I also like how they dont even know what protestants teach. It said that we think think we are saved through baptism. C'mon if the LDS are going to preach against us, then they should at least know what we believe.
And to think the LDS get mad when we talk about them. I cant believe they say we worship a God without passions, just like what was taught by Moses. If only the LDS knew that moses meant that we shouldnt worship idols, like they do i.e their temples and garments. As a Christian we need nothing but Jesus, and he will show us the father. We are saved by Jesus alone, we are not saved by a religion or church.
You critics talk crap about the church all the time and you say we're mocking you? The guy playing a role of a preacher is right on as to how many preachers are such as not knowing the truth about God.
Blasphemy is to be around this false christians , who called themselves christians with this atittude of disrespect in others faith PRAISE JOSEPH SMITH , OUR ETERNAL MASTER , THE ONE WHO TOLD US AND VISIT THIS EARTH TO TEACH THE EVERLASTING GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST , THE ONLY ONE TRUE CHURCH ON EARTH THE LDS CHURCH AMEM
yah too bad for the MORmONS that Joe Smith's highly touted First Vision NEVER really happened. Funny that MORmONS headline it as the first step to JOE Smith path to prophethood. when in fact it was an added after thought to prop up the ultterly pathetic Smith Cowdery Rigdon gold plates scam. The narrator condemns each of the Xtain sects for saying they have the only avenue to salvation, then look at what Horny Joe Smith did. MORmONS!
holy crap this is disgusting. Sorry, other churches DO tell you why you're here. But it's pretty pathetic for someone to need an institution to tell them all the answers for life instead of using your BRAIN and figuring it out on your own for yourself. Anything a man-made institution tells you is going to have human biases and prejudices.
@001hinata001 If your definition of Christianity include having doctrine inconsistent with the Bible and believing the writings of a false prophet then yes...they are Christians. If they are Christian, where does their salvation come from? Is it Christ?
@TackleboxMinistries no, i just mean that they believe in christ. isn't that the basic definition of christianity? its not our place to say who's a false prophet and who isn't. i don't really care about more specific beliefs, i just know that mormons believe in christ and that makes them a christian denomination.
@001hinata001 You can't be that naive. Who do you say that I am, is what Jesus asked. Mormons do not believe in the Christ of the Bible. Not even close. They don't even believe the Bible truths. So how is that being a Christian. Muslims believe in a Christ too, but do not know who He is, does that make them Christ-like?
@manderbos mormons read the bible and believe it is a testiment of christ. they believe that christ was crucified for the world's sins and resurrected, just like it says in the bible. mormons believe that parts of the bible are incorrectly translated. however, it isn't up to them to decide which parts are correct or not. the "mormon bible" is the same King James version everyone uses, but with references to the book of mormon below the unaltered text.
@001hinata001 You were told the Bible is not translated right by JS. Every single cult out there says the same thing. If one can lay doubt in it's truth, then you can teach 'anything' and people will buy it. It was translated correctly and there are scrolls to prove it. What proof does the BOM have? Nothing. The Mormon Jesus is not the same as the Biblical Jesus. Your salvation teaching is different. Not one single Mormon doctrine is in agreement with the Bible. FACTS not feelings.
The "Book of Abraham" purports to be a translation of an ancient Egyptian papyrus. However, the original papyrus is in reality the Egyptian "Book of Breathings" and has nothing to do with Abraham or his religion. Therefore, we have no evidence for the "Book of Abraham" prior to the handwritten manuscripts dictated by Joseph Smith in the 1830s. It would appear, then, that there is no documentary evidence for any of Joseph Smith's works that dates back prior to the late 1820's.
we believe baptism is symbol, not needed for salvation. the bible says that if you believe Jesus is savior and confess it with your mouth that you are a sinner, you will be saved. it also says believe and get baptised and be saved, but if you don;t believe you will be comdemned. It does not say that if you don't get baptised you won't be saved. Wow, mormons proved themselves wrong
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient
@tlpjohn40 Question: Do you really think that I'm going to read this verse, and immediately see that I've been SO wrong for the last 30+ years? Just like that?
I mean, I don't get it. It could be referring to you just as easily as you think it refers to me/us.
@tlpjohn40 I think she's not nearly the radical anti-Mormon that some are, but, I don't believe she scores any points with me. I tried reading one of the Tanner's books and found it quite a snooze.
Whether you realize it or not, Sandra Tanner has enough historical information to prove that Joseph was a fraud. Why do you think she and her husband left the church? Because of lies? NO, she found the truth.
A careful examination of this document reveals that the reason church leaders have "never published or referred" to it is that it contains irreconcilable differences with the official account. These differences concern Joseph Smith's age, his reason for seeking the Lord, the question of a revival, and the presence of an evil power. The most serious contradiction between the accounts is the number of personages in the vision. In the first account Joseph Smith only mentions one personage.
@tlpjohn40 The reason is because it's not that important. If someone is going to lose their testimony of the Book of Mormon because Joseph Smith couldn't quite keep his story straight, then they never had one in the first place, and are looking for an excuse, no matter how trivial.
Besides, you know as well as I do (even tho you will probably deny it) that if the story had been the same each time, it would have been rejected as "He memorized it, therefore it's not true".
Joseph Smith, Jr. (December 23, 1805 June 27, 1844) Smith said that he had his own first vision in 1820- age 14. But in his own hand writing dated around 1831-32, Joseph Smith gives his account and claimed he was 16 yrs of age. Do the math.
@lindalds It might make a difference. It sounds like the LDS church is full of changes to me. And if you are a Mormon living in China, maybe the price of rice does make the difference.
@lindalds There has never been total apostacy on the earth no need to re-establish the Lords church, once established. And no need to keep adding new living apostles & new living prophets to the church. You would need to add a new living Christ Jesus as the chief cornerstone each time. Christians follow the teachings of the Biblical apostles & prophets where Jesus is the chief cornerstone. Once a foundation has been built, can you rebuild it and have the same building? see Ephesians 2:20
@tlpjohn40 What was restored was: the priesthood authority Christ gave His apostles, to administer His church when He was no longer walking the earth; living prophets and apostles; and continueing revelation from God to His church, thru His prophets/apostles/seers/revelators.
We do not rebuild the foundation. Christ does not have to keep coming as He is not dead. MEN die, and prophets and apostles must be replaced with those living (i.e. Mathias for Judas Iscariot).
@lindalds, Why is the LDS church mocking Christians at the Manti Pageant? The mormons prior to 1990 did mock a protestant preacher in the temple ordinance as an agent of the devil. And you say He was the victim? Yes sinners are victims of the Devil. Then why did this change in 1990? Was the Protestant Preacher no longer the victim or are the mormon people the victims of an ever changing false gospel?
@tlpjohn40 There is no mocking. There is only frustration that they cannot seem to answer some of life's basic questions.
The pastor in the temple was not an agent of the devil, he was another victim. I don't know why it changed.
The gospel does not change. Not for us, anyway.
Now, for other Christians, things seem to change like a stop light. I hear some preacher on the radio, and he says, "You aren't supposed to understand, you are only supposed to believe".
@lindalds "You aren't supposed to understand, you are only supposed to believe"???. Then why did polygamy end?D&C 132 today still talks about the "New & Everlasting Covenant" of plural marriage. HUH? And you said that you didn't know why the pastor "who was the devils victim" was changed? Have you ever thought about why they changed this also? I understand that Gordon B Hinkley said that "you can think anything you want in the LDS church, but you can't say anything you want" Why not?
@tlpjohn40 The N&EC is not plural marriage, it's eternal marriage. Anyone can see that, if they read it carefully and don't read INTO it what you want it to say.
I don't know why they changed anything, but it doesn't make any difference.
You can say anything you want, but if it's not within church teachings, if it is apostasy, then you run the very real risk of excommunication.
Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the "NEW and EVERLASTING COVENANT, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, as also "PLURALITY OF WIVES". HC 5: 501507- What does New & Everlasting Promise mean to you? Why would something that's everlasting end with the 1890 Manifesto. Matthias Cowley & John W. Taylor, both apostles, continued to performing or advocating new plural marriages after 1904.
@tlpjohn40 You know what you might try, you MIGHT try actually reading sec. 132, and concentrate on verses 6 and 7, which IS what the N&EC is. It says NOTHING about PLURAL marriage. Not till way to the end of the section, and then, only that it's not adultery if one is married to the women.
The LDS church also bashed Christianity in their temples, until 1990. The Mormon temple endowment ceremony, the most sacred religious rite in Mormonism, included a dramatization in which a Protestant minister was portrayed as a servant of the Devil.
And Mormons would have us to believe that they don't mock or bash Christianity. Joseph Smith, was a false prophet & a liar. He spent plenty of time bashing Christianity of his day, so I guess some things don't change.
The whole lds church prides itself on the pool of members ancestors. To be born into the church a person is more worthy than a person who joins the church.
@lindalds Joseph Smith did bash Christianity when he said,"I was answered by God that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt". JS History 1:18-20; What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by which he deceives the whole world" Prophet Joseph Smith
@lindalds First, Joseph Smith could not have seen God's face and live. Exodus 33:17,20; 1 Timothy 6:15,16; 1 John 4:12 Second, Joseph Smith did bash Christianity when he said "What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by which he deceives the whole world"
- Prophet Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.270
Next, Why are Mormons bashing Christianity in this pageant?
@tlpjohn40 But, don't you think that GOD could allow Himself to be made manifest to Joseph Smith, IF He wanted to? Perhaps not in His actual form, but in a way that Joseph could assimilate.
I think God is powerful enough to do that.
In Exodus 33, it also says that God spoke to Moses FACE TO FACE as a friend would. In verse 18, Moses asked God to show him His GLORY. And God said, THAT you cannot see. Same in 1 tim, 1 John.
@lindalds I don't believe God would need to show himself to anyone. After Jesus Christ fulfilled his mission, at the cross, establishing the Christian church on the day of pentecost. We know that the gates of hell will not prevail and the Lords word and Christianity is eternal. Besides why does todays adopted JS first vision story differ from "his origional" story? In JS origional story he didn't say he saw God, he only said Jesus Christ. Why would he over look God, if he actually saw him?
@tlpjohn40 The gates of hell have not prevailed, but the church DID go into an apostasy. Paul saw it actually starting.
You talk about the stories of the first vision as if he deliberately changed his story. But the "different versions" are different because A. different times; B. Different audiences; C. Different people telling the story of Joseph telling the story (ever play "rumors"?).
@lindalds If the Lords church ended, at Joseph Smiths great apostacy, then the gates of hell prevailed. The Great Apostasy that Paul saw hasn't happened yet, but it is coming. The "origional" story that I am refering, and I know there are several, is of JS first vision where he mentions Jesus only w/ no mention of God. This was discovered in 1965 by BYU student Paul Cheesman. It was Joseph Smiths own handwriting dated 1831-32.
@lindalds LDS definition of Apostacy says the Church ended: "The time after Christ's death when the people turned wicked and killed the apostles and disciples, CAUSING THE LORD TO TAKE HIS CHURCH, priesthood, and revelation AWAY FROM THE EARTH.
@lindalds The earliest known account of the first vision was written in 1831-32 in JS own handwriting. It was made public by Paul Cheesman in 1965. This account had been in the hands of LDS leaders for over 130 years, hidden away in their vaults--because it differs so greatly from the official version. JS claimed to be 16 years old & that he already knew that all churches were wrong from reading the Bible. Joseph sought forgiveness, and it was Jesus alone who visited him and forgave his sins.
@tlpjohn40 If the church leaders had hid it in the vault to keep it away from people, then how did you know about it? They can't have hid it very well. '
@lindalds As I said, It was discovered in 1965 by BYU student Paul Cheesman. He wrote his master's thesis in 1965 entitled "An Analysis of the Accounts Relating Joseph Smith's Early Visions." In that study he discusses this differing account of the first vision in detail. It was subsequently discussed by LDS scholars in the publication Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought for Autumn 1966. None of these researchers & scholars dismissed the account as mere gossip.
@tlpjohn40 Like I said, if it had been the same story over and over, then it would have been rejected for being "canned" or rehearsed, meaning it never happened, he's just saying it did.
If you reject everything that Jospeh Smith did just because he couldn't keep his story straight, then you must reject half of the New TEstament, as Paul couldn't seem to keep his story straight either.
@lindalds Even though the 1st vision story, made public & authenticated in 1965, in JS own handwriting & is vastly different than what the LDS church has adopted today? If His story had been the same over & over again then it might sound..more truthful. But I do reject All that J. Smith said because he's not credible. Joseph Smith practiced the Occult art of "scrying", using "seer stones" with his face buried in a hat to translate the BofM. His 1830,1837 ed.-todays BofM had1000's of changes.
@tlpjohn40 He didn't practice the ART of anything. One man hired him to find buried treasure, which he said probably wasn't there anyway, and all of a sudden, he's some flaming occultist!
And like I said, since Paul couldn't keep his story straight, then we should throw out half the New Testament.
@lindalds Joseph Smith initially used his stones to see hidden things, (Scrying also called crystal gazing, crystal seeing, seeing, or peeping) their use later evolved into a revelatory catalyst. Smith & others claimed that God communicated to them through these stones. Most Mormons believe in the validity of Smith's claimed ability to have been able to use seer stones, along with the divine revelations that Smith claimed to have received through them. J. Smith practiced folk magic- the Occult
@lindalds The Prophets and Apostles who wrote the Bible, were inspired by the Holy Spirit. You don't believe that "they" used "seer" or "peep" stones, as Joseph Smith did, in their revelation or writings, do you? 1 Timothy 4:1; Isaiah 8:19-20; "And for this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they might believe what is false" 2 Thess 2:11.
@tlpjohn40 I don't know how the Biblical prophets and apostles got their revelations from God. And neither do you.
Rev. 2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.
@lindalds Yes, I do know how the Biblical Prophets and Apostles got their revelations from God. It was through the Holy Spirit, and not "seer" stones. Psalm 69:25, Psalm 109:8; And when a true prophet himself is speaking , it is actually the Holy Spirit speaking through him. See also Acts 4:25 in connection with Psalm 2:1,2 ;Mark 13:11 & Mat. 10:19,20; "For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy" Rev. 19:10
@lindalds If the original 1830 Book of Mormon was inspired than why were there so many errors and changes and additions and deletions, when compared to current editions? If Joseph Smith was truely inspired by the Holy Spirit, as the light appeared to reveal each letter until it formed a word, their shouldn't be any errors in his writings.
@tlpjohn40 The translation was done in about 60 days, and while on the run, and with several different scribes. So there were bound to be errors in spelling, grammer, etc. And there were no chapter and verse counts in the first edition.
Since Jospeh smith was usually behind a screen when he translated, no one really knows for sure how it was done. But it wasn't done like you said, for the whole thing or it would have taken ages.
@lindalds There are no contradictions here when you understand that the"English" translations of the Bible were originally "Greek" . Do you understand that Jesus, the Apostles and Prophets didn't speak King James English? People opposed to the Bible choose to believe there is a contradiction. Also do you understand that the Book of Acts wasn't written by Paul, but by Luke who was telling this story of Sauls conversion?
@lindalds Strong's Concordance reference for Greek word #191 "to hear" can be translated into English from Greek as the word, "understand". So the men traveling with Saul of Tarsus heard a voice, but did not understand the words spoken. Only Saul of Tarsus heard and understood the words spoken based on the way that Luke reported the conversion story. There is no contradiction based on accepted use of Greek grammar.
@lindalds You are right, most people don't read greek, but we have those greek text to compare to. Do you have the "gold plates" to compare to Joseph Smiths "original" 1830 Book of Mormon and todays version?
@tlpjohn40 It's my understanding that there is NONE of the original texts, actually written in the hands of the authors, like Paul, Peter, Matthew, etc.
@lindalds Yes,The original texts of the NT were written by various authors sometime after A.D. 45, is generally accepted as the earliest extant record of a canonical New Testament text, which dates somewhere between 117 A.D. and 138 A.D. and it wasn't written by the RCC.
It's not the same with the Book of Mormon has been in existance for ~180 verifiable years. Joseph Smiths 1830 edition had many errors and was revised many times.
@tlpjohn40 There is NO WAY that Joseph Smith, or anyone, could have written the Book of Mormon off the top of their heads, in that amount of time, AND gotten millions and millions of people (very intelligent, knowledgable, well-educated people I might add) to accept it as the Word of God, just like the Bible.
Not to mention what he went thru from the time he was 15 til he was killed. I know if it were me, and it was all a big joke, I would have thrown in the towel very early on.
@lindalds What does the Book of Mormon contain that is necessary for salvation that the Bible doesn't have? And what does the Bible (Esp. the New Testament) contain that isn't necessary for salvation?
@tlpjohn40 The Book of Mormon means that we DO HAVE living prophets/apostles/seers/revelators livng today, speaking God's words to God's church. "Epe. 4:14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;"
@lindalds You said that Paul couldn't keep his story straight, but since it was Luke who wrote Acts, you see how greek could be translated incorrectly to english. But the Mormons 'only' accept the KJV Bible as one of the 4 canon of scripture. Why are there so many errors in grammer, history and facts in the1830 BofM edition that differ in the current one, IF Joesph Smith "translated directly" by the Holy Spirit, should it be right the first time?
@tlpjohn40 IF the Bible was brought about by the Holy Spirit, it should be perfect. That it's not means A. that man can't do anything perfectly, even with God's inspiriation (and God's OK with that), or B. it's somehow, for some reason, been tainted by man for man's reasons.
For the Bible, there are huge questions marks. For the Book of Mormon, we KNOW it s because man can't do anything PERFECTLY no matter how hard he tries or no matter how influence by the Holy Ghost.
@lindalds Do you realise that the Bible never instructs anyone to pray to see if Gods Word is true? The Berean's of Acts looked in the Old Testament Scriptures that told of the coming of Jesus and compare "this" to what the Apostle Paul was telling them, to define what is true. Acts17:10-12 "...for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true". They were commended for this.
@61MAF you are comparing apples to rotten liver. Hardly a good comparison. I would be willing to bet you've never really read the Book of Mormon. Or if you have, you do it like atheists read the Bible, merely to look for things to use against it.
@61MAF On Page 55 of the LDS Church manual entitled Gospel Principles reads, In addition to these four books of scripture, the inspired words of our living prophets become scripture to us. Their words come to us through conferences, Church publications, and instructions to local priesthood leaders.--According to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Neither written scripture, nor natural theology, supercedes the living oracles.
@lindalds Your prophets and apostles "today" don't preach anything against scripture? Huh? The LDS church is a white-washed watered down version of the FLDS church. The FLDS church follows Joesph Smith far more than the LDS does and their key words are "their LIVING prophets" also. The LDS mainstream is trying to blend into Christianity by attempting to erase or distance their embarassing history and doctrine. It doesn't work.
@tlpjohn40 The FLDS are a bastardized version of Joseph Smith's church. Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, none of them ever excommunicated over 400 young teen age boys, taking them into the desert and leaving them on their own, just because they were competition for the women.
@tlpjohn40 We are not trying to blend in with anyone. We just want to be who we are, and for others to, well, I don't know that "accept" is the right word, but that's the only one that comes to mind. We're not mainstream, we're not orthodox, or traditional, but we ARE CHRISTians.
@tlpjohn40 The Bible doesn't say word one about the BIble, because there WAS no Bible to talk about.
The Book of Mormon pretty much does the same thing that the Bereans did, in that the Lehites had some scripture with them (i.e. the book of Isaiah), and used that to show that there was going to be a Messiah born soon, as well as revelation. The difference is that it's a continuous record, not like the New TEstament.
But, how DO you know that the BIBLE is the word of God?
@lindalds The Bereans did have the Old Testament to compare the Apostle Pauls words to, and didn't just accept his words without making that comparison. The Book of Mormon also contains 1000's of idential scriptures plagerized from the Bilbe. These same verses from Isaiah were in the Ethan Smiths 1823 book "View of the Hebrews". And Alma 7:10 says "And behold, he shall be aborn of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers..." Jerusalem is a city not a district. It was Bethlehem
@tlpjohn40 There is a big difference between the Bereans, and you.
The Bereans, according to the Bible, accepted the words of hte apostles WITH ALL READINESS OF MIND. Enthusiastically. Then studied the scriptures to see that they were true.
Not skeptically, mis-trustfully, trying to prove them wrong, like you all do.
@lindalds Wrong again. I have read the Book of Mormon and I can say it is nothing like the Bible. The BofM is crudely written and can't be proven true. And to say that the Native Americans desended from the so called Lamanites from Israel is foolishness. DNA doesn't match. Joseph Smith found bones in Illinois, said it was the remains of "Zelph", the Lamanite prophet warrior. You have got to be kidding? General Zelph? The Bible says you should try the spirits in 1 John 4:1
@tlpjohn40 Prove to a Muslim or an atheist, that the Bible is the word of God.
DNA doesn't prove or disprove a thing.
And Joseph Smith found nothing in Illinois. Other people supposedly found stuff, but none of it was ever verified, and some was even exposed as the hoax that it was.
Elder Heber C. Kimball recorded the following in his journal: "While on our way we felt anxious to know who the person was who had been killed by that arrow. It was made known to Joseph that he had been an officer who fell in battle, in the last destruction among the Lamanites, and his name was Zelph. This caused us to rejoice much, to think that God was so mindful of us as to show these things to his servant. Brother Joseph had inquired of the Lord, and it was made known in a vision."
@lindalds If the Book of Mormon is true, then why has the LDS church made so many changes? Examples are: 1 Nephi 11:21; 19:20; 20:1 and Alma 29:4. Compare these with the original 1830Book of Mormon.
@tlpjohn40 The original was written in haste, and not always careful of what was written. The originals did not match up wtih the rest of the Book of Mormon. Therefore, corrections and clarifications were needed.
@lindalds How did Nephi with only a few men on a new continent build a temple "like" Solomon's while Solomon needed 163,300 workmen and seven years to build his temple? see 1 Kings 5:13-18 and 2 Nephi 5:15-17
@tlpjohn40 This happened with in the space of about 30 years. it says, they "began to prosper exceedingly, and to multiply in the land." And it says the temple was built "after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things... it could not be built like unto Solomons temple".
Why did they need a temple? To make sacrifice for the people when they didn't have the Ark of the Covenant? What was the purpose of a temple in the days before Christ? After the temple in Jerusalem, synagogues were the only Jewish places of worship. The other temples built by the Jews at that time were never authorized by God.
@lindalds The Bereans received GODS "WORD" WITH ALL READINESS OF MIND and AND SO DID I. I was LDS for 12 years, and I proved to myself that the TRUE "WORD" OF GOD isn't in the LDS church. I found that LDS doctrine is FALSE, so I haven't received it with skepticism and unbelief. I proved it to myself, but what would exmormons like Mrs Tanner or myself know?
@lindalds, This is exactly what I'm saying too, even with my 12 years experience. But when you check LDS church history and doctrine, then I had to ask, Why did they need to make any changes? The LDS church picks and chooses the parts that they want to accept and ignores the parts they don't want. If a prophet writes doctrine, that is worthy to be printed in LDS church history, it should still be doctrine. This is why I say that the FLDS church follows closer to Joseph Smith than the LDS.
@lindalds So when God told Joseph Smith in D&C 132 concerning the Laws of plural wives which is the "New and Everlasting Covenant". Did God make a mistake or change his mind? What does a "New and Everlasting Covenant" mean to you? The FLDS church still takes this "Everlasting Promise" seriously not risking damnation. *D&C 132 v6 And as pertaining to the new & everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory,..... or he shall be damned, "SAITH THE LORD GOD "
@tlpjohn40 The N&EC has NOTHING to do with plural marriage, and vice versa. Verse 7, if you read it CAREFULLY, is what the N&EC is. Plural marriage is not even mentioned until around verse 32 or so, when He starts to talk about Abraham and Hagar.
When he DOES mention plural marriage, he is saying, That if the woman is single, and they are married by the N&EC, and she is his second wife, they are not committing adultery.
You MUST read it more carefully, not with so much hate and bias.
@lindalds I have no hate or bias towards you or anyone. But D&C 132:7 says "ALL COVENANTS,...VOWS, which includes plural marriage. Marriage of any type is a vow or a promise. In verse 7 "And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: "ALL covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, boaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations..." The FLDS church is following the teachings of Joseph Smith, even to the point of imprisonment.
@lindalds Legal & Lawful-NO & NO. Even the BofM condems it. Jacob 1:15, Jacob 2:24 Behold, David & Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord. Jacob 2:27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none. Mosiah 11:2 For behold, he did not keep the commandments of God, but ... he had many wives and concubines. & Ether 10:5
Polygamy was never legal during Josephs lifetime. He was caught and exposed for his actions, "commiting adultery". The almighty did not have a hand in this sin. Joseph invented it all by himself. He didn't want to take the brunt of the attacks coming from within the church, so he commanded others to take part. Tell me, was Joseph lying when he told the congregation he had only 1 wife? Does a holy infinite God accept lies? Lying for the Lord is not of Christ.
@GiftoAll I guess it depends on when he said it, if he was lying. Being sealed to women was not the same as being married to them as he was married to Emma.
No, God does not like liars and those who do must repent. IF Joseph Smith lied, he had to repent.
14 year old marriages were not common even in Josephs day. Mother and daughters were never married to the same man. The journals of these girls stated they fulfilled all marital duties. Some of these girls said they never would have been sealed / married to Joseph if they knew what was going to happen right after the marriage.
@GiftoAll I want the names of all the 14 year old girls and where their journals are that said these things. From what I read, the youngest was Helen Mar Kimball, and she was 16, and she did NOT, from reading her journals, ever sleep with the prophet, or even get to spend any time with him, even in public.
Fanny Alger, if rumors are to be believed, didn't seem to have a problem with that aspect. And those were the only two I know of under 18.
Read Todd Comptons, "In Sacred Loneliness" It is the most recent study by a member of the lds church. He references everything from church archives and personal journals.
Didn't you know that Emma watched Joseph and Fanny in the barn while in the act? Almost immediately Fanny left the Smith house and was never heard from again.
@GiftoAll Since he ignored a lot of resources that went totally counter to his hypothesis, and since he made a lot of subjective speculations, I take this book with a pound of salt. Not just a grain.
@lindalds Next did the men traveling with Saul of Tarsus see a bright light or not? In Greek text: Acts 9:7, The men who traveled with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. Acts 22:9 "And those who were with me saw the light, to be sure, but did not "understand" the voice of the One who was speaking to me" Acts 22:9 augments Acts 9:7 by stating that the companions of Saul of Tarsus saw the bright light from which a Voice came... "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."
@lindalds Who fell to the ground? The English translation from the original ancient Greek says, Acts 22:7 "and I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?'". Acts 26:14 "And when "we" had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew dialect, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.'" Acts 22 & Acts 26 are supplementary, not contradictory.
We are left, then, with various differing stories of this important event. JS never did tell "but one story" of the first vision; he told several. Written statements of early LDS leaders. There is no way to tell, then, if any of the details of the vision really happened.Was he 14, 15, 16 or 17 years old when it happened? Was his reason for praying to get forgiveness, to determine if there was a God or to find out which religion was correct? Was he overcome by a dark & evil power or wasn't he?
@lindalds Brigham Young University Studies has published a photograph of this document in the Spring 1969 issue, page 281, we no longer have to depend upon Cheesman's typed copy. Below is the important part of this document taken directly from the photograph of the original document: "... the Lord heard my cry in the wilderness and while in the attitude of calling upon the Lord in the 16th year of my age a piller [sic] of light above the brightness of the sun at noon day."
"Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening, called the moon?...when you inquire about the inhabitants of that sphere you find that the most learned are as ignorant in regard to them as the ignorant of their fellows. So it is in regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 271)
@61MAF And this is important...why? There's nothing here that says "Thus saith the Lord, you must believe there are men in the moon to be saved". And even some of the most learned scientists of that day believed there were men on the moon.
@lindalds dont you think what is said by your prophets are important and can be regarded as "scriptures?" do you pick and choose what is convenient?I would not follow the "mouthpiece" of LDS god(s) if what they say is 99.9% right,then it is not from God of the Bible.Deu18;20When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, [but] the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him."
@61MAF What is and is not scripture is determined by a system, where the prophet, his counselors, the quorum of the twelve, the rest of the General Authorities, and then the general membership of the church sustain something as scripture. Otherwise, it's not scripture.
We have a LIVING prophet and LIVING apostles, and when God wants us to know something that a past leader has said, then God will tell our current prophet and apostles what that is.
@61MAF here is something about Deut. 18. Do you realize that this is not saying "this is how to tell a false prophet". It is saying if a PROPHET, meaning, he was actually called as a true prophet of God. If he says 'thus saith the Lord" and it was not the Lord's words, then we are not afraid of his words. Only if he speaks in the name of other gods does he die. Not put to death, but he shall die.
Joseph said, "thus sayeth the Lord" many times. There were many failed prophecies. This is why no guilt or fear should come to any believer in Christ from any lds apostle or prophet. They do NOT speak or present the gospel of Christ. They present bondage.
Thus saith the Lord does not always mean a prophecy. It could just mean some revelation from God. Joseph SMith made no false prophecies.
No guilt or fear usually means, don't feel guilty if you're constantly bad all the time, or lazy or whatever. Do whatever you want, it doens't matter cause Jesus is gonna save you anyway." and don't tell me, oh that's not what they're saying because maybe its not what they're saying, but that's what people are hearing.
@lindalds Brigham Young was "acting" as a prophet when he said the sun was inhabited in the Journal of Discourses 13:271 when he stated this, since he just said right "before" this statement in a previous sermon that "every sermon he gives should be called scripture." JofD13:95. And even though there is nothing that says "Thus saith the Lord, you must believe that the sun is inhabited to be saved", Brigham Young did preach this as scripture and was a false prophet. Deut. 18:20-22
No, BY was not saying that this was received by revelation from God. Prophets are allowed to have their onw opinions on things. So, there is no "MUST BELIEVE" that I have to do. He said that if he could read and correct a sermon, it was as good as scripture, but it also had to go out with thus saith the Lord and he did NOT do that.
So, again, you take what you do not believe, turn it into a straw man, and then crow how you have destroyed some cult doctrine.
@GiftoAll I don't think so. He never said that Adam was Elohim, and Elohim IS our Heavenly FAther and always has been, and Brigham Young DID preach that.
The unfortunate part of Brighams Adam/God doctrine that this belief was taught into the late 1800s and could have been into the 20th. Not quite sure when it ended. Many apostles and prophets after Brigham corrected and stopped the teaching of this corny idea. Many members believed it while Brigham was in charge.
@lindalds Brigham Young wasn't stating his "opinion" during a sermon. If it was recorded in the Journal of Discorses of LDS church history. You know that Brigham Young and the LDS church, back then, must have believed this because the pulpit is no place for nonsense "opinions", just scripture. Deut. 18:20-22 still applies.
@tlpjohn40 That is was "recorded" in the Journals of Discourses just means that all of the sermons that were transcribed by one or two men who then sold them to the Saints in England, and then they were all consolodated into the Journals of Discourses. Nothing more.
Again, you are telling us what we should believe, and it's us who dictates what we believe. And we do NOT believe the Journals of discourses to be canonized scripture.
I also like how they dont even know what protestants teach. It said that we think think we are saved through baptism. C'mon if the LDS are going to preach against us, then they should at least know what we believe.
drummaryan 1 month ago
And to think the LDS get mad when we talk about them. I cant believe they say we worship a God without passions, just like what was taught by Moses. If only the LDS knew that moses meant that we shouldnt worship idols, like they do i.e their temples and garments. As a Christian we need nothing but Jesus, and he will show us the father. We are saved by Jesus alone, we are not saved by a religion or church.
drummaryan 1 month ago
Faith alone yeah!! By Grace not by you being dunked in water!
AndrewBainn 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AndrewBainn So Jesus was wrong when he said we're to be baptized by water?
majinish 7 months ago
@AndrewBainn Read Romans 1:5. We're given grace for our obedience, meaning actions, to the faith. It's not works alone and it's not faith alone.
majinish 6 months ago
@majinish My main point was that being baptized will not save you.
AndrewBainn 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AndrewBainn Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
majinish 6 months ago
You critics talk crap about the church all the time and you say we're mocking you? The guy playing a role of a preacher is right on as to how many preachers are such as not knowing the truth about God.
majinish 7 months ago
Blasphemy is to be around this false christians , who called themselves christians with this atittude of disrespect in others faith PRAISE JOSEPH SMITH , OUR ETERNAL MASTER , THE ONE WHO TOLD US AND VISIT THIS EARTH TO TEACH THE EVERLASTING GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST , THE ONLY ONE TRUE CHURCH ON EARTH THE LDS CHURCH AMEM
garrulah 9 months ago
hearing this name of this show(not watchng it never) it sucks..
volvo1inf 9 months ago
LOL!!! FUNNY video!
Nepthu 11 months ago
Through baptism we shall be saved??????????? Definetly not Christian. How twisted!
stellaluna4u2 1 year ago
yah too bad for the MORmONS that Joe Smith's highly touted First Vision NEVER really happened. Funny that MORmONS headline it as the first step to JOE Smith path to prophethood. when in fact it was an added after thought to prop up the ultterly pathetic Smith Cowdery Rigdon gold plates scam. The narrator condemns each of the Xtain sects for saying they have the only avenue to salvation, then look at what Horny Joe Smith did. MORmONS!
settypatch 1 year ago
This guy is another anti fool.
LDStothecore 1 year ago
holy crap this is disgusting. Sorry, other churches DO tell you why you're here. But it's pretty pathetic for someone to need an institution to tell them all the answers for life instead of using your BRAIN and figuring it out on your own for yourself. Anything a man-made institution tells you is going to have human biases and prejudices.
carlasue88 1 year ago
Haha. Loved it at the end with the yahoo for faith alone. Nice job.
GiftoAll 1 year ago
"For it is by faith alone you are saved"
HALLELUYAH! praise the lordd!! wooo amen!
PoliticallyOutspoken 1 year ago
mormons are christians.
001hinata001 1 year ago
@001hinata001 If your definition of Christianity include having doctrine inconsistent with the Bible and believing the writings of a false prophet then yes...they are Christians. If they are Christian, where does their salvation come from? Is it Christ?
TackleboxMinistries 1 year ago
@TackleboxMinistries no, i just mean that they believe in christ. isn't that the basic definition of christianity? its not our place to say who's a false prophet and who isn't. i don't really care about more specific beliefs, i just know that mormons believe in christ and that makes them a christian denomination.
001hinata001 1 year ago
@001hinata001 You can't be that naive. Who do you say that I am, is what Jesus asked. Mormons do not believe in the Christ of the Bible. Not even close. They don't even believe the Bible truths. So how is that being a Christian. Muslims believe in a Christ too, but do not know who He is, does that make them Christ-like?
manderbos 1 year ago
@manderbos mormons read the bible and believe it is a testiment of christ. they believe that christ was crucified for the world's sins and resurrected, just like it says in the bible. mormons believe that parts of the bible are incorrectly translated. however, it isn't up to them to decide which parts are correct or not. the "mormon bible" is the same King James version everyone uses, but with references to the book of mormon below the unaltered text.
001hinata001 1 year ago
@001hinata001 You were told the Bible is not translated right by JS. Every single cult out there says the same thing. If one can lay doubt in it's truth, then you can teach 'anything' and people will buy it. It was translated correctly and there are scrolls to prove it. What proof does the BOM have? Nothing. The Mormon Jesus is not the same as the Biblical Jesus. Your salvation teaching is different. Not one single Mormon doctrine is in agreement with the Bible. FACTS not feelings.
manderbos 1 year ago
The "Book of Abraham" purports to be a translation of an ancient Egyptian papyrus. However, the original papyrus is in reality the Egyptian "Book of Breathings" and has nothing to do with Abraham or his religion. Therefore, we have no evidence for the "Book of Abraham" prior to the handwritten manuscripts dictated by Joseph Smith in the 1830s. It would appear, then, that there is no documentary evidence for any of Joseph Smith's works that dates back prior to the late 1820's.
manderbos 1 year ago
@001hinata001 Study both christianity and mormonism and you will see stark differences in important areas.
busmasterjones 1 year ago
1:54 AWESOME!!!!!!!!! Big thumbs up for you!
stellaluna4u2 1 year ago
we believe baptism is symbol, not needed for salvation. the bible says that if you believe Jesus is savior and confess it with your mouth that you are a sinner, you will be saved. it also says believe and get baptised and be saved, but if you don;t believe you will be comdemned. It does not say that if you don't get baptised you won't be saved. Wow, mormons proved themselves wrong
jbuzzell70 1 year ago
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient
61MAF 1 year ago
@heartforthelost Thank you for uploading this video.
tlpjohn40 1 year ago
"And for this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they might believe what is false" 2 Thess 2:11.
tlpjohn40 1 year ago
@tlpjohn40 Question: Do you really think that I'm going to read this verse, and immediately see that I've been SO wrong for the last 30+ years? Just like that?
I mean, I don't get it. It could be referring to you just as easily as you think it refers to me/us.
lindalds 1 year ago
Why is the Passover mentioned 71 times in the Bible, but 0 times in the Book of Mormon. The passover is important to the Hebrew people.
tlpjohn40 1 year ago
@tlpjohn40 Granted, it was, but is there some reason why it must be mentioned in teh Book of Mormon?
lindalds 1 year ago
@lindalds What is your opinion of sandra tanner? Do you not think she has made any valid points concerning Mormonism?
tlpjohn40 1 year ago
@tlpjohn40 I think she's not nearly the radical anti-Mormon that some are, but, I don't believe she scores any points with me. I tried reading one of the Tanner's books and found it quite a snooze.
lindalds 1 year ago
Whether you realize it or not, Sandra Tanner has enough historical information to prove that Joseph was a fraud. Why do you think she and her husband left the church? Because of lies? NO, she found the truth.
GiftoAll 1 year ago
@GiftoAll She only "proved" it to herself. She has yet to prove it to me. Or anyone else in my church.
lindalds 1 year ago
@GiftoAll, Exactly what I am saying. I found out the truth myself, but it took me 12 years. But what would an exmormon know?
tlpjohn40 1 year ago
@tlpjohn40 Like I said, I don't know but....
lindalds 1 year ago
A careful examination of this document reveals that the reason church leaders have "never published or referred" to it is that it contains irreconcilable differences with the official account. These differences concern Joseph Smith's age, his reason for seeking the Lord, the question of a revival, and the presence of an evil power. The most serious contradiction between the accounts is the number of personages in the vision. In the first account Joseph Smith only mentions one personage.
tlpjohn40 1 year ago
@tlpjohn40 The reason is because it's not that important. If someone is going to lose their testimony of the Book of Mormon because Joseph Smith couldn't quite keep his story straight, then they never had one in the first place, and are looking for an excuse, no matter how trivial.
Besides, you know as well as I do (even tho you will probably deny it) that if the story had been the same each time, it would have been rejected as "He memorized it, therefore it's not true".
lindalds 1 year ago
Joseph Smith, Jr. (December 23, 1805 June 27, 1844) Smith said that he had his own first vision in 1820- age 14. But in his own hand writing dated around 1831-32, Joseph Smith gives his account and claimed he was 16 yrs of age. Do the math.
tlpjohn40 1 year ago
@tlpjohn40 Does it REALLY make a difference to the price of rice in china?
lindalds 1 year ago
@lindalds It might make a difference. It sounds like the LDS church is full of changes to me. And if you are a Mormon living in China, maybe the price of rice does make the difference.
tlpjohn40 1 year ago
@lindalds There has never been total apostacy on the earth no need to re-establish the Lords church, once established. And no need to keep adding new living apostles & new living prophets to the church. You would need to add a new living Christ Jesus as the chief cornerstone each time. Christians follow the teachings of the Biblical apostles & prophets where Jesus is the chief cornerstone. Once a foundation has been built, can you rebuild it and have the same building? see Ephesians 2:20
tlpjohn40 1 year ago
@tlpjohn40 What was restored was: the priesthood authority Christ gave His apostles, to administer His church when He was no longer walking the earth; living prophets and apostles; and continueing revelation from God to His church, thru His prophets/apostles/seers/revelators.
We do not rebuild the foundation. Christ does not have to keep coming as He is not dead. MEN die, and prophets and apostles must be replaced with those living (i.e. Mathias for Judas Iscariot).
lindalds 1 year ago
@lindalds, Why is the LDS church mocking Christians at the Manti Pageant? The mormons prior to 1990 did mock a protestant preacher in the temple ordinance as an agent of the devil. And you say He was the victim? Yes sinners are victims of the Devil. Then why did this change in 1990? Was the Protestant Preacher no longer the victim or are the mormon people the victims of an ever changing false gospel?
tlpjohn40 1 year ago
@tlpjohn40 There is no mocking. There is only frustration that they cannot seem to answer some of life's basic questions.
The pastor in the temple was not an agent of the devil, he was another victim. I don't know why it changed.
The gospel does not change. Not for us, anyway.
Now, for other Christians, things seem to change like a stop light. I hear some preacher on the radio, and he says, "You aren't supposed to understand, you are only supposed to believe".
HUH???
lindalds 1 year ago
@lindalds "You aren't supposed to understand, you are only supposed to believe"???. Then why did polygamy end?D&C 132 today still talks about the "New & Everlasting Covenant" of plural marriage. HUH? And you said that you didn't know why the pastor "who was the devils victim" was changed? Have you ever thought about why they changed this also? I understand that Gordon B Hinkley said that "you can think anything you want in the LDS church, but you can't say anything you want" Why not?
tlpjohn40 1 year ago
@tlpjohn40 The N&EC is not plural marriage, it's eternal marriage. Anyone can see that, if they read it carefully and don't read INTO it what you want it to say.
I don't know why they changed anything, but it doesn't make any difference.
You can say anything you want, but if it's not within church teachings, if it is apostasy, then you run the very real risk of excommunication.
lindalds 1 year ago
@lindalds SECTION 132
Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the "NEW and EVERLASTING COVENANT, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, as also "PLURALITY OF WIVES". HC 5: 501507- What does New & Everlasting Promise mean to you? Why would something that's everlasting end with the 1890 Manifesto. Matthias Cowley & John W. Taylor, both apostles, continued to performing or advocating new plural marriages after 1904.
tlpjohn40 1 year ago
@tlpjohn40 You know what you might try, you MIGHT try actually reading sec. 132, and concentrate on verses 6 and 7, which IS what the N&EC is. It says NOTHING about PLURAL marriage. Not till way to the end of the section, and then, only that it's not adultery if one is married to the women.
lindalds 1 year ago
The LDS church also bashed Christianity in their temples, until 1990. The Mormon temple endowment ceremony, the most sacred religious rite in Mormonism, included a dramatization in which a Protestant minister was portrayed as a servant of the Devil.
tlpjohn40 1 year ago
@tlpjohn40 Nope. wrong. He wasn't a servant of the devil, he was a victim.
lindalds 1 year ago
And Mormons would have us to believe that they don't mock or bash Christianity. Joseph Smith, was a false prophet & a liar. He spent plenty of time bashing Christianity of his day, so I guess some things don't change.
tlpjohn40 1 year ago
He never bashed any other religion.
lindalds 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hence, genealogical research is required." (Mormon Doctrine, Bruce R. McConkie, Pg. 308)
1Ti 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: [so do].
61MAF 1 year ago
@61MAF Endless genealogies here does not mean what we do, it is talking about people bragging about who their ancestors were.
lindalds 1 year ago
The whole lds church prides itself on the pool of members ancestors. To be born into the church a person is more worthy than a person who joins the church.
GiftoAll 1 year ago
That's just wrong, on so many levels. I don't know why you even think this.
lindalds 1 year ago
@lindalds Joseph Smith did bash Christianity when he said,"I was answered by God that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt". JS History 1:18-20; What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by which he deceives the whole world" Prophet Joseph Smith
tlpjohn40 1 year ago
The first was not Joseph Smith, it was God.
The second, I'm not sure where you got this quote. I can't find it in any Jospeh SMith history books, can you be more specific?
lindalds 1 year ago
@lindalds First, Joseph Smith could not have seen God's face and live. Exodus 33:17,20; 1 Timothy 6:15,16; 1 John 4:12 Second, Joseph Smith did bash Christianity when he said "What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by which he deceives the whole world"
- Prophet Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.270
Next, Why are Mormons bashing Christianity in this pageant?
tlpjohn40 1 year ago
@tlpjohn40 But, don't you think that GOD could allow Himself to be made manifest to Joseph Smith, IF He wanted to? Perhaps not in His actual form, but in a way that Joseph could assimilate.
I think God is powerful enough to do that.
In Exodus 33, it also says that God spoke to Moses FACE TO FACE as a friend would. In verse 18, Moses asked God to show him His GLORY. And God said, THAT you cannot see. Same in 1 tim, 1 John.
lindalds 1 year ago
@lindalds I don't believe God would need to show himself to anyone. After Jesus Christ fulfilled his mission, at the cross, establishing the Christian church on the day of pentecost. We know that the gates of hell will not prevail and the Lords word and Christianity is eternal. Besides why does todays adopted JS first vision story differ from "his origional" story? In JS origional story he didn't say he saw God, he only said Jesus Christ. Why would he over look God, if he actually saw him?
tlpjohn40 1 year ago
@tlpjohn40 The gates of hell have not prevailed, but the church DID go into an apostasy. Paul saw it actually starting.
You talk about the stories of the first vision as if he deliberately changed his story. But the "different versions" are different because A. different times; B. Different audiences; C. Different people telling the story of Joseph telling the story (ever play "rumors"?).
lindalds 1 year ago
@lindalds If the Lords church ended, at Joseph Smiths great apostacy, then the gates of hell prevailed. The Great Apostasy that Paul saw hasn't happened yet, but it is coming. The "origional" story that I am refering, and I know there are several, is of JS first vision where he mentions Jesus only w/ no mention of God. This was discovered in 1965 by BYU student Paul Cheesman. It was Joseph Smiths own handwriting dated 1831-32.
tlpjohn40 1 year ago
@tlpjohn40 I said, the church didn't end. It just went into apostasy.
lindalds 1 year ago
@lindalds LDS definition of Apostacy says the Church ended: "The time after Christ's death when the people turned wicked and killed the apostles and disciples, CAUSING THE LORD TO TAKE HIS CHURCH, priesthood, and revelation AWAY FROM THE EARTH.
tlpjohn40 1 year ago
@lindalds The earliest known account of the first vision was written in 1831-32 in JS own handwriting. It was made public by Paul Cheesman in 1965. This account had been in the hands of LDS leaders for over 130 years, hidden away in their vaults--because it differs so greatly from the official version. JS claimed to be 16 years old & that he already knew that all churches were wrong from reading the Bible. Joseph sought forgiveness, and it was Jesus alone who visited him and forgave his sins.
tlpjohn40 1 year ago
@tlpjohn40 If the church leaders had hid it in the vault to keep it away from people, then how did you know about it? They can't have hid it very well. '
Or, they didn't HIDE it at all.
lindalds 1 year ago
@lindalds As I said, It was discovered in 1965 by BYU student Paul Cheesman. He wrote his master's thesis in 1965 entitled "An Analysis of the Accounts Relating Joseph Smith's Early Visions." In that study he discusses this differing account of the first vision in detail. It was subsequently discussed by LDS scholars in the publication Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought for Autumn 1966. None of these researchers & scholars dismissed the account as mere gossip.
tlpjohn40 1 year ago
@tlpjohn40 Like I said, if it had been the same story over and over, then it would have been rejected for being "canned" or rehearsed, meaning it never happened, he's just saying it did.
If you reject everything that Jospeh Smith did just because he couldn't keep his story straight, then you must reject half of the New TEstament, as Paul couldn't seem to keep his story straight either.
lindalds 1 year ago
@lindalds Even though the 1st vision story, made public & authenticated in 1965, in JS own handwriting & is vastly different than what the LDS church has adopted today? If His story had been the same over & over again then it might sound..more truthful. But I do reject All that J. Smith said because he's not credible. Joseph Smith practiced the Occult art of "scrying", using "seer stones" with his face buried in a hat to translate the BofM. His 1830,1837 ed.-todays BofM had1000's of changes.
tlpjohn40 1 year ago
@tlpjohn40 He didn't practice the ART of anything. One man hired him to find buried treasure, which he said probably wasn't there anyway, and all of a sudden, he's some flaming occultist!
And like I said, since Paul couldn't keep his story straight, then we should throw out half the New Testament.
lindalds 1 year ago
@lindalds Joseph Smith initially used his stones to see hidden things, (Scrying also called crystal gazing, crystal seeing, seeing, or peeping) their use later evolved into a revelatory catalyst. Smith & others claimed that God communicated to them through these stones. Most Mormons believe in the validity of Smith's claimed ability to have been able to use seer stones, along with the divine revelations that Smith claimed to have received through them. J. Smith practiced folk magic- the Occult
tlpjohn40 1 year ago
@lindalds The Prophets and Apostles who wrote the Bible, were inspired by the Holy Spirit. You don't believe that "they" used "seer" or "peep" stones, as Joseph Smith did, in their revelation or writings, do you? 1 Timothy 4:1; Isaiah 8:19-20; "And for this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they might believe what is false" 2 Thess 2:11.
tlpjohn40 1 year ago
@tlpjohn40 I don't know how the Biblical prophets and apostles got their revelations from God. And neither do you.
Rev. 2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.
lindalds 1 year ago
@lindalds Yes, I do know how the Biblical Prophets and Apostles got their revelations from God. It was through the Holy Spirit, and not "seer" stones. Psalm 69:25, Psalm 109:8; And when a true prophet himself is speaking , it is actually the Holy Spirit speaking through him. See also Acts 4:25 in connection with Psalm 2:1,2 ;Mark 13:11 & Mat. 10:19,20; "For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy" Rev. 19:10
tlpjohn40 1 year ago
@tlpjohn40 This is arguing from silence, as it does not say whether the Holy Spirit spoke thru some other medium or not.
lindalds 1 year ago
@lindalds If the original 1830 Book of Mormon was inspired than why were there so many errors and changes and additions and deletions, when compared to current editions? If Joseph Smith was truely inspired by the Holy Spirit, as the light appeared to reveal each letter until it formed a word, their shouldn't be any errors in his writings.
tlpjohn40 1 year ago
@tlpjohn40 The translation was done in about 60 days, and while on the run, and with several different scribes. So there were bound to be errors in spelling, grammer, etc. And there were no chapter and verse counts in the first edition.
Since Jospeh smith was usually behind a screen when he translated, no one really knows for sure how it was done. But it wasn't done like you said, for the whole thing or it would have taken ages.
lindalds 1 year ago
@lindalds please explain " Paul couldn't keep his story straight."...
61MAF 1 year ago
@61MAF Acts 9 Saul sees a light and hears a voice. Men with him hear a voice but see nothing. Men stood speechless.
Acts 22 the men saw the light, but heard nothing
Acts 26 men must have seen light, because they all fell to the ground.
So, did the men with him see or hear? Did they stand or fall?
Can't get his story straight.
lindalds 1 year ago
@lindalds There are no contradictions here when you understand that the"English" translations of the Bible were originally "Greek" . Do you understand that Jesus, the Apostles and Prophets didn't speak King James English? People opposed to the Bible choose to believe there is a contradiction. Also do you understand that the Book of Acts wasn't written by Paul, but by Luke who was telling this story of Sauls conversion?
tlpjohn40 1 year ago
@tlpjohn40 Um, gee. Let's take that and substitute the Book of Mormon. And Joseph Smith.
Same difference.
lindalds 1 year ago
@tlpjohn40 Just as many of the versions of Joseph Smith's vision were from sources other than Joseph Smith.
lindalds 1 year ago
@lindalds Strong's Concordance reference for Greek word #191 "to hear" can be translated into English from Greek as the word, "understand". So the men traveling with Saul of Tarsus heard a voice, but did not understand the words spoken. Only Saul of Tarsus heard and understood the words spoken based on the way that Luke reported the conversion story. There is no contradiction based on accepted use of Greek grammar.
tlpjohn40 1 year ago
@tlpjohn40 Most people who read the Bible don't know greek from greek. We read English only.
Which can only mean that the Bible was NOT translated correctly.
"We believe the Bible to be the word of God, AS FAR AS IT IS TRANSLATED CORRECTLY..."
lindalds 1 year ago
@lindalds You are right, most people don't read greek, but we have those greek text to compare to. Do you have the "gold plates" to compare to Joseph Smiths "original" 1830 Book of Mormon and todays version?
tlpjohn40 1 year ago
@tlpjohn40 It's my understanding that there is NONE of the original texts, actually written in the hands of the authors, like Paul, Peter, Matthew, etc.
Same as with the Book of Mormon.
lindalds 1 year ago
@lindalds Yes,The original texts of the NT were written by various authors sometime after A.D. 45, is generally accepted as the earliest extant record of a canonical New Testament text, which dates somewhere between 117 A.D. and 138 A.D. and it wasn't written by the RCC.
It's not the same with the Book of Mormon has been in existance for ~180 verifiable years. Joseph Smiths 1830 edition had many errors and was revised many times.
tlpjohn40 1 year ago
@tlpjohn40 There is NO WAY that Joseph Smith, or anyone, could have written the Book of Mormon off the top of their heads, in that amount of time, AND gotten millions and millions of people (very intelligent, knowledgable, well-educated people I might add) to accept it as the Word of God, just like the Bible.
Not to mention what he went thru from the time he was 15 til he was killed. I know if it were me, and it was all a big joke, I would have thrown in the towel very early on.
lindalds 1 year ago
@tlpjohn40 ONLY if it were the Word of God would anyone have found the courage to keep on keeping on, as Joseph Smith did.
lindalds 1 year ago
@lindalds What does the Book of Mormon contain that is necessary for salvation that the Bible doesn't have? And what does the Bible (Esp. the New Testament) contain that isn't necessary for salvation?
tlpjohn40 1 year ago
@tlpjohn40 The Book of Mormon means that we DO HAVE living prophets/apostles/seers/revelators livng today, speaking God's words to God's church. "Epe. 4:14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;"
lindalds 1 year ago
@lindalds You said that Paul couldn't keep his story straight, but since it was Luke who wrote Acts, you see how greek could be translated incorrectly to english. But the Mormons 'only' accept the KJV Bible as one of the 4 canon of scripture. Why are there so many errors in grammer, history and facts in the1830 BofM edition that differ in the current one, IF Joesph Smith "translated directly" by the Holy Spirit, should it be right the first time?
tlpjohn40 1 year ago
@tlpjohn40 IF the Bible was brought about by the Holy Spirit, it should be perfect. That it's not means A. that man can't do anything perfectly, even with God's inspiriation (and God's OK with that), or B. it's somehow, for some reason, been tainted by man for man's reasons.
For the Bible, there are huge questions marks. For the Book of Mormon, we KNOW it s because man can't do anything PERFECTLY no matter how hard he tries or no matter how influence by the Holy Ghost.
lindalds 1 year ago
@lindalds Do you realise that the Bible never instructs anyone to pray to see if Gods Word is true? The Berean's of Acts looked in the Old Testament Scriptures that told of the coming of Jesus and compare "this" to what the Apostle Paul was telling them, to define what is true. Acts17:10-12 "...for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true". They were commended for this.
tlpjohn40 1 year ago
@tlpjohn40 yes..do you have to pray to God to see if murder is right or wrong?
61MAF 1 year ago
@61MAF Oh I hope not.... someone would really have to have a seared conscience "if" they have to pray about that.
tlpjohn40 1 year ago
@61MAF you are comparing apples to rotten liver. Hardly a good comparison. I would be willing to bet you've never really read the Book of Mormon. Or if you have, you do it like atheists read the Bible, merely to look for things to use against it.
lindalds 1 year ago
@lindalds let me ask..how do you know your prophets are true?
61MAF 1 year ago
@61MAF On Page 55 of the LDS Church manual entitled Gospel Principles reads, In addition to these four books of scripture, the inspired words of our living prophets become scripture to us. Their words come to us through conferences, Church publications, and instructions to local priesthood leaders.--According to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Neither written scripture, nor natural theology, supercedes the living oracles.
tlpjohn40 1 year ago
@tlpjohn40 Our prophet and apostles today don't preach anything that goes against scripture.
The key words in that whole thing are "our LIVING prophets".
lindalds 1 year ago
@lindalds Your prophets and apostles "today" don't preach anything against scripture? Huh? The LDS church is a white-washed watered down version of the FLDS church. The FLDS church follows Joesph Smith far more than the LDS does and their key words are "their LIVING prophets" also. The LDS mainstream is trying to blend into Christianity by attempting to erase or distance their embarassing history and doctrine. It doesn't work.
tlpjohn40 1 year ago
@tlpjohn40 The FLDS are a bastardized version of Joseph Smith's church. Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, none of them ever excommunicated over 400 young teen age boys, taking them into the desert and leaving them on their own, just because they were competition for the women.
lindalds 1 year ago
@tlpjohn40 We are not trying to blend in with anyone. We just want to be who we are, and for others to, well, I don't know that "accept" is the right word, but that's the only one that comes to mind. We're not mainstream, we're not orthodox, or traditional, but we ARE CHRISTians.
lindalds 1 year ago
@61MAF many reasons. But mostly, because God told me.
lindalds 1 year ago
@tlpjohn40 The Bible doesn't say word one about the BIble, because there WAS no Bible to talk about.
The Book of Mormon pretty much does the same thing that the Bereans did, in that the Lehites had some scripture with them (i.e. the book of Isaiah), and used that to show that there was going to be a Messiah born soon, as well as revelation. The difference is that it's a continuous record, not like the New TEstament.
But, how DO you know that the BIBLE is the word of God?
lindalds 1 year ago
@lindalds The Bereans did have the Old Testament to compare the Apostle Pauls words to, and didn't just accept his words without making that comparison. The Book of Mormon also contains 1000's of idential scriptures plagerized from the Bilbe. These same verses from Isaiah were in the Ethan Smiths 1823 book "View of the Hebrews". And Alma 7:10 says "And behold, he shall be aborn of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers..." Jerusalem is a city not a district. It was Bethlehem
tlpjohn40 1 year ago
@tlpjohn40 There is a big difference between the Bereans, and you.
The Bereans, according to the Bible, accepted the words of hte apostles WITH ALL READINESS OF MIND. Enthusiastically. Then studied the scriptures to see that they were true.
Not skeptically, mis-trustfully, trying to prove them wrong, like you all do.
lindalds 1 year ago
@lindalds Wrong again. I have read the Book of Mormon and I can say it is nothing like the Bible. The BofM is crudely written and can't be proven true. And to say that the Native Americans desended from the so called Lamanites from Israel is foolishness. DNA doesn't match. Joseph Smith found bones in Illinois, said it was the remains of "Zelph", the Lamanite prophet warrior. You have got to be kidding? General Zelph? The Bible says you should try the spirits in 1 John 4:1
tlpjohn40 1 year ago
@tlpjohn40 Prove to a Muslim or an atheist, that the Bible is the word of God.
DNA doesn't prove or disprove a thing.
And Joseph Smith found nothing in Illinois. Other people supposedly found stuff, but none of it was ever verified, and some was even exposed as the hoax that it was.
lindalds 1 year ago
Elder Heber C. Kimball recorded the following in his journal: "While on our way we felt anxious to know who the person was who had been killed by that arrow. It was made known to Joseph that he had been an officer who fell in battle, in the last destruction among the Lamanites, and his name was Zelph. This caused us to rejoice much, to think that God was so mindful of us as to show these things to his servant. Brother Joseph had inquired of the Lord, and it was made known in a vision."
tlpjohn40 1 year ago
@tlpjohn40 Uh huh. I looked that up, too. It's a case of someone said that someone sai.
lindalds 1 year ago
@tlpjohn40 You read the Book of Mormon, like I said, looking for what's WRONG with it. Many people do that with the Bible and now they are atheists.
lindalds 1 year ago
It does say read this book to see if it is NOT true. The word of God says it is a lie!
GiftoAll 1 year ago
@GiftoAll No, not in my opinion. In yours, maybe.
lindalds 1 year ago
@tlpjohn40 BTW, I did "try the spirits". Many times.
lindalds 1 year ago
@lindalds If the Book of Mormon is true, then why has the LDS church made so many changes? Examples are: 1 Nephi 11:21; 19:20; 20:1 and Alma 29:4. Compare these with the original 1830Book of Mormon.
tlpjohn40 1 year ago
@tlpjohn40 The original was written in haste, and not always careful of what was written. The originals did not match up wtih the rest of the Book of Mormon. Therefore, corrections and clarifications were needed.
lindalds 1 year ago
@lindalds How did Nephi with only a few men on a new continent build a temple "like" Solomon's while Solomon needed 163,300 workmen and seven years to build his temple? see 1 Kings 5:13-18 and 2 Nephi 5:15-17
tlpjohn40 1 year ago
@tlpjohn40 This happened with in the space of about 30 years. it says, they "began to prosper exceedingly, and to multiply in the land." And it says the temple was built "after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things... it could not be built like unto Solomons temple".
lindalds 1 year ago
Why did they need a temple? To make sacrifice for the people when they didn't have the Ark of the Covenant? What was the purpose of a temple in the days before Christ? After the temple in Jerusalem, synagogues were the only Jewish places of worship. The other temples built by the Jews at that time were never authorized by God.
GiftoAll 1 year ago
@GiftoAll They built a temple because God told them to. Why else would they do it?
lindalds 1 year ago
@tlpjohn40 Difference: The Bereans received the word WITH ALL READINESS OF MIND.
You receive it with skepticism and unbelief, and then search the scriptures to find any little thing to "prove" it wrong.
lindalds 1 year ago
@lindalds The Bereans received GODS "WORD" WITH ALL READINESS OF MIND and AND SO DID I. I was LDS for 12 years, and I proved to myself that the TRUE "WORD" OF GOD isn't in the LDS church. I found that LDS doctrine is FALSE, so I haven't received it with skepticism and unbelief. I proved it to myself, but what would exmormons like Mrs Tanner or myself know?
tlpjohn40 1 year ago
@tlpjohn40 All I know is, that the church you describe does not EVEN sound like the church I have belonged to for the last 30+ years.
lindalds 1 year ago
@lindalds, This is exactly what I'm saying too, even with my 12 years experience. But when you check LDS church history and doctrine, then I had to ask, Why did they need to make any changes? The LDS church picks and chooses the parts that they want to accept and ignores the parts they don't want. If a prophet writes doctrine, that is worthy to be printed in LDS church history, it should still be doctrine. This is why I say that the FLDS church follows closer to Joseph Smith than the LDS.
tlpjohn40 1 year ago
@tlpjohn40 They made the changes that God said to make.
THE PROPHET doesn't write doctrine. Not without being sustained by his counselors, the quorum of the twelve, and others.
And like I said, GOD runs this church, HE tells His prophet and apostles what we are to use as doctrine and what we don't.
lindalds 1 year ago
@lindalds So when God told Joseph Smith in D&C 132 concerning the Laws of plural wives which is the "New and Everlasting Covenant". Did God make a mistake or change his mind? What does a "New and Everlasting Covenant" mean to you? The FLDS church still takes this "Everlasting Promise" seriously not risking damnation. *D&C 132 v6 And as pertaining to the new & everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory,..... or he shall be damned, "SAITH THE LORD GOD "
tlpjohn40 1 year ago
@tlpjohn40 The N&EC has NOTHING to do with plural marriage, and vice versa. Verse 7, if you read it CAREFULLY, is what the N&EC is. Plural marriage is not even mentioned until around verse 32 or so, when He starts to talk about Abraham and Hagar.
When he DOES mention plural marriage, he is saying, That if the woman is single, and they are married by the N&EC, and she is his second wife, they are not committing adultery.
You MUST read it more carefully, not with so much hate and bias.
lindalds 1 year ago
@lindalds I have no hate or bias towards you or anyone. But D&C 132:7 says "ALL COVENANTS,...VOWS, which includes plural marriage. Marriage of any type is a vow or a promise. In verse 7 "And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: "ALL covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, boaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations..." The FLDS church is following the teachings of Joseph Smith, even to the point of imprisonment.
tlpjohn40 1 year ago
@tlpjohn40 No, you just hate my church.
D&C 132:7 only includes plural marriage when plural marriage is legal and lawful. It is, at this time, neither.
The FLDS church is not about God. It is about power and money, pure greed.
lindalds 1 year ago
@lindalds I only hate false doctrine. Plural marriage has never been legal or lawful in the USA.
tlpjohn40 1 year ago
@tlpjohn40 Legal, maybe not. Lawful, yes, under God.
I hate false doctrine, too.
lindalds 1 year ago
@lindalds Legal & Lawful-NO & NO. Even the BofM condems it. Jacob 1:15, Jacob 2:24 Behold, David & Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord. Jacob 2:27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none. Mosiah 11:2 For behold, he did not keep the commandments of God, but ... he had many wives and concubines. & Ether 10:5
tlpjohn40 1 year ago
@tlpjohn40 Go on, with the next verse
Jacob 2:30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
Says, if I want plural marriage, I will order it. Otherwise, you don't do it.
lindalds 1 year ago
Polygamy was never legal during Josephs lifetime. He was caught and exposed for his actions, "commiting adultery". The almighty did not have a hand in this sin. Joseph invented it all by himself. He didn't want to take the brunt of the attacks coming from within the church, so he commanded others to take part. Tell me, was Joseph lying when he told the congregation he had only 1 wife? Does a holy infinite God accept lies? Lying for the Lord is not of Christ.
Lying for the Lord is of Satan.
GiftoAll 1 year ago
@GiftoAll I guess it depends on when he said it, if he was lying. Being sealed to women was not the same as being married to them as he was married to Emma.
No, God does not like liars and those who do must repent. IF Joseph Smith lied, he had to repent.
lindalds 1 year ago
Joseph commited even greater sins when he went married mothers and daughters, sisters and other mens wives. Not to mention 9 teen age girls.
GiftoAll 1 year ago
@GiftoAll As I said, most of those were sealings, not real marriages.
And most of those teenagers WERE of age.
lindalds 1 year ago
14 year old marriages were not common even in Josephs day. Mother and daughters were never married to the same man. The journals of these girls stated they fulfilled all marital duties. Some of these girls said they never would have been sealed / married to Joseph if they knew what was going to happen right after the marriage.
GiftoAll 1 year ago
@GiftoAll I want the names of all the 14 year old girls and where their journals are that said these things. From what I read, the youngest was Helen Mar Kimball, and she was 16, and she did NOT, from reading her journals, ever sleep with the prophet, or even get to spend any time with him, even in public.
Fanny Alger, if rumors are to be believed, didn't seem to have a problem with that aspect. And those were the only two I know of under 18.
lindalds 1 year ago
Read Todd Comptons, "In Sacred Loneliness" It is the most recent study by a member of the lds church. He references everything from church archives and personal journals.
Didn't you know that Emma watched Joseph and Fanny in the barn while in the act? Almost immediately Fanny left the Smith house and was never heard from again.
GiftoAll 1 year ago
@GiftoAll Since he ignored a lot of resources that went totally counter to his hypothesis, and since he made a lot of subjective speculations, I take this book with a pound of salt. Not just a grain.
lindalds 1 year ago
@lindalds I will pray for you. Jesus loves you.
tlpjohn40 1 year ago
@tlpjohn40 Thank you. I will pray for you, too.
lindalds 1 year ago
@lindalds Next did the men traveling with Saul of Tarsus see a bright light or not? In Greek text: Acts 9:7, The men who traveled with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. Acts 22:9 "And those who were with me saw the light, to be sure, but did not "understand" the voice of the One who was speaking to me" Acts 22:9 augments Acts 9:7 by stating that the companions of Saul of Tarsus saw the bright light from which a Voice came... "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."
tlpjohn40 1 year ago
@lindalds Who fell to the ground? The English translation from the original ancient Greek says, Acts 22:7 "and I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?'". Acts 26:14 "And when "we" had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew dialect, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.'" Acts 22 & Acts 26 are supplementary, not contradictory.
tlpjohn40 1 year ago
We are left, then, with various differing stories of this important event. JS never did tell "but one story" of the first vision; he told several. Written statements of early LDS leaders. There is no way to tell, then, if any of the details of the vision really happened.Was he 14, 15, 16 or 17 years old when it happened? Was his reason for praying to get forgiveness, to determine if there was a God or to find out which religion was correct? Was he overcome by a dark & evil power or wasn't he?
tlpjohn40 1 year ago
@lindalds Brigham Young University Studies has published a photograph of this document in the Spring 1969 issue, page 281, we no longer have to depend upon Cheesman's typed copy. Below is the important part of this document taken directly from the photograph of the original document: "... the Lord heard my cry in the wilderness and while in the attitude of calling upon the Lord in the 16th year of my age a piller [sic] of light above the brightness of the sun at noon day."
tlpjohn40 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening, called the moon?...when you inquire about the inhabitants of that sphere you find that the most learned are as ignorant in regard to them as the ignorant of their fellows. So it is in regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 271)
61MAF 1 year ago
@61MAF And this is important...why? There's nothing here that says "Thus saith the Lord, you must believe there are men in the moon to be saved". And even some of the most learned scientists of that day believed there were men on the moon.
lindalds 1 year ago
@lindalds dont you think what is said by your prophets are important and can be regarded as "scriptures?" do you pick and choose what is convenient?I would not follow the "mouthpiece" of LDS god(s) if what they say is 99.9% right,then it is not from God of the Bible.Deu18;20When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, [but] the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him."
61MAF 1 year ago
@61MAF What is and is not scripture is determined by a system, where the prophet, his counselors, the quorum of the twelve, the rest of the General Authorities, and then the general membership of the church sustain something as scripture. Otherwise, it's not scripture.
We have a LIVING prophet and LIVING apostles, and when God wants us to know something that a past leader has said, then God will tell our current prophet and apostles what that is.
lindalds 1 year ago
Linda,
Gods word and leaders are never selected by a democratic vote of confidence. They come from God alone.
GiftoAll 1 year ago
@61MAF here is something about Deut. 18. Do you realize that this is not saying "this is how to tell a false prophet". It is saying if a PROPHET, meaning, he was actually called as a true prophet of God. If he says 'thus saith the Lord" and it was not the Lord's words, then we are not afraid of his words. Only if he speaks in the name of other gods does he die. Not put to death, but he shall die.
So it's talking about REAL prophets.
lindalds 1 year ago
Joseph said, "thus sayeth the Lord" many times. There were many failed prophecies. This is why no guilt or fear should come to any believer in Christ from any lds apostle or prophet. They do NOT speak or present the gospel of Christ. They present bondage.
GiftoAll 1 year ago
Thus saith the Lord does not always mean a prophecy. It could just mean some revelation from God. Joseph SMith made no false prophecies.
No guilt or fear usually means, don't feel guilty if you're constantly bad all the time, or lazy or whatever. Do whatever you want, it doens't matter cause Jesus is gonna save you anyway." and don't tell me, oh that's not what they're saying because maybe its not what they're saying, but that's what people are hearing.
lindalds 1 year ago
@lindalds Brigham Young was "acting" as a prophet when he said the sun was inhabited in the Journal of Discourses 13:271 when he stated this, since he just said right "before" this statement in a previous sermon that "every sermon he gives should be called scripture." JofD13:95. And even though there is nothing that says "Thus saith the Lord, you must believe that the sun is inhabited to be saved", Brigham Young did preach this as scripture and was a false prophet. Deut. 18:20-22
tlpjohn40 1 year ago
No, BY was not saying that this was received by revelation from God. Prophets are allowed to have their onw opinions on things. So, there is no "MUST BELIEVE" that I have to do. He said that if he could read and correct a sermon, it was as good as scripture, but it also had to go out with thus saith the Lord and he did NOT do that.
So, again, you take what you do not believe, turn it into a straw man, and then crow how you have destroyed some cult doctrine.
lindalds 1 year ago
It's too bad that Brigham Young had the chruch members believing that Adam was God for many, many years.
GiftoAll 1 year ago
@GiftoAll I don't think so. He never said that Adam was Elohim, and Elohim IS our Heavenly FAther and always has been, and Brigham Young DID preach that.
lindalds 1 year ago
The unfortunate part of Brighams Adam/God doctrine that this belief was taught into the late 1800s and could have been into the 20th. Not quite sure when it ended. Many apostles and prophets after Brigham corrected and stopped the teaching of this corny idea. Many members believed it while Brigham was in charge.
GiftoAll 1 year ago
@GiftoAll Since Brigham Young is no longer here to explain what he meant, then it's really stupid to keep bringing it up.
lindalds 1 year ago
@lindalds Brigham Young wasn't stating his "opinion" during a sermon. If it was recorded in the Journal of Discorses of LDS church history. You know that Brigham Young and the LDS church, back then, must have believed this because the pulpit is no place for nonsense "opinions", just scripture. Deut. 18:20-22 still applies.
tlpjohn40 1 year ago
@tlpjohn40 That is was "recorded" in the Journals of Discourses just means that all of the sermons that were transcribed by one or two men who then sold them to the Saints in England, and then they were all consolodated into the Journals of Discourses. Nothing more.
Again, you are telling us what we should believe, and it's us who dictates what we believe. And we do NOT believe the Journals of discourses to be canonized scripture.
lindalds 1 year ago