in Joseph Smith first?

          I say , "its an archetype". Then you respond, "No, you are wrong, it is a 'type'". And then you turn around and call me an ass? Sure Bill, sure.
          No, you arrogant jerk. You said “I will try to use smaller words for you next time.” For THAT, I called you an ass. And the shoe fits.

          Each dispensation has a prophet at its head.[
          Bologna. There are only 2 “dispensations”. Before Christ, and after Christ.

          I gave Noah and Moses as examples. Like how Moses taught in his dispensation that those who looked to the serpent on a pole would live. This was a "type" (Alma 33:19) or similitude of the Savior. Those who didn't obey Moses and would not look, didn't live.
          Except not everyone was bitten by snakes. Only those who were poisoned were told to look.
          Accepting what Moses said in that dispensation was the "passport" to life and salvation.
          No it wasn’t. It was always faith in God.

          That is exactly the picture you were painting, as if it were literal. Even the idea of literally stopping by Joseph Smith is not an accurate portrayal. It is a portrayal that you would like to present to people who don't know any better. That isn't the concept being presented by Brigham and you know it. Again, Brigham explained what he meant in that same sermon: "It is his [Joseph's] mission to see that all the children of men in this last dispensation are saved, that can be, through the redemption" (Journal of Discourses, vol.7, p.289).
          Absolute nonsense. The picture I am “painting” is that we have to believe in Joseph Smith to make it to where the Father is. And Brigham claimed that Joseph was “in his sphere reigning” JUST LIKE GOD WAS IN HIS. And that we would have to appear before Joseph in his sphere first. I’ve linked the article from lds.ord for anyone to confirm.

          Do you Bill? Is this post an example of that?
          Yes and yes. The enemies of God who seek to destroy the Kingdom deserve no niceties. Light is not always comfortable.

          Please explain how they will go about judging Israel Bill. Is Jesus delegating?
          They will be judged by the actions of the Apostles in believing in Messiah that was sent from God. That's the plumb line that Israel will be judged by, and that's what Jesus meant that they would judge Israel.

          Israel will be judged based on the truths that were revealed to them through prophets and apostles.
          No they won’t. They will be judged based on their belief in Messiah. Period.

          But perhaps you can expand on exactly how the 12 will go about judging?
          Their faith would act as the judge, showing Israel what it takes to be saved.

          By the way, Israel has been scattered around the Earth. Israel includes more than just the Jews, and Israel has multiplied all over the globe.


          That isn't what Brigham meant either. The concept is the same as receiving God's truth through prophets as found in the Bible. As the Lord said to the apostles, "He that receiveth you receiveth me" (Matt. 10:40). Brigham is applying the same concept to the "last dispensation".
          Again, I say bologna. Jesus will not be asking… “Did you believe Joseph Smith’s words”? He will be asking the same question He asked of Peter… “Who do you say that I am?” Brigham was a fool, and so are you for believing his damnable doctrines.

          Brigham Young did not say that there were stops on the way. If God and Christ truly spoke through Joseph Smith, as LDS believe he did, then God and Christ are in agreement with what Joseph Smith revealed to the world concerning the order and kingdom of God.
          If we believe He is, and He is a rewarder of those that seek Him, We need nothing from Joseph Smith.

          This being the case, the final dispensation was rolled out through Joseph Smith and as a prophet he is in agreement with God and Christ about who follows those truths that were revealed. The same is true for the prophets of the Old Testament and the Apostles of the New Testament.


          Furthermore, Brigham Young is talking about the work of the temple and baptisms for the dead. In the very next paragraph he says,

          Joseph Smith, junior, will again be on this earth dictating plans and calling forth his brethren to be baptized for the very characters who wish this was not so, in order to bring them into a kingdom to enjoy, perhaps, the presence of angels or the spirits of good men, if they cannot endure the presence of the Father and the Son; and he will never cease his operations, under the directions of the Son of God, until the last ones of the children of men are saved that can be, from Adam till now.
          And that furthers my point. Brigham claims that we have to be baptized under Joseph’s authority in order to “enjoy a kingdom”. Another clear indication that Brigham was claiming that in order to “endure the presence of the Father”, one had to get permission from Joseph Smith and his authority.

          Of course you have misrepresented what BY said. Now you have softened your stance, but you are still misrepresenting. Now you are saying that people have to literally stop by Joseph on the way to Heaven. Brigham never said that.
          Actually, yes he did. However, I do admit that it is ambiguous enough to claim it as poetic license. But the basic point remains, whether Brigham was speaking literally or not. According to him, one has to believe in Joseph Smith in order to attain to where the Father is. And that is a false doctrine no matter how you try to slice it. It’s still a giant turd sandwich, and it’s stuck in your teeth.

          As you can see, Brigham Young is referring to a preaching of the gospel which has been delegated by Christ to Joseph Smith, to those who are on the Earth and those spirits who are yet to be resurrected.
          No! It is the preaching of Joseph Smith’s “gospel” replete with temple crap and phony hand seals.
          Those who accept this truth receive the "consent" of Joseph Smith, but Brigham is clear that it is all "under the directions of the Son of God",
          Of COURSE Brigham would say that. No one suggested that he claimed Joseph was acting on his own.

          a portion of the context which anti-Mormons like you purposefully leave out in order to deceive people who are reading your blogs, forum posts, anti-Mormon websites, etc.
          I have linked ONLY to pro-lds sources, so your offhanded red herring is easily dismissed as desperation.
          That's what
          - She

          Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
          - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

          I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
          - Stephen R. Donaldson

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
            The thief on the cross believed nothing other than that Jesus could lead him to paradise.
            Perhaps you missed the part where Jesus said "This day you shall be with me in paradise, but I need to run that by Peter first".
            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              Perhaps you missed the part where Jesus said "This day you shall be with me in paradise, but I need to run that by Peter first".
              Nah, he said "Do you believe in the words of John the Baptist first?"
              That's what
              - She

              Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
              - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

              I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
              - Stephen R. Donaldson

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                Nah, he said "Do you believe in the words of John the Baptist first?"
                But he never mentioned Joseph Smith?
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  But he never mentioned Joseph Smith?
                  He actually did. A corrupt scribe in AD 77 skipped over the mention when he was copying the Gospel.
                  Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                  Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                  sigpic
                  I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                    He actually did. A corrupt scribe in AD 77 skipped over the mention when he was copying the Gospel.
                    He's probably the one who left out "Wednesday Nights Don't Count!"
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                      He's probably the one who left out "Wednesday Nights Don't Count!"
                      Count for what? And are my human alien jokes okay? Or do they go too far?
                      If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
                        Count for what?
                        It's an old joke from back when a lot of churches had Sunday Morning, Sunday Night and Wednesday Night services. Wednesday night services were notoriously under attended. So....


                        A huge crowd of people is standing at the gate, and St Peter is making an announcement. The crowd goes wild cheering and waving their arms.

                        A guy of the crowd yells "what did he SAY, what did he SAY?"
                        somebody in the middle of the crowd calls out "Wednesday nights don't count!"

                        (a play on the false notion that your good deeds get you into Heaven )
                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
                          And are my human alien jokes okay? Or do they go too far?
                          They are fine.
                          That's what
                          - She

                          Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                          - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                          I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                          - Stephen R. Donaldson

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            I wonder if sevenup even gets my joke? Seriously, superpowers would be cooler than ruling your own planet.
                            If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
                              I wonder if sevenup even gets my joke? Seriously, superpowers would be cooler than ruling your own planet.
                              I think Seven is your typical radical gungho fully cult-ized fanatic who is so Mormon he's no earthly good.
                              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                                I think Seven is your typical radical gungho fully cult-ized fanatic who is so Mormon he's no earthly good.
                                The type that thinks all fiction is EVIIILLL? Even when it can teach you stuff and entertain you?
                                If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X