My bishop asked me if I looked at porn. I said ''no'' and got the recommend despite my 2GB gay furry porn folder hidden in my System32 folder XD. Looks like their prophet isn't all knowing after all. Hell I almost pawed off in the shower in the locker room
Have you? Since you are using a computer and an account you have not given either to the poor. And I help others once I can sustain myself. That way I can keep on giving and not go poor and render myself unable to help. Oh and I pawed off to gay yiff before going to the temple so one of your temples was desecrated
@SexyArcanine666 - You've entered into one of our temples? Did you go through an entire endowment session for yourself? Sounds to me like you've got plenty to explain to the Lord when you return to him as a covenant breaker. You've made some very SERIOUS covenants with God and I hope you can live up to every single one of them or things may not go very well for you... AT ALL...
LOL. I was at the Annapolis building when I got the recommended from the Bishop. I pawed off before I went as well. And I pawed off to some gay furry porn so yeah. LOL. When I return to your version of the lord? Funny, all the other churches would say the same about both of us about their version of the lord. When you can prove it then we can talk. Until then I will continue yiffing and pawing off to gay yiff. XD
Can you prove that Zeus, Thor, Apollo, dragons, fairies, unicorns, and pixies don't exist save your opinion only? By you ''logic'' (or lack thereof) you should believe in those gods and creatures because you have not disproven them and I should also believe that you are a child molester because you have not proven that you are not. You are dishonestly shifting the burden of proof. As the one making the claim you and only you have to prove it and I don't have to disprove it.
There is no false Jesus of Mormons. There is christ that is our savior that loved us all and died for our sins, so that we could return to God someday. Does that sound false to you? If only if were that easy to get a temple recommend. But of course non LDS people believe that it's all about money. To get a temple recommend one has to be morally clean, obey the word of wisdom and love their neighbor, of course these concepts are unknown to most people so they say people just pay money.
Wow. A video full of lies from someone who hates the LDS church for reasons unknown. Question 1: why do you ignore the other 9 or so questions that bishops ask? Question 2: why do you pretend that tithing is the only question? Question 3: why do you pretend that payment of back tithing is required when it is not? If a person has not paid tithing in a long time, a bishop will usually expect them to follow this ancient commandment for longer than 5 minutes before they give them a recommend
Yep. Proven fact that Noah lived within walking distance of every animal on this planet. He also shoveled animal shit for 40 days straight... its all bullshit.
It doesnt say that in the book of Mormon, it was just the people within the mormon church who made the rule. Everyone was racist back then. It proves that people arent perfect, but does not disprove the gospel.
i'm mormon. i pay tithing. i do a lot of other things i'm asked to do. i don't do a lot of those things i'm asked not to do. do i scare you? apparently so. but, i also pay to the LDS humanitarian fund, fast offering and other funds the church has set up to help others. our contribution to world charities is well over half a billion dollars. do i still scare you?
@NiuezFynst Agreed! It makes no sense to assume they expect you to follow the path AND pay tithing and think they are about the money. If anything they would lower the standards.
whoever posted this, you disappoint me. if the mormon church is guilty of lying to its members then you are just as guilty for posting this video. its simply untrue, you are suggesting that you have to "buy" a temple recommend, which simply isnt the case, the men conducting such interviews arent intereseted in money, they along with the people runnning the temple sincerely believe it to be true. why cant you fight evil with truth? is the truth not good enough?
We know that the men who conduct these interviews have no pipeline to God on any level. Otherwise, it makes sense that someone would've gotten a litghning bolt from Heaven telling them not to let Ted Bundy become a member, right?
And why was Mark Hofman able to pull a fast one on the church, selling them forged documents that they authenticated and sometimes traded for real historical works?
If you saw God almighty in the flesh, could you make such mistakes? I know I wouldn't.
Yes, I pray for guidance and that's the reason I'm here. I have nothing against you; in fact, I'm trying to love you as a brother. I don't want to see you or anyone else go to Hell.
You said 'offensive in nature,' yet your BOM tells me that God is such a bumbling idiot that he let the Bible be tampered with, the Gospel be lost, and mankind belong to the church founded by Satan.
Smith never saw God and the facts are in his repeatedly revised versions of the Furst Vision. He couldn't tell the same story twice and the 'miraculous' vision he supposedly had wasn't actually told until some 22 years later. This has never been explained in any way that makes more sense than the distinct possibility that Smith made it all up.
When have I once bashed your faith? Have I ever said that Mormons are stupid motherfuckers who should be shot and killed? No, that would be bashing. Instead, however, the BOM tells me that I belong to the church founded by Satan.
Who's bashing whom?
I'm simply telling it the way it is, whether you like it or not. Mormonism takes many things out of context so as to support its flimsy position that, under scrutiny, falls apart.
BTW, I will proudly stand before God and tell him how I worshipped Him in His TRUE church. His judgement on me is His alone.
Have fun worshipping a jesus that requires no sense of true commitment by way of covenant making, and doesn't require you to keep the commandments, even though that's what Bible says.
Is that right? It's not my faith that has put up jesus as a polygamous man who stumbled into godhood. I've never suggested that he was the literal product of celestial incest, and I've never been so arrogant as to believe that I could be anything even close to him.
No 'true commitment?' So the two commandments he personally gave mankind aren't enough for you? A bit arrogant there, too, don't you think?
"I've never been so arrogant as to believe that I could be anything even close to him."
Then why did he die for our sins?
And it's not a matter of arrogance at all. When He's the one saying that He will die for our sins so that we can be a co-heir with Him in the Kingdom of God and recieve all that the Father has, then I am inclined to believe Him.
We are made perfect through Jesus' sacrifice. That's the very point of Him dying for our sins.
It's because of our sinful, fallen nature that we need a savior, the one that Jesus became.
You're looking at this through the rose-colored lenses of Mormonism, accepting the words of a known liar and fraud as fact, then taking the church's position based on those lies as facts as well.
Your faith can't even come to terms with the differences in what it is now verses what the BOM taught, much less correctly define the role of savior.
Jesus did in fact die for our sins because of our fallen nature.
However, for what reason did he redeem us from our sins. What are we to become? To what end do we arrive at in heaven?
God allows nothing except perfection into His Kingodm. We become perfect through the atonement of Jesus. Therefore, when I say we can become perfect as He is, this is what I mean.
Paul says we will be co-heirs with Christ. So, this "arrogance" is in the Bible too.
But again, you're building an entire doctrine around one word: "co-heir." This, in no way, shape or form, means that we will ever be equal to Christ. This is the same as the RCC assuming that from one slightly vague term, there must be a Purgatory.
I already know your meaning, but it isn't supported by either the Bible or even the fictional BOM.
First of all, I never said we would be equal to Christ.
"Perfection" in this context comprises of all of the qualities that God possesses. If we too then will possess all those qualities, we will becom just as God and Jesus are.
Like them, not as good as them or equal. There's a difference.
The line of authority and superiority will always remain and we will be subject to it. Though, when we possess the same qualities that define perfection, in that respect we will be the same as Christ
If Christ is an exalted man who became a god, he must be perfect. You already said that we would become perfect in him and the implication is pretty obvious, even if you won't publicly state it.
All are sinners (Rom 3:10, 23; 1 John 1:8-10; Isaiah 64:6) but we find that Noah and Job were both perfect (Gen 6:9, Job 1:1) so this obviously means that being 'perfect' has nothing to do with godhood.
Since Jesus fulfilled OT law, there is absolutely no need for apostles and prophets as such.
"Since Jesus fulfilled OT law, there is absolutely no need for apostles and prophets as such."
Then why did Apostles and prophets exist after Jesus was ressurected?
You need to read these two, and then realize your statement is completely false.
Ephesians 2: 19-21
Ephesians 4: 11-14
It clearly states the foundation of Christ's church is apostles and prophets, and then chapter 4 states the reason for it is: "For the unity of the faith and the perfecting of the saints."
I totally understand your reasoning, flawed as it is. Yes, let's look at the foundation, shall we? A house is built with cement, bricks, and mortar to begin with; that's its foundation. Does that mean you should use nothing but cement, brinks, and mortar to build a house?
I also noted that you ignored the word 'some,' used four times in that same passage, which means 'not all.'
And since we've already learned that we can be perfect without being gods, the Mormon redefinition is worthless.
Oh, I got it all right, but at the same time, the logical extension of the same argument is exactly that. If the prophets and apostles were the foundation, they are finite and will have eventually fulfilled their purpose, a point which has already come and gone.
And, if you read the New Testament specifically looking for references to apostasy and the church failing, you will realize that the apostles were struggling to keep the church together as it was.
After they were executed, the church was basically destroyed. The remnant was converted into catholocism later with complete corruption.
@HomesliceDrummer and all it takes is one look at the cankered troll gordon bs hinckley or other LDS INC execs to see that MORmONS have NO idea what a prophet or apostle is. MORmONS!
My job is to tell the truth about God to Mormons. I don't know why at this time for this reason, but that's what it is.
Your perspective, based on the belief that the church is correct, is just repeating a lie told to you. That absolves you of some rsponsibility, but now that I'm giving you the facts of what it is, the responsibility now becomes yours. It's you who's gonna have to explain to God the reason you pissed on the real Jesus in favor of the Mormon jesus.
And you make an excellent point: you can rationize things for yourself. You're reinforcing your own erroneous belief system so you can keep the benefits of the church coming, no matter if the ultimate result is going to be Hell and damnation.
My God doesn't have to contantly correct his scriptures and contradict himself. He was, is, and always will be perfect.
This is off the topic anyways. We can re-visit some time later.
The topic is D&C 87. If you can show me something (and quote it directly) and tell me that it didn't happen or it was wrong, then you definitely do not understand what it is saying.
Oh, and when I reference to the Bible, don't give me that petty bullcrap. D&C 87 only reinforces what Mark 13 says. They supprt eachother, and if they support eachother, it means it's accurate.
I don't understand? You mean I don't take your word for it.
This is another creative way that the church plays games with its position; you want to use the Bible when it suits you, but deny its accuracy when it doesn't confirm your position. Since it's missing many 'plain and preciosu things,' how can you possibly know what parts of it are right? It's not like you have the JST at your disposal because the LDS has no legal right to it.
No, we're going to continue this part because you're trying to slip something past me that you can't support with your own canon.
I've already shown you again and again that the prophecy was so general and vague that it didn't predict anything not readily known in Smith's day. Since no war since 1865 has anything to do with the Civil War, you have a problem. Civil War, slaves revolting, Armageddon? Nothing new there; it all fits Smith's environment.
It's NOT in the canon. It never was, and therefore is not and never was official doctrine in the Church. So, why the big controversy? Trying to say BY was wrong (by misinterpreting his point) doesn't affect the veracity of the canonized doctrines of the church.
"It fits Smith's environment"
So what? He was right. That's the point. It was suppose to fit his environament. There has been foretelling of economic difficulty (which fits our environement). duh.
So, like the 'one in purpose' part of Mormonism, it's just your opinion, right? You had me going for a second there, but the way Mormonism works is that something can be accepted as fact (as in 'one in purpose') without actually being canonized.
I misinterpreted nothing. In context, that's exactly what Young meant and you can't get around it. Why else do think the church so distances itself from the JOD?
"The 'heirs' never get to be he who went before, do they? No, they inheret, but they do not become what already was and is."
Of course we do not become God. We will always be subject to the higher authority of Elohim and Jehovah forever. However, our traits, characteristics and abilities will be equal to theirs. We are made "Perfect" through the atonement of Christ.
"Perfect" means "as God is" in this context. It's not that hard to piece together, really it isn't.
Because they knew the difference between what they should take literally and that which they should take figuratively, that's why.
You also mentioned Jehovah, which made me think of the fact that Mormonism calls Jesus Jehovah in the Book of Abraham, for which also's no evidence. In fact, the Jehovah in that poorly written book is actually God, as Smith stole the text directly from Genesis.
This is where you're adding your own meaning here. Jesus also said to his disciples that this is my body, this is my blood and exorted them to eat and drink of him, didn't he? Why didn't they take knives to him and do exactly as he said?
how is it false? of course you can lie and pay your way to a temple recommend. doesn't mean you can lie and pay your way to the celestial kingdom. God will not be mocked.
tips on how to lie to your Priest during confession: does that sound about the same?
The point is why are you going to confession if you are lying about your sins? In the mormon vernacular: why do you even want in to the temple if you have to lie to get there; further damning yourself?
Like I said... the person who wrote this is trying to 'expose' something. what?
fair enough, but, heck doing so won't damn yourself further? if so, how? i'm a card carrying member of the Church, and even I masonic signs/tokens aren't required to get us into heaven. it's faith in Jesus Christ and even then it's up to the father and his mercy. joseph smith was as wrong about the endowment as he was about polygamy and his questionable translations of at least half the bible (only 1/2 of his translations are lds authroized) and the book of abraham.
A city divided against itself can not stand. either you aren't who you say you are, or you are leading a double life (which you won't be able to sustain). In any case I feel pity for you.
As far as Joseph Smith is concerned, what do you care what he said or did... it should all be irrellevant to you. Either the gospel he taught is true or it isn't. Act accordingly. If what you've stated here is true you don't know which end is up and are leading a double life.
I do live a double life. Just like the Prophet Joseph Smith. He denied he practiced polygamy as he practiced it. Sounds like I'm more of a Mormon than you are, buddy.
Although you do beat me in one area. You practice Mormonism's favorite logical fallacy, the Either/Or Fallacy that our beloved Prophet GBH loved to throw down.
If you are a temple reccomend holding member, you ought not to be. The things you have said in this comment thread are despicable and downright against the covenants made in the temple. You misrepresent everything the church stands for.
Obviously an anti-mormon posing as a TBM. Get a life.
I just pointed out how you clearly, and by your own admission through the comments you have made, violated the qualifications to hold an LDS temple reccomend.
You openly mock Joseph Smith and claim he is wrong about revelations given and call Jesus a " faiy tale superhero".
There's no "judging" going on here. I;m only assessing your comments.
I hardly believe worthy LDS temple goer refers to Jesus as a fairytale superhero and speaks against Joseph Smith's legitimacy as a prophet of God.
I believe that Joseph Smith was just as much a prophet as any other prophet. Certainly he is as much of a prophet as that other imaginary Bible character named Moses.
Lol, yeah no 17 year old ever pulled a fast one on someone before. gimme a break.
He can order the destruction of private property if it is threatening to an entire community, which the Expositor was. It riled people against the church and created more anger and hostility.
Killing men? Moses killed a guy before he was ever called to be a prophet. Those men died long after the carthage shooting. Defending ones life and the life of his friends is no crime.
Past sins aren't going to be held against us if we repent, are they? And you're comparing apples to bulldozers here because Smith killed two men as one of his last acts. Defending himself? Defending his companions? Where did Jesus defend himself and the thieves at his side?
Defending yourself does not disqualify you from anything.
I guarantee you the apostles that were killed though of and tried to get away any way they could to try and avoid being killed.
Smith handed himself over to the municipalities that summoned him to court full well knowing he would die if he went. He gave himelf up.
Watchnig your brother get shot in the face, and having that sort of commotion going on is grounds for classic fight or flight instinct. You cant blame anyone for that.
It means that the murder of Smith came hot on the heels of his own debased actions.
He ordered the press destroyed because it embarrassed him and the church. Keep in mind that the church was still putting on the display of D&C 101 and hadn't admitted to polygamy yet.
The Nauvoo Expositor exposed him for the fraud and liar that he was and he didn't like it a bit because, as we agree, it was going to bring persecution on them.
He also knew that in doing so, innocent people might get hurt. This was probably one of the only selfless things he ever did.
I absolutely do not condone the murder of the Smith brothers nor the 'extermination order.' I don't condone the murder of anyone, but Smith's actions lead directly to his murder.
Yeah, his actions did lead to his death. Ever since day one he knew it would eventually come. That's why it's all that more amazing. With all the abuse, false imprisonment, death of children, friends and family etc, you think a man would fess up to a lie after that amount of garbage. The night before he died, he testified of the book of mromon and it's truth, even knowing he was going to die the next day. Knowing he would meet his God, he went to the grave for it. That's caled martyrdom.
I think that Smith made up his lies for his own selfish gains and eventually ended up believing them. He seems to have developed a messianic complex somewhere along the line and would therefore account for his not having refuted it.
David Koresh (Vernon Howell) is an excellent example.
Since we have examples of true martyrs, including the most important one: Jesus, fighting to their deaths.
Yes, they may have thought about it, but I don't know that they did.
Smith turned himself over because he knew that if he didn't, Governor Thomas Ford would take into custody by force. Smith wouldn't have exactly been hard to find, would he?
Actually, Smith would have been hard to find. He was thinking of making a run for it. Realizing the danger it would put his people in, he walked to his own death instead.
"No greater love has a man than he that lays his life down for his friends"
Joseph Smith was attacked over and over for his religion, and all the things that climaxed to his death stemmed from his religious claims, and he died for them. That is classic martyrdom, whether he went out swinging or not.
I hear only what II want to hear? I'm afraid that's projection, but I'll send you a little something to see what you reaction is.
Of course I have prideful, lustful, murderous thoughts. I'm human! A flawed, sinful man who needs Jesus to save me from my nature, not to help me become a god.
Might want to get some help for that. I've never felt the tempation to kill someone.
"who needs Jesus to save me from my nature, not to help me become a god."
A bit of a contradiction there. If your flaws become perfect through Jesus, you become as He is, perfect, and without flaw. (in heaven, not in this life, of course) The bible speaks about this is in several places. "Heirs of God"
"For we shall see him as he is and we shall be like him"
We all do; any man who lusts after a woman is already guilty of adultery, a man (I'm going to paraphrase this wrongly, I know) who gets angry is already a murderer. This is our flawed nature; I accept it, Mormonism redefines it.
With said redefinition of the Fall and mankind's nature comes the revision of the purpose of Jesus.
The 'heirs' never get to be he who went before, do they? No, they inheret, but they do not become what already was and is.
Lol @ you saying I implied that Jesus did NOT lay his life down for me.
THIS is what I mean by YOU ARE RIDICULOUS!!!
How many different vidoes have we had debates? Like 20 or more over the last couple years. That's what I mean by i have nothing to say to you. And if "winning" is what you want, then "you win" this one, although there is really nothing to be won.
Feel like you have big brass ballz now? Tough guy on the internet (taking it seriously, hahaha).
I know you didn't mean it that way, but I used it to illustrate the fact that you need to consider the examples you give a lot more carefully.
I can bury you in the facts that Mormonism is wrong, but I'm not here to beat you up over that; winning a debate is nothing when you lose your soul to Hell over the false doctrines of false prophets.
Uh, you need to calm down because you're making a fool of yourself. I neither said nor implied any such thing.
You contended that to lay one's life down for their friends is a good thing and I simply pointed out that the implication is that Smith was more valiant than Jesus.
No, there was NO implication from me that JS is more valiant than Jesus. To even think such a thing is ludicrous. If you knew mormons (I suspect you do, and understand them fairly well) you full well know that the mantle that Joseph Smith holds as a prophet to the LDS is utterly pathetic compared to Jesus Christ.
Joseph Smith had character flaws and made mistakes in his life like everyone else.
Well, one easy one is found in the D&C where he specifically calls out the Civil war. He even named where it would begin, the reason why, and prophecied of war all over the world from that point on. All things were on target 100%.
"That doesn't make sense because this 'revelation' is only six verses and some 300 words whereas Revelation is 22 chapters covering 25 pages."
Length of a revelation has nothing to do with the veracity of the content.
Smith got everything on target and you know it. Whether the church printed it as scripture afterwards makes no sense. Most D&C was printed long after. When the revelation was given is the important part.
If the church were so certain of Smith's abilities, why didn't the church print this in the 1835 or 1844 editions of the D&C? Why is it that he's only right now in hindsight instead of in foresight before the Civil War?
"If the church were so certain of Smith's abilities, why didn't the church print this in the 1835 or 1844 editions of the D&C? Why is it that he's only right now in hindsight instead of in foresight before the Civil War?"
That's not the point. He wrote down the prophecy 20+ years before it happened and he was dead on the money. You haven't refuted that fact.
At what time the church decided to add it to the cannon (along with most of the uncannonized rvelations) is not the issue.
I didn't say he didn't so don't put words in my mouth.
And yes, that was exactly the point; the church didn't bother to make this scripture until 48 years later. That's not exactly confidence-inspiring, is it? The issue is reliability; the church didn't place any stock in it at the time and the 'revelation' is less than right.
You only assume the church cannonized it 48 years later because they were waiting to see whether it panned out because it fits your perveted view of LDS. And you are dead wrong about it. The original "Book of Commandments" contained only a few of the many current "Doctrine and Covenants". Brigham Young ended up canoniing the rest of the recorded revelations into the D&C. They didn't canonize just the one at that point because it came true (ridiculous), they canonized dozens of revelations.
Brigham Young didn't "prophecy" of that did he? What he says in some sermon or something isn't automatically prophetic dictation. He expressed nothing more than an opinion.
Birgham Young said a lot of untrue things when he expressed his opinions, you can find tons of them in the JOD. If he declared something in the name of God, and made it known that he was declring something in the name of God, then you can take it as such and critique.
And we know that the possibility, even the likelyhood of a civil war, was well known in Smith's day. This is unimpressive because it didn't exactly come out of a vacuum.
You keep telling me he was dead on the money but the Civil War didn't lead directly to the Armageddon, something you've conveniently ignored.
First of all, the LDS scripture has never referred to "armageddon" and the scriptures never say that. It say that it will be the beggining of continuous bloodshed until the coming of the son of man, and that war would be poured out upon all nations beginning with the civil war (which is true, nearly every nations in th world has been at war somewhere since then).
Your perspective is eventing arguments that don't exist.
Um, you need to read the same 'revelation' that I am: D&C 87. Verse six is clear about the judgement of god and the 'full end of nations."
Did I miss that on the History Channel, this monumentous event that would prove Joseph Smith right?
And if your assertion is correct, the Civil War is the beginning of this cycle, which would be incorrect, since mankind has always been at war with one another.
Come now, I've shown that the 'revelation' was total BS and you're still clinging to it?
The 'veracity of the content' somehow doesn't include Sherman's March, the mass casualties at Gettysburg, or even the final outcome, which was the fall of the South and the Emancipation Proclamation. No, it says, in fact, that the ultimate outcome was Armageddon.
Yhis is just like saying the Bible's prophecies are unreliable because it didn't predict 9-11, and you are holding the standard that such details as "Taliban" being in charge of the attack, and "World Trade Centers" being the target are necessary incluions.
Super specific information has NEVER been the content of any prophecy in the Bible, yet you hold this higher standard to Joseph Smith.
This is called a double standard and you're really good at holding one when it fits your agenda.
Funny how apologists always fall back to comparing the BOM to the Bible, even though you have no idea what in the Bible may or may not be right..
You're talking about 'double-standards,' citing the fact that Smith used 'South Carolina' in his 'revelation,' and yet when shown that wasn't so miraculous, you backpedal to 'necessary inclusions' being unimportant.
He put his stamp on it and called it a Revelation from God and he was right. Whether you believe he was "lucky" or not is beside the point. He prophecied in th ename of God and was correct, 20+ years before it happened.
Oh, and I wasn't back p[edaling. I was moreso mocking your ridiculousness than anything.
(D&C 130)- "The commencement of the difficulties that will cause much bloodshed prior to the coming of the Son of Man will be in South Carolina"
(DC 87)- And the time will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place....the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States...Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain...
I read through the whole thing. He's fairly specific, and everything he said turned out true.
You're using a Hollywood movie as your basis in fact? If I did that, you'd be all over me, wouldn't you?
The text, however, says that the slaves, presumably black slaves in southern states, would rise against their masters. Also not miraculous by your own admission, 'all the time.'
You're laughing your way into Hell. I hope your garments are fireproof.
He declared it in the name of God, and is true, so he made a legitimate prophetic declaration.
This os one where critics have a real tough time picking it apart. "Educated guess" is the only thing they can come up with.
The David Patten mission call, the 85 year supposed prophecy, etc can atleast be debated somewhat. Not this one. he got it right, and the only thing critics have is pathetic excuses.
What I said was that only things declared and claimed to be from God directly can be called "prophecy".
Stick on the subject, which is prophecy, and not scripture.
though, typically, what is declard in scripture and tells of future things is also considered prophecy, because it is canonized, and therefore considered "the Word of God" as well.
A quote taken from a typical sermon given by an apostle/prophet is not automatically scripture or prophetic in nature.
'...in addition to these four books of scripture, the inspired words of our living prophets become scripture to us. Their words come to us thorugh conferences, Church publications, and instructions to local priesthood leaders.' (Gospel Principles, p 49, 51-52)
'A prophet is a man called by God to be his representative on earth. When a prophet speaks for God, it is as if God were speaking.' (Gospel Principles, p 47)
'When our leaders speak the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan-it is God's plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of the controversy.' (Improvement Era, June 1945, Deseret News, May 26 1945)
"Brethren, keep your eye on the President of theis Church. If he tells you to do anything that is wrong and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it. But you don't need to worry; the Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead this people astray.' (Harold B Lee, Ensign, Oct 1972)
'Let us harken to those we sustain as prophets and seers, as well as the other brethren, as if our eternal life depended on it, because it does!' (Spencer W. Kimball, Conference Report, April 1978, p 117, Ensign May 1978, p 77)
'...what these brethren have spoken by the power of the Holy Ghost is the mind of the Lord, the will of the Lord, the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto Salvation.' (Harold B. Lee, Conference, April 1973, p 176, Ensign July 1973, p121)
But your position is refuted by your own church on several occasions:
'...the Lord will never permit me nor any other man who stands as the President of this Church , to lead you astray.' (Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, p 212)
'When we are instructed by the President of this Church, we believe he tells us what the Lord would have us do. To us it is something more than just the advice of man.' (Elder George Albert Smith, Conference Report, Oct 1930, p 66)
All of that said, there's not one word about any possibility of the prophet being wrong or teaching something that's false.
Even Brigham Young said clearly that: "I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture." (JOD 13:95, Jan 1870)
You need to post the rest of that BY quote to show exactly what he is talking about. I know what the entire thing says, but giving 1 sentence of an entire 2 paragraphs hardly captures the context.
I know what the gospel principles are.
However, you are completely missing my point. I am talking about claiming something to be a prophecy, not instruction or guidance/teachings givien by God's mouthpiece and automatically being as good as scripture. It's not the same thing.
But no, I get exactly what you're saying: you're looking for a loophole through which you can cherry pick what you like and don't like. You ignore that BY taught that Adam was God for 19 years, but still hold him up as a prophet of God. Doesn't it go directly against everything I've already cited that he could be wrong? It most crtainly does! In fact, again, there's not one single word or possibility I can find that allows the prophet to be wrong in what he teaches.
Okay, I will. I just didn't beause my hands were hurting and I was getting ready for bed.
"The Lord is in our midst. He teaches the people continually. I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually." (ibd)
Yes, the 'revelation' predated the War. Yes, slaves fought in said War. I didn't deny either, but in context, this is far less impressive.
Since the Civil War is going to lead up to Armageddon, please show me how any of the wars between then and now are related. Surely they must have all tarce their roots back the seccesion of the South.
Incorrect. I've laid the foundation for the fact that the prophet apparently cannot be wrong. If they are appointed by God and serve as his mouthpiece, why would he let them lead the restored church astray? If even one person believes something incorrect that comes from the prophet, he has done exactly that, hasn't he?
You're right, prophesy need not be impressive because it's so obviously bogus when put into its proper historical context. This is called wishful thinking.
Accurate? How can I take your word for its accuracy when your church hasn't yet found one single iota that would confirm its claims? Mormonism managed to misplace three entire civilizations and you want me to trust you with my eternal soul?
Are you kidding?
Now don't you wish there was something better? Well, there is.
Why would I cross reference a book that missing many 'plain and precious things?' Of course Smith plagiarized the Bible which is apparent because the BOM reflects not just the Bible, but the KJV specifically. Since Mormons are always going on and on about all the different versions of the Bible, why would it sound virtually identical to one specific version, the same version that Smith owned and studied, the same version contained in your church's canon? Coincidence?
Adam-God was never canonized doctrine. And I think your perspective of what Brigham Young actually was saying is not that accurate.
In the temple, Adam and God are clearly identified different persons. This was never changed during BY's time. What people were led to believe through a sermon may have been a mistake (we're all human), but Brigham Young never altered such a core LDS doctrine in any canonized form. Scripture and temple teachings were never altered to accomodate such notion.
Why should'nt you pay tithing ??? The church is true unless your a skin flint.
TheUktruth 4 months ago
My bishop asked me if I looked at porn. I said ''no'' and got the recommend despite my 2GB gay furry porn folder hidden in my System32 folder XD. Looks like their prophet isn't all knowing after all. Hell I almost pawed off in the shower in the locker room
SexyArcanine666 6 months ago
Have you sold all that you owned yet and given everything to the poor? Didn't think so...
THELDSLIFE 7 months ago
@THELDSLIFE
Have you? Since you are using a computer and an account you have not given either to the poor. And I help others once I can sustain myself. That way I can keep on giving and not go poor and render myself unable to help. Oh and I pawed off to gay yiff before going to the temple so one of your temples was desecrated
SexyArcanine666 6 months ago
@SexyArcanine666 - You've entered into one of our temples? Did you go through an entire endowment session for yourself? Sounds to me like you've got plenty to explain to the Lord when you return to him as a covenant breaker. You've made some very SERIOUS covenants with God and I hope you can live up to every single one of them or things may not go very well for you... AT ALL...
THELDSLIFE 6 months ago
@THELDSLIFE
LOL. I was at the Annapolis building when I got the recommended from the Bishop. I pawed off before I went as well. And I pawed off to some gay furry porn so yeah. LOL. When I return to your version of the lord? Funny, all the other churches would say the same about both of us about their version of the lord. When you can prove it then we can talk. Until then I will continue yiffing and pawing off to gay yiff. XD
SexyArcanine666 6 months ago
@SexyArcanine666 - it's a test. the answers are revealed at the end. By then, you'll know.
THELDSLIFE 6 months ago
@THELDSLIFE
Pretty comment. However you did not answer my question, instead you make an ad hoc excuse. Can you prove that it is a test?
SexyArcanine666 6 months ago
@SexyArcanine666 - can you prove that it's not save by your opinion only?
THELDSLIFE 6 months ago
@THELDSLIFE
Can you prove that Zeus, Thor, Apollo, dragons, fairies, unicorns, and pixies don't exist save your opinion only? By you ''logic'' (or lack thereof) you should believe in those gods and creatures because you have not disproven them and I should also believe that you are a child molester because you have not proven that you are not. You are dishonestly shifting the burden of proof. As the one making the claim you and only you have to prove it and I don't have to disprove it.
SexyArcanine666 6 months ago
I think you have forgotten to include several questions...let's see if anyone else can identify the questions you forgot!
jjdiver 7 months ago
HAHAHAAHAHAHA..they do this in Pentecostal churches too
FlowerJutsu 9 months ago
"Temple Recommend?" A "Jesus Recommend" is what you REALLY need.
wannawatchu66 10 months ago
@wannawatchu66 oh yes thank you! that is what really should be in the video here and I am being serious!
XXXPharcydeXXX 9 months ago
I am an ex-mormon, however, I will wholeheartedly admit that this video is nothing more than mockery.
akg771959 11 months ago
There is no false Jesus of Mormons. There is christ that is our savior that loved us all and died for our sins, so that we could return to God someday. Does that sound false to you? If only if were that easy to get a temple recommend. But of course non LDS people believe that it's all about money. To get a temple recommend one has to be morally clean, obey the word of wisdom and love their neighbor, of course these concepts are unknown to most people so they say people just pay money.
DeidraDulin 1 year ago
Wow. A video full of lies from someone who hates the LDS church for reasons unknown. Question 1: why do you ignore the other 9 or so questions that bishops ask? Question 2: why do you pretend that tithing is the only question? Question 3: why do you pretend that payment of back tithing is required when it is not? If a person has not paid tithing in a long time, a bishop will usually expect them to follow this ancient commandment for longer than 5 minutes before they give them a recommend
utahminutemen 1 year ago
LMAO... that was great!!!! :)
dcm682005 1 year ago
@theboofooguy
Hmmm... what fence might that be? I see no fence.
And as far as having "nothing", you couldn't be more wrong. How silly of you.
ScienceReasonBelief 1 year ago
@theboofooguy
"I don't have to prove anything to you."
Which is just another way of saying that you have no proof.
By the way, kiddo, you're not paying attention... I'm not an atheist.
ScienceReasonBelief 1 year ago
@theboofooguy
No, that isn't proof, troll. That's simply a possibility, but not evidence of a flood that supposedly covered the earth. You should know this.
Funny how you had nothing to say about Adam and Eve.
ScienceReasonBelief 1 year ago
@theboofooguy
you said,
"Can you prove it didn't happen? Exactly...take your trolling elsewhere."
Big problem... YOU are the one claiming it did happen... so the burden of proof is on you.
ScienceReasonBelief 1 year ago
@theboofooguy
so since it's been "proven", i guess that means the God of the Bible approves of slavery? Check out Leviticus 25:44-46
and by the way, there's no proof of a great flood, or that Adam and Eve were the first humans. pure storytelling.
ScienceReasonBelief 1 year ago
@johnyjamie MORMON'S ARE UNDER SATANISM............THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE............
eitoobmiz 1 year ago
I want my 15 seconds back...
THELDSLIFE 1 year ago
Yes, logic.
Renagade1325 1 year ago
Yep. Proven fact that Noah lived within walking distance of every animal on this planet. He also shoveled animal shit for 40 days straight... its all bullshit.
Renagade1325 1 year ago
The Bible is just as bullshit as the BoM. Religion in general is.
Renagade1325 1 year ago
It doesnt say that in the book of Mormon, it was just the people within the mormon church who made the rule. Everyone was racist back then. It proves that people arent perfect, but does not disprove the gospel.
Renagade1325 1 year ago
@theboofooguy you're clearly a bigot. hate for any religion is unbecoming. anyway, i know i give hundred$ a year just myself. goodbye.
sunsetally 1 year ago
i'm mormon. i pay tithing. i do a lot of other things i'm asked to do. i don't do a lot of those things i'm asked not to do. do i scare you? apparently so. but, i also pay to the LDS humanitarian fund, fast offering and other funds the church has set up to help others. our contribution to world charities is well over half a billion dollars. do i still scare you?
sunsetally 1 year ago
pmslmao
THELDSLIFE 1 year ago
lolololol
Wbeliever7 1 year ago
Don't forget, tithes should be paid on the GROSS, not NET.
!!!!!!
thesignsoflife7 1 year ago
not true. there wouldn't be so many mormons in the world today if all they wanted was money.
NiuezFynst 1 year ago
@NiuezFynst Agreed! It makes no sense to assume they expect you to follow the path AND pay tithing and think they are about the money. If anything they would lower the standards.
thatjimguy 1 year ago
Ha ha.... too funny. LDS is not the only ones with their hands out looking for cash....
GawdOfThunder 1 year ago
whoever posted this, you disappoint me. if the mormon church is guilty of lying to its members then you are just as guilty for posting this video. its simply untrue, you are suggesting that you have to "buy" a temple recommend, which simply isnt the case, the men conducting such interviews arent intereseted in money, they along with the people runnning the temple sincerely believe it to be true. why cant you fight evil with truth? is the truth not good enough?
FUBARsince1990 2 years ago
If Mormonism were a lie, would you want to know?
We know that the men who conduct these interviews have no pipeline to God on any level. Otherwise, it makes sense that someone would've gotten a litghning bolt from Heaven telling them not to let Ted Bundy become a member, right?
And why was Mark Hofman able to pull a fast one on the church, selling them forged documents that they authenticated and sometimes traded for real historical works?
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
Don't try and bash my faith, whereas i am sure I could as well question yours in equal manner and we would go back and forth with differing opinions.
The very dillema JS had as a kid, and he went to God, not the arguing priests.
Moral of the story, pray for guidance and trust the spirit of God as it speaks to you.
If you do that, I'm sure God will put you where you need to be.
HomesliceDrummer 2 years ago
If you saw God almighty in the flesh, could you make such mistakes? I know I wouldn't.
Yes, I pray for guidance and that's the reason I'm here. I have nothing against you; in fact, I'm trying to love you as a brother. I don't want to see you or anyone else go to Hell.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
I don't wanna see you go to hell either. I am doing just fine for myself in that respect, and I am highly confident about that.
However, all you have done here is try to tell me how what I believe is wrong, instead of trying to share what you believe in.
Such a mode is offensive in nature, and hardly welcoming.
HomesliceDrummer 2 years ago
You said 'offensive in nature,' yet your BOM tells me that God is such a bumbling idiot that he let the Bible be tampered with, the Gospel be lost, and mankind belong to the church founded by Satan.
Who exactly has the right to be offended here?
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
Smith never saw God and the facts are in his repeatedly revised versions of the Furst Vision. He couldn't tell the same story twice and the 'miraculous' vision he supposedly had wasn't actually told until some 22 years later. This has never been explained in any way that makes more sense than the distinct possibility that Smith made it all up.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
LMAO a saying the "Facts" of the first vision accounts prove he didn't see God.
Oh, so if there was only one version, you would believe him?
Gimme a break.
HomesliceDrummer 2 years ago
The facts don't support anything else Smith claimed so his Furst Vision is just as spurious since he couldn't tell the same story twice.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
Comment removed
zigzagjag0820 2 years ago
When have I once bashed your faith? Have I ever said that Mormons are stupid motherfuckers who should be shot and killed? No, that would be bashing. Instead, however, the BOM tells me that I belong to the church founded by Satan.
Who's bashing whom?
I'm simply telling it the way it is, whether you like it or not. Mormonism takes many things out of context so as to support its flimsy position that, under scrutiny, falls apart.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
"Who's bashing whom?"
You just said I "pissed on the real Jesus"
So, you are.
How dare you, you nasty whore.
For that, this is now over.
BTW, I will proudly stand before God and tell him how I worshipped Him in His TRUE church. His judgement on me is His alone.
Have fun worshipping a jesus that requires no sense of true commitment by way of covenant making, and doesn't require you to keep the commandments, even though that's what Bible says.
HomesliceDrummer 2 years ago
Is that right? It's not my faith that has put up jesus as a polygamous man who stumbled into godhood. I've never suggested that he was the literal product of celestial incest, and I've never been so arrogant as to believe that I could be anything even close to him.
No 'true commitment?' So the two commandments he personally gave mankind aren't enough for you? A bit arrogant there, too, don't you think?
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
"I've never been so arrogant as to believe that I could be anything even close to him."
Then why did he die for our sins?
And it's not a matter of arrogance at all. When He's the one saying that He will die for our sins so that we can be a co-heir with Him in the Kingdom of God and recieve all that the Father has, then I am inclined to believe Him.
We are made perfect through Jesus' sacrifice. That's the very point of Him dying for our sins.
Such a clouded mind. I feel bad for you.
HomesliceDrummer 2 years ago
Why did he die for our sins? Are you serious?
It's because of our sinful, fallen nature that we need a savior, the one that Jesus became.
You're looking at this through the rose-colored lenses of Mormonism, accepting the words of a known liar and fraud as fact, then taking the church's position based on those lies as facts as well.
Your faith can't even come to terms with the differences in what it is now verses what the BOM taught, much less correctly define the role of savior.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
Lol, you completely missed the point.
Jesus did in fact die for our sins because of our fallen nature.
However, for what reason did he redeem us from our sins. What are we to become? To what end do we arrive at in heaven?
God allows nothing except perfection into His Kingodm. We become perfect through the atonement of Jesus. Therefore, when I say we can become perfect as He is, this is what I mean.
Paul says we will be co-heirs with Christ. So, this "arrogance" is in the Bible too.
HomesliceDrummer 2 years ago
But again, you're building an entire doctrine around one word: "co-heir." This, in no way, shape or form, means that we will ever be equal to Christ. This is the same as the RCC assuming that from one slightly vague term, there must be a Purgatory.
I already know your meaning, but it isn't supported by either the Bible or even the fictional BOM.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
First of all, I never said we would be equal to Christ.
"Perfection" in this context comprises of all of the qualities that God possesses. If we too then will possess all those qualities, we will becom just as God and Jesus are.
Like them, not as good as them or equal. There's a difference.
The line of authority and superiority will always remain and we will be subject to it. Though, when we possess the same qualities that define perfection, in that respect we will be the same as Christ
HomesliceDrummer 2 years ago
If Christ is an exalted man who became a god, he must be perfect. You already said that we would become perfect in him and the implication is pretty obvious, even if you won't publicly state it.
All are sinners (Rom 3:10, 23; 1 John 1:8-10; Isaiah 64:6) but we find that Noah and Job were both perfect (Gen 6:9, Job 1:1) so this obviously means that being 'perfect' has nothing to do with godhood.
Since Jesus fulfilled OT law, there is absolutely no need for apostles and prophets as such.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
"Since Jesus fulfilled OT law, there is absolutely no need for apostles and prophets as such."
Then why did Apostles and prophets exist after Jesus was ressurected?
You need to read these two, and then realize your statement is completely false.
Ephesians 2: 19-21
Ephesians 4: 11-14
It clearly states the foundation of Christ's church is apostles and prophets, and then chapter 4 states the reason for it is: "For the unity of the faith and the perfecting of the saints."
Hmmm....
HomesliceDrummer 2 years ago
I totally understand your reasoning, flawed as it is. Yes, let's look at the foundation, shall we? A house is built with cement, bricks, and mortar to begin with; that's its foundation. Does that mean you should use nothing but cement, brinks, and mortar to build a house?
I also noted that you ignored the word 'some,' used four times in that same passage, which means 'not all.'
And since we've already learned that we can be perfect without being gods, the Mormon redefinition is worthless.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
"Does that mean you should use nothing but cement, brinks, and mortar to build a house?"
You are mentally retarded. The analogy is to suggest that if you remove the foundation, the building crumbles, cannot stand and is no more.
HomesliceDrummer 2 years ago
Oh, I got it all right, but at the same time, the logical extension of the same argument is exactly that. If the prophets and apostles were the foundation, they are finite and will have eventually fulfilled their purpose, a point which has already come and gone.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
No. not correct. What a completely failed logic.
Remove them, and the rest falls. That's it.
Nothing more to be taken from it.
And, if you read the New Testament specifically looking for references to apostasy and the church failing, you will realize that the apostles were struggling to keep the church together as it was.
After they were executed, the church was basically destroyed. The remnant was converted into catholocism later with complete corruption.
HomesliceDrummer 2 years ago
@HomesliceDrummer and all it takes is one look at the cankered troll gordon bs hinckley or other LDS INC execs to see that MORmONS have NO idea what a prophet or apostle is. MORmONS!
firstbaldwin 2 years ago
@HomesliceDummer ...... there thats better
firstbaldwin 2 years ago
This also assumes that one can't be perfect and still be a sinner, which is, of course, untrue.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
@HomesliceDrummer MORMON'S WORSHIP LUCIFER AND CALL HIM JESUS......
eitoobmiz 1 year ago
What are you trying to get out of all this?
"I don't believe in Mormonism"
K, fine. I do. Your perspective is different than mine. I can logically rationalize everything to myself wheras you disagree with it.
Okay, now what. We are going to sit and dish sides 1000 times over and waste time on youtube over and never getting anywhere.
I believe I have a witness from God, and that is what I stand by.
You as well, I'm sure.
HomesliceDrummer 2 years ago
My job is to tell the truth about God to Mormons. I don't know why at this time for this reason, but that's what it is.
Your perspective, based on the belief that the church is correct, is just repeating a lie told to you. That absolves you of some rsponsibility, but now that I'm giving you the facts of what it is, the responsibility now becomes yours. It's you who's gonna have to explain to God the reason you pissed on the real Jesus in favor of the Mormon jesus.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
And you make an excellent point: you can rationize things for yourself. You're reinforcing your own erroneous belief system so you can keep the benefits of the church coming, no matter if the ultimate result is going to be Hell and damnation.
My God doesn't have to contantly correct his scriptures and contradict himself. He was, is, and always will be perfect.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
This is off the topic anyways. We can re-visit some time later.
The topic is D&C 87. If you can show me something (and quote it directly) and tell me that it didn't happen or it was wrong, then you definitely do not understand what it is saying.
Oh, and when I reference to the Bible, don't give me that petty bullcrap. D&C 87 only reinforces what Mark 13 says. They supprt eachother, and if they support eachother, it means it's accurate.
HomesliceDrummer 2 years ago
Odd how your god didn't even bother to give you the corrected version of the KJV.
You call not having the correct word of God petty bullcrap?
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
I don't understand? You mean I don't take your word for it.
This is another creative way that the church plays games with its position; you want to use the Bible when it suits you, but deny its accuracy when it doesn't confirm your position. Since it's missing many 'plain and preciosu things,' how can you possibly know what parts of it are right? It's not like you have the JST at your disposal because the LDS has no legal right to it.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
No, we're going to continue this part because you're trying to slip something past me that you can't support with your own canon.
I've already shown you again and again that the prophecy was so general and vague that it didn't predict anything not readily known in Smith's day. Since no war since 1865 has anything to do with the Civil War, you have a problem. Civil War, slaves revolting, Armageddon? Nothing new there; it all fits Smith's environment.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
Exactly the point bro.
It's NOT in the canon. It never was, and therefore is not and never was official doctrine in the Church. So, why the big controversy? Trying to say BY was wrong (by misinterpreting his point) doesn't affect the veracity of the canonized doctrines of the church.
"It fits Smith's environment"
So what? He was right. That's the point. It was suppose to fit his environament. There has been foretelling of economic difficulty (which fits our environement). duh.
HomesliceDrummer 2 years ago
So, like the 'one in purpose' part of Mormonism, it's just your opinion, right? You had me going for a second there, but the way Mormonism works is that something can be accepted as fact (as in 'one in purpose') without actually being canonized.
I misinterpreted nothing. In context, that's exactly what Young meant and you can't get around it. Why else do think the church so distances itself from the JOD?
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
"The 'heirs' never get to be he who went before, do they? No, they inheret, but they do not become what already was and is."
Of course we do not become God. We will always be subject to the higher authority of Elohim and Jehovah forever. However, our traits, characteristics and abilities will be equal to theirs. We are made "Perfect" through the atonement of Christ.
"Perfect" means "as God is" in this context. It's not that hard to piece together, really it isn't.
HomesliceDrummer 2 years ago
Because they knew the difference between what they should take literally and that which they should take figuratively, that's why.
You also mentioned Jehovah, which made me think of the fact that Mormonism calls Jesus Jehovah in the Book of Abraham, for which also's no evidence. In fact, the Jehovah in that poorly written book is actually God, as Smith stole the text directly from Genesis.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
This is where you're adding your own meaning here. Jesus also said to his disciples that this is my body, this is my blood and exorted them to eat and drink of him, didn't he? Why didn't they take knives to him and do exactly as he said?
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
Go ahead and "bury me in the facts that Mormonism is wrong."
Just use doctrine. Character defamation and history is useless. If the doctrin is supported by the scriptures, then it is true.
Let's see how far you get before I stuff the New Testament up your backside and show you what it really says concerning the matters.
Deification, pre-existence, keeping the commandments is essential (the easiest one, lol), making covenants (ordinances of the priesthood)
Your move, chicken-beak.
HomesliceDrummer 2 years ago
You got it. Check your PM.
And insults will get you nowhere.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
haha, I'm not sure why this tithing thing is such a big deal... The other questions are just as difficult to live, if not more so..
jonathanjace 2 years ago
Obviously NOT the truth about lds....
ignorance
M424Filmcast 2 years ago 2
This is hilarious because the person that posted it is named "truthaboutlds"... how ironic.
factsanddata 2 years ago
how is it false? of course you can lie and pay your way to a temple recommend. doesn't mean you can lie and pay your way to the celestial kingdom. God will not be mocked.
GohModley 2 years ago
tips on how to lie to your Priest during confession: does that sound about the same?
The point is why are you going to confession if you are lying about your sins? In the mormon vernacular: why do you even want in to the temple if you have to lie to get there; further damning yourself?
Like I said... the person who wrote this is trying to 'expose' something. what?
factsanddata 2 years ago
fair enough, but, heck doing so won't damn yourself further? if so, how? i'm a card carrying member of the Church, and even I masonic signs/tokens aren't required to get us into heaven. it's faith in Jesus Christ and even then it's up to the father and his mercy. joseph smith was as wrong about the endowment as he was about polygamy and his questionable translations of at least half the bible (only 1/2 of his translations are lds authroized) and the book of abraham.
GohModley 2 years ago
A city divided against itself can not stand. either you aren't who you say you are, or you are leading a double life (which you won't be able to sustain). In any case I feel pity for you.
As far as Joseph Smith is concerned, what do you care what he said or did... it should all be irrellevant to you. Either the gospel he taught is true or it isn't. Act accordingly. If what you've stated here is true you don't know which end is up and are leading a double life.
factsanddata 2 years ago
oh not that "a city divided" bullshit again. threats like that only prove your ignorance of our religion.
GohModley 2 years ago
excuse me? ..... threat? what planet are you on again?
You are the one who are leading a double life. I am merely stating the obvious. You stated it. I repeated it.
So what's your problem? the truth hurts? Well I guess that's why you like living a lie.
Look buddy... I don't have time for liars like you. If you can't be honest with yourself... then you have no business talking to me.
factsanddata 2 years ago
I do live a double life. Just like the Prophet Joseph Smith. He denied he practiced polygamy as he practiced it. Sounds like I'm more of a Mormon than you are, buddy.
GohModley 2 years ago
Although you do beat me in one area. You practice Mormonism's favorite logical fallacy, the Either/Or Fallacy that our beloved Prophet GBH loved to throw down.
GohModley 2 years ago
GohModely,
If you are a temple reccomend holding member, you ought not to be. The things you have said in this comment thread are despicable and downright against the covenants made in the temple. You misrepresent everything the church stands for.
Obviously an anti-mormon posing as a TBM. Get a life.
HomesliceDrummer 2 years ago
You just broke Jesus's commandment. Remember that guy named Jesus? Thou shalt not judge.
GohModley 2 years ago
I just pointed out how you clearly, and by your own admission through the comments you have made, violated the qualifications to hold an LDS temple reccomend.
You openly mock Joseph Smith and claim he is wrong about revelations given and call Jesus a " faiy tale superhero".
There's no "judging" going on here. I;m only assessing your comments.
I hardly believe worthy LDS temple goer refers to Jesus as a fairytale superhero and speaks against Joseph Smith's legitimacy as a prophet of God.
HomesliceDrummer 2 years ago
I believe that Joseph Smith was just as much a prophet as any other prophet. Certainly he is as much of a prophet as that other imaginary Bible character named Moses.
GohModley 2 years ago
why don't you get bent?
What kind of person, who obviously doesn;t believe in th ebible, floats around videos like this being a bunghole and starting crap?
Oh, and no thanks for the private message you sent me, it was pretty disgusting, you sick freak.
HomesliceDrummer 2 years ago
That's an excellent point!
What does qualify Joseph Smith as a prophet of God?
His money digging scams?
His evolving story of the Furst Vision?
His ordering of the destruction of private property?
His having take the wives of other members while they were conveniently away on missions?
His having killed two men before being killed himself?
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
Money digging scams?
Lol, yeah no 17 year old ever pulled a fast one on someone before. gimme a break.
He can order the destruction of private property if it is threatening to an entire community, which the Expositor was. It riled people against the church and created more anger and hostility.
Killing men? Moses killed a guy before he was ever called to be a prophet. Those men died long after the carthage shooting. Defending ones life and the life of his friends is no crime.
HomesliceDrummer 2 years ago
Past sins aren't going to be held against us if we repent, are they? And you're comparing apples to bulldozers here because Smith killed two men as one of his last acts. Defending himself? Defending his companions? Where did Jesus defend himself and the thieves at his side?
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
Apples to bulldozers? No, my friend. You hold a double standard. It's called being bias.
You bring up the crucifixion of Jesus and compare it? lol
There were many times in the Bible where Jesus ran away from the Pharisees when they sought to kill him, thereby defending his life.
When Jesus was crucified, he let it happen becaue it was him paying for our sins.
Yes, he defended himself and his friends. They were trapped in a room surrounded by 100+ guys inside and out.
HomesliceDrummer 2 years ago
No double standard here. Jesus didn't kill anyone when he died and Joseph Smith did.
You're trying to equate Jesus' fleeing from those that would harm him with Smith using a gun and shooting at people? That's a stretch, even for you.
I agree on the last point; defending himself disqualifies Smith as a martyr.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
Defending yourself does not disqualify you from anything.
I guarantee you the apostles that were killed though of and tried to get away any way they could to try and avoid being killed.
Smith handed himself over to the municipalities that summoned him to court full well knowing he would die if he went. He gave himelf up.
Watchnig your brother get shot in the face, and having that sort of commotion going on is grounds for classic fight or flight instinct. You cant blame anyone for that.
HomesliceDrummer 2 years ago
The sequence of events, from the Expositor printing its only edition to the murder of Smith, took a mere 20 days.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
so, it took 20 days. Whoopdie doo. Is that supposed to mean something significant?
HomesliceDrummer 2 years ago
It means that the murder of Smith came hot on the heels of his own debased actions.
He ordered the press destroyed because it embarrassed him and the church. Keep in mind that the church was still putting on the display of D&C 101 and hadn't admitted to polygamy yet.
The Nauvoo Expositor exposed him for the fraud and liar that he was and he didn't like it a bit because, as we agree, it was going to bring persecution on them.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
He also knew that in doing so, innocent people might get hurt. This was probably one of the only selfless things he ever did.
I absolutely do not condone the murder of the Smith brothers nor the 'extermination order.' I don't condone the murder of anyone, but Smith's actions lead directly to his murder.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
Yeah, his actions did lead to his death. Ever since day one he knew it would eventually come. That's why it's all that more amazing. With all the abuse, false imprisonment, death of children, friends and family etc, you think a man would fess up to a lie after that amount of garbage. The night before he died, he testified of the book of mromon and it's truth, even knowing he was going to die the next day. Knowing he would meet his God, he went to the grave for it. That's caled martyrdom.
HomesliceDrummer 2 years ago
I think that Smith made up his lies for his own selfish gains and eventually ended up believing them. He seems to have developed a messianic complex somewhere along the line and would therefore account for his not having refuted it.
David Koresh (Vernon Howell) is an excellent example.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
Since we have examples of true martyrs, including the most important one: Jesus, fighting to their deaths.
Yes, they may have thought about it, but I don't know that they did.
Smith turned himself over because he knew that if he didn't, Governor Thomas Ford would take into custody by force. Smith wouldn't have exactly been hard to find, would he?
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
Actually, Smith would have been hard to find. He was thinking of making a run for it. Realizing the danger it would put his people in, he walked to his own death instead.
"No greater love has a man than he that lays his life down for his friends"
Joseph Smith was attacked over and over for his religion, and all the things that climaxed to his death stemmed from his religious claims, and he died for them. That is classic martyrdom, whether he went out swinging or not.
HomesliceDrummer 2 years ago
I disagree that he would've been hard to find; if he made a run for it, the people he left behind would've incurred the wrath of the authorities.
I see from your quote that Jesus was less than Smith in your opinion. Sad.
He was attacked for his claims which were patently false and fabricated.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
"I see from your quote that Jesus was less than Smith in your opinion. Sad."
You are very so wrong in every way in saying this. It is completely untrue.
That quote implies nothing of the sort, and for you to suggest such a thing is disgusting.
I've gone back and forth with you on like 20 threads, and I have nothing more to say to you. You are ridiculous.
HomesliceDrummer 2 years ago
That was exactly the implication; Smith did so and Jesus did not.
I didn't say I believed it, I simply said that was the distinct impression you gave.
Taking your bat and ball and going home so soon? If you can't beat 'em, run away from 'em?
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
Exactly the implication? I implied nothing other than JS gave his life to protect his people.
The quote, when Jesus said it, referred specificially to himself and his performing the atonement. However, the lesson taught applies to anyone.
If that's th eimpression you got, you have a serious lack of reading comprehension skills. That, or you are only hearing what you want to hear.
I'm not trying to "beat" anyone.
You evidently have a serious issue with pride.
HomesliceDrummer 2 years ago
And that also exempts him from matryrdom as well.
I hear only what II want to hear? I'm afraid that's projection, but I'll send you a little something to see what you reaction is.
Of course I have prideful, lustful, murderous thoughts. I'm human! A flawed, sinful man who needs Jesus to save me from my nature, not to help me become a god.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
You have murderous thoughts?
Might want to get some help for that. I've never felt the tempation to kill someone.
"who needs Jesus to save me from my nature, not to help me become a god."
A bit of a contradiction there. If your flaws become perfect through Jesus, you become as He is, perfect, and without flaw. (in heaven, not in this life, of course) The bible speaks about this is in several places. "Heirs of God"
"For we shall see him as he is and we shall be like him"
etc
HomesliceDrummer 2 years ago
We all do; any man who lusts after a woman is already guilty of adultery, a man (I'm going to paraphrase this wrongly, I know) who gets angry is already a murderer. This is our flawed nature; I accept it, Mormonism redefines it.
With said redefinition of the Fall and mankind's nature comes the revision of the purpose of Jesus.
The 'heirs' never get to be he who went before, do they? No, they inheret, but they do not become what already was and is.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
Lol @ you saying I implied that Jesus did NOT lay his life down for me.
THIS is what I mean by YOU ARE RIDICULOUS!!!
How many different vidoes have we had debates? Like 20 or more over the last couple years. That's what I mean by i have nothing to say to you. And if "winning" is what you want, then "you win" this one, although there is really nothing to be won.
Feel like you have big brass ballz now? Tough guy on the internet (taking it seriously, hahaha).
HomesliceDrummer 2 years ago
I know you didn't mean it that way, but I used it to illustrate the fact that you need to consider the examples you give a lot more carefully.
I can bury you in the facts that Mormonism is wrong, but I'm not here to beat you up over that; winning a debate is nothing when you lose your soul to Hell over the false doctrines of false prophets.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
Uh, you need to calm down because you're making a fool of yourself. I neither said nor implied any such thing.
You contended that to lay one's life down for their friends is a good thing and I simply pointed out that the implication is that Smith was more valiant than Jesus.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
No, there was NO implication from me that JS is more valiant than Jesus. To even think such a thing is ludicrous. If you knew mormons (I suspect you do, and understand them fairly well) you full well know that the mantle that Joseph Smith holds as a prophet to the LDS is utterly pathetic compared to Jesus Christ.
Joseph Smith had character flaws and made mistakes in his life like everyone else.
Jesus was perfect and died for my sins.
Hmm, let's see, who's "better"?
HomesliceDrummer 2 years ago
I'll tell you what, why don't you give me some of the correct prophesies of SMith and we'll discuss them to see what he actually did, okay?
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
Well, one easy one is found in the D&C where he specifically calls out the Civil war. He even named where it would begin, the reason why, and prophecied of war all over the world from that point on. All things were on target 100%.
HomesliceDrummer 2 years ago
That doesn't make sense because this 'revelation' is only six verses and some 300 words whereas Revelation is 22 chapters covering 25 pages.
This one is a big fat fail.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
"That doesn't make sense because this 'revelation' is only six verses and some 300 words whereas Revelation is 22 chapters covering 25 pages."
Length of a revelation has nothing to do with the veracity of the content.
Smith got everything on target and you know it. Whether the church printed it as scripture afterwards makes no sense. Most D&C was printed long after. When the revelation was given is the important part.
You really can't think that through, can you?
HomesliceDrummer 2 years ago
If the church were so certain of Smith's abilities, why didn't the church print this in the 1835 or 1844 editions of the D&C? Why is it that he's only right now in hindsight instead of in foresight before the Civil War?
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
"If the church were so certain of Smith's abilities, why didn't the church print this in the 1835 or 1844 editions of the D&C? Why is it that he's only right now in hindsight instead of in foresight before the Civil War?"
That's not the point. He wrote down the prophecy 20+ years before it happened and he was dead on the money. You haven't refuted that fact.
At what time the church decided to add it to the cannon (along with most of the uncannonized rvelations) is not the issue.
HomesliceDrummer 2 years ago
I didn't say he didn't so don't put words in my mouth.
And yes, that was exactly the point; the church didn't bother to make this scripture until 48 years later. That's not exactly confidence-inspiring, is it? The issue is reliability; the church didn't place any stock in it at the time and the 'revelation' is less than right.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
You only assume the church cannonized it 48 years later because they were waiting to see whether it panned out because it fits your perveted view of LDS. And you are dead wrong about it. The original "Book of Commandments" contained only a few of the many current "Doctrine and Covenants". Brigham Young ended up canoniing the rest of the recorded revelations into the D&C. They didn't canonize just the one at that point because it came true (ridiculous), they canonized dozens of revelations.
HomesliceDrummer 2 years ago
I'm guessing they simply forgot about it since two updated editions came and went before it was added.
My perverted view? Come now, if anything, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt because I'm taking this at face value.
You're aware that Brigham Young also clearly said that the Civil War wouldn't free the slaves, right?
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
Brigham Young didn't "prophecy" of that did he? What he says in some sermon or something isn't automatically prophetic dictation. He expressed nothing more than an opinion.
Birgham Young said a lot of untrue things when he expressed his opinions, you can find tons of them in the JOD. If he declared something in the name of God, and made it known that he was declring something in the name of God, then you can take it as such and critique.
Otherwise, it's a completely mute point.
HomesliceDrummer 2 years ago
And we know that the possibility, even the likelyhood of a civil war, was well known in Smith's day. This is unimpressive because it didn't exactly come out of a vacuum.
You keep telling me he was dead on the money but the Civil War didn't lead directly to the Armageddon, something you've conveniently ignored.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
First of all, the LDS scripture has never referred to "armageddon" and the scriptures never say that. It say that it will be the beggining of continuous bloodshed until the coming of the son of man, and that war would be poured out upon all nations beginning with the civil war (which is true, nearly every nations in th world has been at war somewhere since then).
Your perspective is eventing arguments that don't exist.
HomesliceDrummer 2 years ago
Um, you need to read the same 'revelation' that I am: D&C 87. Verse six is clear about the judgement of god and the 'full end of nations."
Did I miss that on the History Channel, this monumentous event that would prove Joseph Smith right?
And if your assertion is correct, the Civil War is the beginning of this cycle, which would be incorrect, since mankind has always been at war with one another.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
Come now, I've shown that the 'revelation' was total BS and you're still clinging to it?
The 'veracity of the content' somehow doesn't include Sherman's March, the mass casualties at Gettysburg, or even the final outcome, which was the fall of the South and the Emancipation Proclamation. No, it says, in fact, that the ultimate outcome was Armageddon.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
Yhis is just like saying the Bible's prophecies are unreliable because it didn't predict 9-11, and you are holding the standard that such details as "Taliban" being in charge of the attack, and "World Trade Centers" being the target are necessary incluions.
Super specific information has NEVER been the content of any prophecy in the Bible, yet you hold this higher standard to Joseph Smith.
This is called a double standard and you're really good at holding one when it fits your agenda.
HomesliceDrummer 2 years ago
Funny how apologists always fall back to comparing the BOM to the Bible, even though you have no idea what in the Bible may or may not be right..
You're talking about 'double-standards,' citing the fact that Smith used 'South Carolina' in his 'revelation,' and yet when shown that wasn't so miraculous, you backpedal to 'necessary inclusions' being unimportant.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
He put his stamp on it and called it a Revelation from God and he was right. Whether you believe he was "lucky" or not is beside the point. He prophecied in th ename of God and was correct, 20+ years before it happened.
Oh, and I wasn't back p[edaling. I was moreso mocking your ridiculousness than anything.
HomesliceDrummer 2 years ago
It wasn't lucky; it was an educated guess and to call this correct is absurd at best because the Civil War didn't culminate in Armageddon, did it?
And in the text, he didn't call it a 'revelation.'
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
(D&C 130)- "The commencement of the difficulties that will cause much bloodshed prior to the coming of the Son of Man will be in South Carolina"
(DC 87)- And the time will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place....the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States...Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain...
I read through the whole thing. He's fairly specific, and everything he said turned out true.
HomesliceDrummer 2 years ago
It came true? Where did the slaves become 'marshalled and disciplined for war?' That would be on this side of 1863, yet it hasn't happened either.
What's the smell? It's either dog crap or Joseph Smith's prophecies on the bottom of my shoe.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
Hahahaha, what a pathetic statement!!!!
Nearly 180,000 blacks fought in the civil war. Many former slaves.
Also, the movie "Glory" is a good depiction of former slaves being trained for war. Based on a true story, btw.
Screw your head on straight before you make a pathetic statement like that.
Slaves fled and revolted against their masters ALL THE TIME, during the civil wr especially.
I'm just laughing over here. You trying to dig your way out of a hole. It's quite amusing.
HomesliceDrummer 2 years ago
You're using a Hollywood movie as your basis in fact? If I did that, you'd be all over me, wouldn't you?
The text, however, says that the slaves, presumably black slaves in southern states, would rise against their masters. Also not miraculous by your own admission, 'all the time.'
You're laughing your way into Hell. I hope your garments are fireproof.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
He declared it in the name of God, and is true, so he made a legitimate prophetic declaration.
This os one where critics have a real tough time picking it apart. "Educated guess" is the only thing they can come up with.
The David Patten mission call, the 85 year supposed prophecy, etc can atleast be debated somewhat. Not this one. he got it right, and the only thing critics have is pathetic excuses.
HomesliceDrummer 2 years ago
So only those things 'claimed in the name of God' are actually scripture?
In that case you have exactly no priesthood at all because it's nowhere to be found in your canon.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
What I said was that only things declared and claimed to be from God directly can be called "prophecy".
Stick on the subject, which is prophecy, and not scripture.
though, typically, what is declard in scripture and tells of future things is also considered prophecy, because it is canonized, and therefore considered "the Word of God" as well.
A quote taken from a typical sermon given by an apostle/prophet is not automatically scripture or prophetic in nature.
HomesliceDrummer 2 years ago
'...in addition to these four books of scripture, the inspired words of our living prophets become scripture to us. Their words come to us thorugh conferences, Church publications, and instructions to local priesthood leaders.' (Gospel Principles, p 49, 51-52)
'A prophet is a man called by God to be his representative on earth. When a prophet speaks for God, it is as if God were speaking.' (Gospel Principles, p 47)
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
'When our leaders speak the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan-it is God's plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of the controversy.' (Improvement Era, June 1945, Deseret News, May 26 1945)
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
"Brethren, keep your eye on the President of theis Church. If he tells you to do anything that is wrong and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it. But you don't need to worry; the Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead this people astray.' (Harold B Lee, Ensign, Oct 1972)
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
'Let us harken to those we sustain as prophets and seers, as well as the other brethren, as if our eternal life depended on it, because it does!' (Spencer W. Kimball, Conference Report, April 1978, p 117, Ensign May 1978, p 77)
'...what these brethren have spoken by the power of the Holy Ghost is the mind of the Lord, the will of the Lord, the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto Salvation.' (Harold B. Lee, Conference, April 1973, p 176, Ensign July 1973, p121)
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
But your position is refuted by your own church on several occasions:
'...the Lord will never permit me nor any other man who stands as the President of this Church , to lead you astray.' (Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, p 212)
'When we are instructed by the President of this Church, we believe he tells us what the Lord would have us do. To us it is something more than just the advice of man.' (Elder George Albert Smith, Conference Report, Oct 1930, p 66)
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
I understand the difference, even the Mormon redefinition of both, thanks.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
All of that said, there's not one word about any possibility of the prophet being wrong or teaching something that's false.
Even Brigham Young said clearly that: "I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture." (JOD 13:95, Jan 1870)
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
You need to post the rest of that BY quote to show exactly what he is talking about. I know what the entire thing says, but giving 1 sentence of an entire 2 paragraphs hardly captures the context.
I know what the gospel principles are.
However, you are completely missing my point. I am talking about claiming something to be a prophecy, not instruction or guidance/teachings givien by God's mouthpiece and automatically being as good as scripture. It's not the same thing.
HomesliceDrummer 2 years ago
But no, I get exactly what you're saying: you're looking for a loophole through which you can cherry pick what you like and don't like. You ignore that BY taught that Adam was God for 19 years, but still hold him up as a prophet of God. Doesn't it go directly against everything I've already cited that he could be wrong? It most crtainly does! In fact, again, there's not one single word or possibility I can find that allows the prophet to be wrong in what he teaches.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
Okay, I will. I just didn't beause my hands were hurting and I was getting ready for bed.
"The Lord is in our midst. He teaches the people continually. I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually." (ibd)
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
Great.
Now that you've sidetracked for 10 replies, you ignore facts I have used to disprove your false claims.
Slaves and former slaves fought big time in the civil war - true.
Leads up to "armageddon" as you put it - in process.
"Armageddon" hasn't happened yet, apparently, but it will as you believe it will, regardless of this, so it is "true" as well.
HomesliceDrummer 2 years ago
Yes, the 'revelation' predated the War. Yes, slaves fought in said War. I didn't deny either, but in context, this is far less impressive.
Since the Civil War is going to lead up to Armageddon, please show me how any of the wars between then and now are related. Surely they must have all tarce their roots back the seccesion of the South.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
Incorrect. I've laid the foundation for the fact that the prophet apparently cannot be wrong. If they are appointed by God and serve as his mouthpiece, why would he let them lead the restored church astray? If even one person believes something incorrect that comes from the prophet, he has done exactly that, hasn't he?
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
Cross reference Mark 13.
Sounds like much of the same things, are they not?
Now, you gonna claim that he plagarized the Bible?
Joseph Smith is just reiterating and further specifiying the calamties foretold of by Christ.
Now what? You gonna claim that he plagarized Jeus's words? Maybe it's the fact that he was speaking for Jesus and therefore has the right to do so.
Oh, and prophecy need not be "impressive".
It just needs to be accurate, and it is.
The end.
HomesliceDrummer 2 years ago
You're right, prophesy need not be impressive because it's so obviously bogus when put into its proper historical context. This is called wishful thinking.
Accurate? How can I take your word for its accuracy when your church hasn't yet found one single iota that would confirm its claims? Mormonism managed to misplace three entire civilizations and you want me to trust you with my eternal soul?
Are you kidding?
Now don't you wish there was something better? Well, there is.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
And no, you still need to learn the difference between quoting, paraphrasing, and plagiarizing.
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
Why would I cross reference a book that missing many 'plain and precious things?' Of course Smith plagiarized the Bible which is apparent because the BOM reflects not just the Bible, but the KJV specifically. Since Mormons are always going on and on about all the different versions of the Bible, why would it sound virtually identical to one specific version, the same version that Smith owned and studied, the same version contained in your church's canon? Coincidence?
moparmonster1965 2 years ago
Adam-God was never canonized doctrine. And I think your perspective of what Brigham Young actually was saying is not that accurate.
In the temple, Adam and God are clearly identified different persons. This was never changed during BY's time. What people were led to believe through a sermon may have been a mistake (we're all human), but Brigham Young never altered such a core LDS doctrine in any canonized form. Scripture and temple teachings were never altered to accomodate such notion.
HomesliceDrummer 2 years ago