@kevinbreen This is just what our problem-free world needs. Bashing others about something we do not know nor understand. And there are no Mormon literates, or with a college degree, or with an open mind, or with intelligence and common sense, either, right? Why, why such inhuman comments?
And let the eternal creations declare his name forever and ever! And again I say, how glorious is the voice we hear from heaven, proclaiming in our ears, glory, and salvation, and honor, and immortality, and eternal life; kingdoms, principalities, and powers!
Let the mountains shout for joy, and all ye valleys cry aloud; and all ye seas and dry lands tell the wonders of your Eternal King! And ye rivers, and brooks, and rills, flow down with gladness. Let the woods and all the trees of the field praise the Lord; and ye solid rocks weep for joy! And let the sun, moon, and the morning stars sing together, and let all the sons of God shout for joy!
Brethren, shall we not go on in so great a cause? Go forward and not backward. Courage, brethren; and on, on to the victory! Let your hearts rejoice, and be exceedingly glad. Let the earth break forth into singing. Let the dead speak forth anthems of eternal praise to the King Immanuel, who hath ordained, before the world was, that which would enable us to redeem them out of their prison; for the prisoners shall go free.
Now, what do we hear in the gospel which we have received? A voice of gladness! A voice of mercy from heaven; and a voice of truth out of the earth; glad tidings for the dead; a voice of gladness for the living and the dead; glad tidings of great joy. How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of those that bring glad tidings of good things, and that say unto Zion: Behold, thy God reigneth! As the dews of Carmel, so shall the knowledge of God descend upon them!
THE ends of the earth shall inquire after thy name, and fools shall have thee in derision, and hell shall rage against thee;
While the pure in heart, and the wise, and the noble, and the virtuous, shall seek counsel, and authority, and blessings constantly from under thy hand.
And thy people shall never be turned against thee by the testimony of traitors.
The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truth; and thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever.
Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven...
That the fulness of my gospel might be proclaimed by the weak and the simple unto the ends of the world, and before kings and rulers.
Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.
The weak things of the world shall come forth and break down the mighty and strong ones, that man should not counsel his fellow man, neither trust in the arm of flesh...
That faith also might increase in the earth;
That mine everlasting covenant might be established;
Wherefore, I the Lord, knowing the calamity which should come upon the inhabitants of the earth, called upon my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and spake unto him from heaven, and gave him commandments;
And also gave commandments to others, that they should proclaim these things unto the world; and all this that it might be fulfilled, which was written by the prophets—
Therefore, fear not, little flock; do good; let earth and hell combine against you, for if ye are built upon my rock, they cannot prevail.Behold, I do not condemn you; go your ways and sin no more; perform with soberness the work which I have commanded you.
Look unto me in every thought; doubt not, fear not.
Behold the wounds which pierced my side, and also the prints of the nails in my hands and feet; be faithful, keep my commandments, and ye shall inherit the kingdom of heaven. Amen.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, as I said unto my disciples, where two or three are gathered together in my name, as touching one thing, behold, there will I be in the midst of them—even so am I in the midst of you.
Fear not to do good, my sons, for whatsoever ye sow, that shall ye also reap; therefore, if ye sow good ye shall also reap good for your reward.
O ye that embark in the service of God, see that ye serve him with all your heart, might, mind and strength, that ye may stand blameless before God at the last day.
Therefore, if ye have desires to serve God ye are called to the work;
For behold the field is white already to harvest; and lo, he that thrusteth in his sickle with his might, the same layeth up in store that he perisheth not, but bringeth salvation to his soul;
Also, the concept was considered 'scientific fact' by many at the time. William Herschel, the discoverer of the planet Uranus, died in 1822. Herschel argued "[w]ho can say that it is not extremely probable, nay beyond doubt, that there must be inhabitants on the Moon of some kind or another?" Furthermore, "he thought it possible that there was a region below the Sun's fiery surface where men might live, and he regarded the existence of life on the Moon as 'an absolute certainty.'"
A word from Acts, linked to John 7:17, which may give you a yardstick for your research: "And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:
But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God" (Acts 5:35-36).
In the end, you have nothing (or everything) to worry: if the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS is false and of men, it will come to naught. Wait, or act.
Sorry if I ask, but I still do not understand nor see WHY are you so angry with our Church, or our founder, or our teachings? Have somebody offended or hurt you? Why studying us in order to criticize us? Why losing your precious time on this? Are we so bothering? Are our beliefs so offensive? If you need to research something, why not with the purpose to learn something positive and useful, something true, maybe, to become better, or to serve better. Why not?
I am loathe to see people so misled by something so patently false. That should offend you, too. You show me a good Mormon and I'l show you someone who doesn't know their own history. You've only gotten half of the story, I'm sorry to say.
You're now playing the we-don't-attack-you-so-why-are-you-attacking-us card. You need look no farther than the First Vision to see what the church maintains about everyone else.
What I loathe is to see people accusing others to be misled by something they do not even try to know for themselves, let alone ask of God and without considering all evidences to the contrary. I have answered each and all of your often shallow points, and now I'm playing the we-don't-attack-you-so-why-are -you-attacking-us card? You need look no farther than YouTube to see what the churches maintains about us in a 1000-1 ratio. Victims... whatever.
Joseph wanted only to know which Church to join among those then existing, he did not want to create another one. He just did what all should do: James 1:5, and our Church is the result. What have we done wrong? Whom have we perseuted? Again, just look at the Web, or go to any confession. How many Anti-Mormons are there? And how many Mormon anti-whatever? Have you ever heard bashink other confessions from our pulpits? I didn't. Actions speak louder than works, and this is proof enough.
If you want to have a discussion, that's fine, but you posted 29 responses, which I can't possibly answer all of and still get sleep. PM me or something.
OK, I have no problem with that. Sorry, but your points needed to be answered exhaustively and not superficially, and you know we are allowed 500 characters at a time here, so... It'll be better for me, too, since I have 3 little children and need some rest, sometimes!
Joseph Smith said that there are men living on the moon who dress like Quakers and live to be nearly 1000 years old. Since he was wrong about the moon, is it safe to trust him regarding the way to heaven? (See The Young Womans Journal, Vol 3, pages 263, 264.)
You know, it's so sad to see a good Christian like you, with a nice family (I have small children, too), showing such an un-Christian behavior. Need some Bible verses about not judging others, even to the point of belittling other people's beliefs? Sorry, but, maybe, you should read the Good Book better.
Why! Copying a rumor from fourth-hand anti-Mormon intellectually dishonest sources to make your point. How sad, too! Is this what the Bible teaches us?
The source for this claim is not Joseph Smith himself; the first mention comes in 1881 in Oliver B. Huntington's journal, who claimed that he had the information from Philo Dibble. So, we have a late, third-hand account of something Joseph is supposed to have said...
Even if it turned out that the prophet held these views, nowhere does scripture suggest that a prophet is not allowed to speculate about things that haven't been revealed.
Many people during the Nineteenth Century, both the learned and not-so-learned, were speculating on this subject. Joseph Smith's personal opinions and what he taught as revealed doctrine, however, are two entirely different things. The idea that he taught it as a revealed doctrine is based upon Oliver B. Huntington's fifty-year-old, correct or incorrect memory of his blessing, and a rumor that was current in 1881.
Prophets and believers are products of their time. Biblical authors, for example, clearly accepted a geocentric cosmos, with a flat earth and heavens supported by four pillars. Like the authors of the Bible, modern prophets are generally beholden to their era's scientific concepts, except where corrections in those concepts are needed to permit the gospel to be understood and applied (from fairwiki).
What about some Scriptures revealed to Joseph by the Lord. Could you write the same?
Signs of the true Church: Doctrines and works of a Church that show it is approved by God and is the means the Lord has established for his children to gain the fulness of his blessings. Some of the signs of the true Church are as follows: Correct understanding of the Godhead; First principles and ordinances; Revelation; Prophets; Authority; Additional Scriptures to come forth; Organization; Missionary Work; Spiritual gifts; Temples... and on and on and on. Quite a coincidence.
The problem with the Godhead is that the BOM clearly states that all are one God. The trap door "united in purpose" is found nowhere in the BOM. The statement of the Three Witnesses is very clear. The rest of that nonsense ceased being important when Jesus said "It is finished." He didn't say "It's almost done." Or "You're almost there."
Yes, but you must harmonize the 'one God' phrase with what all other Scriptures, Bible included, teach - i.e. that the Godhead is one in some senses, but not One person, for that makes no sense, even in the Bible. Did Christ pray to Himself, crying 'Eli, Eli' to Himself, asking the bitter cup to be removed to Himself and then saying 'My own will be done'? Jesus said 'It's finished', and with all other sacred words pronounces on that facteful cross, He was speaking to His Abba, His Dad!
True, Catholicism is far from the NT Jesus, but then again, so is Mormonism. I don't think Catholicism has many positive points. They emphasize guilt, penance, and works.
Well, is our Jesus (I suppose you are familiar with Professor Millet's work) and the Church are so supposedly different from the NT ones, what about Catholic, Protestant, Pentecostal, JW etc. churches, organization and theology? Seems like a race to determine who has run the furthest away from the Church Christ established...
Ah ah, very funny, indeed. What about another joke, in a biblical tone? In this race, the first you mentioned will be last, and the last will be... Well, I won't say last, I do not like this kind of reasoning. Again, what an irony: the Lord's Church would be first in a race to determine who has run the furthest away from the Church Christ established. If Christ's Church is the furthest from Christ's Church, I would begin to worry, indeed.
The RLDS now calls themselves Community of Christ, so the name alone is meaningless. Jehovah's Witnesses use the pre-mortal name of Jesus so they must be right too, then. In the Bible, Jesus hung out with the lowest of humanity: the beggars, the lepers, the tax collectors, the prostitutes. A church is anywhere Christians gather and worship, not a building of stone and mortar.
Sure, it's meaningless even if Christ said it is not, even in the Bible. You are trying to fit definitions for your own comfort, but, you know, not all roads lead to Rome... The church is NOT ONLY anywhere Christians gather and worship, not necessarily a building, sure, but it has to follow Christ's rules and organization, not yours, not mine. Sorry, but your view is close to what 90% of Italian Catholics believe - do what you want, just 'be good'... and the results are appalling, I tell you.
"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
Which JUSTIFY THE WICKED for reward, AND TAKE AWAY THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE RIGHTEOUS from him!" (Isaiah 5:20-23). Quite clear, isn't it.
Today, we would call this kind of unequal assault a 'lynching', isn't it? He had (or said he haid, OK) a vision, he established a new religion and so on... reason enough to kill him, to persecute him and his family and the Mormon people, raping women, burning homes and temples, that's reason enough for all of these HISTORICAL atrocities? And he would, therefore, responsible for all of this? So, these people were justified in doing this, according to your reasoning? Just 'consequences', you say?
You're puttin g words in my mouth and assuming I hold positions that I don't. None of those things are right, no matter what. I was referring Smith only.
Well, since you started advocating the fact that Joseph was not a martyr, implying he killed someone, too (and I replied you on that) and that he started the process that led to his death somewhat apologetically for the murderers... Well, if I misinterpreted you real thoughts, forgive me. I was wrong. I don't like the judge-race sports!
OK, sorry for the misunderstanding, but since Joseph was surely a witness of Christ (whether you agree or not with his work), and given the definition of 'martyr' as s.o. who witnessed of his faith, bravely bearing persecutions and tortures, even until violent death; who bears great pains and sufferings, even unto the giving of his own life, in order to defend an ideal or cause...
I'm going to assume you're referring to the First Vision here. Are you aware that there are at least four different versions? And that it wasn't even in print until some 18 years later?
Well, I know all of that. Covered as extensively as possible... What about applying this measure to and discarding Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus? What about discarding, at least, all the 4 Gospels, written several years after Christ's death? What about accepting the BoM, abridged by Mormon from plates written when the events therein were actually happening, almost in real time? What about accepting the revelations of the D&C, written in real-revelation time? Does time change truth?
I would answer that by telling you to refer to the first edition of any of your standard works if you want to see how they've changed. D&C has seen large swaths of text added to it over the years, quietly and without fanfare, as if the church were trying to make things seem more seamless than they really were...
Got them all... never heard of editorial revisions... how many did the Bible go through? 100, 1000, 10000? Never heard that when you dictate several pages, it is easy to do mistakes, omit commas, write with a bad calligraphy? That's why we had to correct the original manuscripts, that are still here and you can see them, if you want. As for the D&C, your point is senseless: 1) It is a collection of revelations, continuous revelations, so it has to be enlarged from time to time...
perfect, he'd use good grammar, right? We know that the BOM is a literal translation and we know that it was lead by God. I can prove that the printer didn't change the manuscript he produced and that Nepji, Moroni, and Mormon were lead by God in their respective roles in the book's publishing.
What does that leave you? The possiblities are that God is an idiot (which we'll both agree isn't true), or that a barely literate Joseph Smith wrote the BOM, claiming divinity.
Ever tried to write a dictation 500 pages long in 65 days? Even if I dictated perfectly, with a Vittorio Gassman-reading- quality, you would still do some mistakes, especially if I did not tell you where to put commas and other punctation and if you were not an English PhD.
"And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ".
So, could JS write the BoM?What does that leave you?
Do you understand that we're not talking about a period here and a capitalization there? We're talking about major grammatical revision of misspellings, improper word usage, and even on two occasions the wrong name being used. Did you now that WERE has been changed to WAS 15+ times? And WERE to WAS 22+ times? And IS to ARE 16+ times? And A removed from the text at least 13 times? It makes sense that if God is perfect, he'd use good grammar, right? The 1830 BOM makes God sound like a moron.
Wow, and what doctrine 'were' and 'was' represent? Maybe like: "And now my brethren, if ye were (was?) righteous and were (was?)willing to hearken to the truth, and give heed unto it, that ye might walk uprightly before God, then ye would not murmur because of the truth, and say: Thou speakest hard things against us" (1 Nephi 16.3).
If you'd like, the BoM manuscripts are available and there are several good books answering this issue.
Now I start to believe that you are not even Christian and that I was mistaken from the beginning... since your poor and totally spineless argument would totally destroy the Bible, too. You are speaking about changes in doctrine, and you come up with prepositions... God IS perfect, I hope you know that, but He works through us, and we are NOT perfect, I hope you know it, and writing a 500+-page book in 65 days with third grade education... well, makes me wonder if your points are honest or not.
2) Again, either you do not know yet, or you forgot... without fanfare??? Never heard of the law of common consent in our Church? We use it every time, even to sustain the new Primary teacher in our branch... go figure for new revelations or Scriptures! Seamless, or hidden, you might say... all the contrary: all revelations and official declarations have always been PUBLIC and have to sustained by MEMBERS of the Church during PUBLIC meetings. So much for this, too.
And that's the problem with this point: the church has very quietly changed the texts without said fanfare. Common consent has nothing to do with this; it's an attempt to make the scriptures more succinct without drawing any attention to itself. That's why there have been no public declarations, no announcements, and no notice. These aren't new revelations; they're revising the old ones. Take the oldest BOM you can find and compare it to the newest you can find.
...who completely devotes himself to something, bearing great trials and sacrifices,who is forced to be abused, ill-treated and the like, and given the fact that he was persecuted even as a youth, before founding the Church in 1830... I thought he fits perfectly the definition of 'martyr'. I do not see anything he made or said so serious as to deserve to be tarred, feathered, mobbed and finally killed. Anyway, each one is free to have his opinions, that's for sure.
Yea, shocking indeed, but there was not enough time to add all the legal and human misdeeds perpetraded against the Saints and the Prophet... false charges, frauds, accusations, false promises by the Governor of Illinois, cold blood murder by tens of mobbing people with black-painted faces of 2 innocent prisoners still in wait of the sentence for a process based on false allegations... it would take a 10-hour documentary to present the facts behind the Prophet and his brother's martyrdom...
You need to invest in a dictionary. Smith doesn't fit into the role of martyr no matter how you shape the argument.
You're just playing the typical Mormon victim role to gain sympathy.
"...with a firm, quick step, and a determined expression of countenance, approached the door, and pulling a six-shooter...from his pocket...and snapped the pistol six successive times... I sfterwards understood that two or three were wounded...two of whom I am informed died." (HOTC Vol 7 p 100-103)
Wow, that's a good example of going the 'extra mile' to break Jesus' commandment in Matthew 7:1! You speak and you do not know what you say, and I need to forgive you, as the same Jesus said we should do, but to help you not to commit this transgression again, please let me inform you that I have at least 10 dictionaries in my home, of various languages... and the first point is cleared, I guess.
Second, I make appeal to your (at least) intellectual honesty: if two of the most authorative dictionaries of the English and Italian language, namely the Merriam-Webster and the De Mauro-Paravia, don't get it wrong, 'martyr', from the Greek meaning 'WITNESS' (by the way, Joseph Smith witnessed of Jesus Christ all of his life, and this cost him his life... so, 1st strike), has the following definitions, which you should read carefully, and I would not even need to tell you their implications:
The problem with your having cited this as support for your claim is that when Smith began to shoot back at his attackers, he was obviously not a voluntary sufferer. He wanted to live as would any of us in that situation.
Smith wasn't a victim, but rather a man who was suffering the consequences of events that he himself put into motion.
Well, as the dictionary says, there's no need to be a voluntary sufferer to be named a 'Martyr', or Witness. You are right, he wanted to live, as all of us want to, but he was 'prevented', to use an euphemism!!! :((
He had been mobbed and attacked for many years, just because he believed in something different, and finally they managed to kill him, tens of murderers against 4 man in a jail, which tried to defend themselves with what weapons they had...
So, if my reading skills have not completely vanished during my university studies, EACH AND EVERY SINGLE of EACH of these 2 indipendent, authoritative dictionaries confirms, oh no, WITNESSES that Joseph Smith, however you shape the argument, the grammar or the language, WAS a martyr in all senses of the word.
Well, it seems dictionaries are on the side of TRUTH (I am grateful for that when I have to do some research for my studies!) and not of FALSE WITNESSES and SLANDER...
As for your last point, repeated over and over again without even reflecting on it for a second... I am no Mormon victim (well, that's easy to offend someone and then, when he reacts, call him a victim... in psychology, this wrong way of communicating is called 'double bind', as Bateson and Watzlawick called it), I have not sympathy as my end and I ask you the following:
That's exactly what you're trying to do: paint yourself and your faith in the unenviable light of being persecuted and misunderstood. I'm fluent in Mormon and you can't fool me with the church's double-speak and Christian terminology with different meanings.
I do not like painting... especially when there's no need to. Well, as HISTORY puts it, Mormons HAVE been persecuted and misunderstood. Seems like they had to go through half of America to Salt Lake Valley to escape all of that... Luckily, today only the 2nd part is true!
Again, dictionaries aren't Mormon or Catholic or whatever, they're just plain DICTIONARIES. Read 'persecution' and 'martyr' and judge for yourself...
Who's fooling anyone? Is citing the Lord's words and facts fooling around? I just answered factually your points, isn't it? I certainly do not double-speak and, sorry, I am not as fluent in 'Christian' terminology as to be able to double-speak... I am a plain 'Mormon' from Italy, just trying to set the records and the words straight.
Here's the crux of the problem: most people don't understand the language that Mormons collectively use, but I do. For example, I'll refer specifically to Jesus. What Mormons don't tell outsiders is that you're taught he is an exhalted being and that man can be a god like him. That the Godhead is one god in purpose only in Mormonism is another thing that's not widely known. Things like that.
Your using God's word is a selective affair at best, cherry picking through the Bible and BOM.
Well, we do not teach it at the beginning, sure, but we do tell it at one point. After all, isn't exaltation one of our 'main' peculiar doctrines. I don't know what happens in the US, but here we tell it, just as surely as the Godhead matter (we're in Italy - Catholic Church - Trinity... sure you understand the problem!).
I like cherries, but not word ones. Is using the exact answer to an issue cherry-picking, like the Joseph Martyr-Carthage mob affair?
Is that cherry picking? No, it's me using Mormon literature to find the information to support my position. I'm reading my copy of the BOM student manual and it does exactly the same thing, even going so far as to quote extensively from a book that it supposedly distances itself from: McConkie's Mormon Doctrine. I find that the book also uses many quotes from the Bible that don't even apply. Gosepel Principles does the same thing, too.
Well, Mormon Doctrine is certainly controversial for some points, but it's clear and useful for others, and when it is, we use it, even for Institute manuals, so what's the issue? Manuals are useful for our lessons (I'm Sunday School president in my branch, so I know something about them!), but not the summum bonum, and they may contain, as they do, quotes and references to deepen the lesson and study the subject further, maybe even if they do not fit perfectly the lesson at hand.
When I use Mormon Doctrine, all I hear is the mantra "It's not doctrine, it's not doctrine." Okay, but why would the church use the very same book as support for things that are considered doctrine, especailly given the fact that it was neither authorized, nor commissioned by the church? That doesn't make sense. It's a double standard; when I use it, it's wrong and not doctrine, but when the church uses it, it's perfectly fine.
Well, the fact is, and I am sure you are aware of that, that even some GA's were not so at ease with some of Elder McConkie's stances, and Mormon Doctrine, though considered a 'classic', is certainly not as authorative as other manuals. As Sunday School president, I know that we should not use other materials than Scriptures, manuals and the Ensign/Liahona. I would not use MD, but only for personal study. Our doctrine comes from Scriptures and living prophets and apostles, not MD.
Agreed on all counts here, but again, why would the church quote something so extensively that isn't correct? If the apostles speak for the same God that the prophet does, why would he permit such erroneous tripe to be condoned by them?
True indeed, for the Church does NOT quote in official teachings or manuals those MD entries not in full harmony with the Church doctrine. As you know, Elder McConkie was adamant in his witness of Christ, but sometimes he expressed merely his personal opinions. Furthermore, you should know that ONLY the Prophet and president of the Church is authorized to declare the official doctrine of the Church.
Yet God allowed McConkie to publish the book inspite of that fact that it might mislead Mormons. If you shoot a shotgun, chances are, you'll hit something. Same with MD, chances are, he'd be right about something, sure, but how do you discern between that which is right and that which is wrong?
Adolf Hitler said that the best way of getting someone to swallow a lie is to put it between two truths.
Well, God allows terrorists to attack our cities, and children to die, and porn movies to be produced... I am a member of the church and I am free just like any apostle to do whatever I want: it's called free agency! Each will face the consequences of his words, thoughts and actions, anyway! Your argument about McConkie being 'allowed' is as shallow as anything I ever heard, really. Come on...
By the way, MD will not be a doctrinal constitution, but to say it 'misleads' us is a bit too much!!
How do you discern between that which is right and that which is wrong? Revelation through the Holy Ghost, maybe??? Just like with any other thing, maybe?? Just as you might know for sure that Christ's Church and authority is again on the Earth? What greater knowledge can you have than from God? The best way of getting someone to swallow a lie is to put it between two truths, just like politicians, false prophets and churches and Satan do. I would add to say half the truth...
Furthermore, your point is fallacious, since it misuses a word 'lie',l which does not apply to MD. Not to be official doctrine does not mean to be a lie. A lie is something which runs totally contrary to the Scriptures and to the official declarations of our Prophets and apostles, a false doctrine, we might say, and this is certainly not the case... So much for this, again. There would be so many treasures to learn and we are still wandering in shallow and supposed accusations and wrongs, why?
So, that's no tripe at all, and the personal opinions of any of our 15 prophets, seers and revelators are never passed as official declarations of doctrine, as shown by the fact, for example, that we do not use MD in our Gospel Doctrine classes as a manual. When it is useful, we use it to deepen our understanding, when it is not, we do not use it. There are really a few books accepted as official Church publications, and some are listed in Preach My Gospels, for example. So much for that.
That's simply says that Monson's words are nothing but farts in an empty room, since they're not doctrine.
"The Lord will never allow the President of the Vhurch to lead us astray." (Gospel Principles, P. 50)
This goes back to cherry-picking. Either the prophet speaks the word of god or he doesn't. I'm not talking about when he tells his wife "Pass the salt," either. When he's inspired to speak of god, that's revelation and/or doctrine.
1) My congratulations for the elegant language... I'll pass over it, anyway. 2)'The personal opinions of any of our 15 prophets, seers and revelators are never passed as official declarations of doctrine'. I said 'PERSONAL OPINIONS', not official declarations, for those are Scripture to us! HE SPEAKS THE WILL OF GOD when he speaks officially to the Church, like in GC, but not when he has an interview with the SL Tribune, for example!
You are surely not familiar with D&C 1 and with the Institute Religion 333 student manual, among other things, or you wouldn't even have lost your time with such an empty argument.
And you are right about the fact that it was neither authorized, nor commissioned by the church. Elder McConkie being the author, and the book resembling a great, authorative encycolpedia of LDS doctrine, it soon became and still is a classic, widely read, but I must say seldom quoted, say, during General Conferences. It's certainly useful, but that's not OFFICIAL LDS Doctrine 100%, and you know that. We do not have double standards. When MD is wrong, it's wrong, and when it's right, it's right
You're leaving the door open to cherry pick through MD, like the church does with everything else. You want to say some things are correct and some things aren't. Why would God permit such things to be published in his name that were wrong or misleading? That makes absoultely no sense.
Yes, we can cherry pick in good books to get only those parts that are useful and in full harmony with the official doctrine of the Church, and, as I said, only few books are accepted as official Church publications, after passing long and careful revisions by the Correlation Committee. MD is not one of them, so it has not 'been published in God's name'. You criticize MD without reason, and then you criticize our Scriptures which are, instead, from God. That makes absolutely no sense to me.
You've just contradicted what you said in the post above. Since you brought it up, your canon is actually meaningless because if the Bible isn't correct, it shouldn't be accepted, should it? That otherwise makes no sense. MD has been used by the church to support its standard works, effectively undermining your argument for that which is canonized.
You have been shown to be wrong many times, even by dictionaries, and I would be contradicting myself? 'If the Bible isn't correct, it shouldn't be accepted, should it?' If it were 100% wrong, you omitted (what about half truths here?). If there were just 10 correct verses in the whole Bible, and there are thousands more indeed, we would accept those and the Bible would be, say, 1% correct...
So, since the Bible is just slightly imperfect or incomplete, we accept is as a Standard Work. No need to remind you our 8th Article of Faith, isn't it? MD has been used to support the understanding of our SW, just like other manuals and books and commentaries, with no pretense of being an official publication of the Church. It's just been considered more 'classic' than other books for diverse reasons. Canonization and books written even by Prophets are 2 different things, and you know it.
Furthermore, the Church does NEVER let the door open to cherry pick through its official publications, so God NEVER allows to publish wrong or misleading things in His name. Let me assure you we are very strict in this regard. But with other books, they are not 100% 'molten gold', as we say in Italy, otherwise the Church would hold as official publications 1000s of titles, and this is not the case. Yes, some things are correct, and others are mere personal opinions, even if from GA's or leaders.
You're wrong there and that's the reason the Eighth Article of Faith. If I use something that doesn't confirm your views, you'll simply tell me it's wrong, but you can freely pick and choose what you feel supports your argument.
Let's rephrase: If people use something which is not in harmony with the full view of the Gospel we have through the Restoration, we say it has some problems. The Bible alone is totally insufficient to definitively ground the whole Gospel with clarity, and the proof are the thousands of Churches teaching thousands of different and conflicting doctrines, all from the same Bible!!! We do not pick, we feast at the Scriptural banquet the Lord offers us and you, too.
If someone attacked you and your family, would you defend yourself and your loved ones, even with force if necessary (not that I am favorable to weapons, all the contrary, but let's suppose), or would you just be killed? The Prophet and his 3 friends were jailed under false accusations and betrayed by the false promises of a US Governor, then killed by a mob of tens of black-faced men (that's Christian indeed, very fair), and they just tried to defend themselves with what small weapons they had.
Oh, according to you, thay just had to open the door to the mob and say: 'Oh, please kill us, please, kill myself, my beloved brother Hyrum and my dear friends Willard and John. We can't wait to have the honor of tasting your bullets'.
Shame on everyone who accuses innocent victims anywhere in the world, in every age, of being violent just because they try to defend themselves from vicious attacks and abuses.
"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
Which JUSTIFY THE WICKED for reward, AND TAKE AWAY THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE RIGHTEOUS from him!" (Isaiah 5:20-23).
If you want to know the truth, study it, believe, and live it, and you will see (John 7:17). Ask God in the name of Christ, and He will answer you!
Wow, you are great at hiding the fact that I striked out each and all of your contentious arguments, using your same tools: dictionaries you thought I should buy, words whose meaning you did not understand and so on... As a psychology student, let me assure you that if you indeed touched my emotional nerves, I would have reacted with rage and disgust, whilst I answered RATIONALLY and FACTUALLY all your fallacious arguments... Truth is hard to swallow, but it's the only thing that makes us free!
"O, my beloved brethren, give ear to my words. Remember the greatness of the Holy One of Israel. Do not say that I have spoken hard things against you; for if ye do, ye will revile against the truth; for I have spoken the words of your Maker. I know that the words of truth are hard against all uncleanness; but the righteous fear them not, for they love the truth and are not shaken" (2 Nephi 9:40).
"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
Which JUSTIFY THE WICKED for reward, AND TAKE AWAY THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE RIGHTEOUS from him!" (Isaiah 5:20-23)".
You did not touch any nerve at all. This is THE LORD's answer to your contention about Joseph's martyrdom and his innocence vs the murderous mob.
"If his claims and declarations were built upon fraud and deceit, there would appear many errors and contradictions, which would be easy to detect. (Doctrines of Salvation, Joseph Fielding Smith, 1954, 1:188)
I can do this with nothing but your own works. Your cockiness isn't very Christian, but if want to discuss this, be civil and read carefully. Check my sources, too. I have nothing to hide and nothing to gain here.
Right, tell me where fraud and deceit, errors and contradictions lie, or, better, why don't you ask God, the Eternal Father, what HE HIMSELF thinks of the matter? Or, another choice, watch for the fruits of his work, tell me which doctrines you find offensive... charity? service? temples? the Priesthood? Family Home Evening? Word of Wisdom? Tithing? Scripture study? Law of chastity? Articles of Faith?
Which would you like first? There's a lot of material to cover and this will probably be the first time you've heard about any of it.
I never used the word offensive, I said wrong, as in incorrect. And since English isn't your native language, if I say something you don't understand, don't hesitate to ask for clarification before we move on.
Well, let's start, I'm curious. I've read tons of anti-material since my conversion to Christ's Church... After all, I live in Italy, where we have a scanalous state-Church situation since... centuries ago!!!
Yes, I do not have perfect English (Italian neither!), but I'm a translator. I'll ask, anyway, if necessary... you have so many vocabulary in comparison to Italian...
Yes, English is based largely on Latin with some German influence.
And I grew up strict Roman Catholic, so I understand what you mean there. Since you weren't born LDS, I assume you grew up Catholic, too. The only religion I know more about than Catholicism is Mormonism. I think we'll both agree that the Catholic Church is wholly incorrect and bastardizes existing text for its own benefit.
Is there anything else you'd like to cover? I want to be on equal footing here.
Well, I am a perfect example of all the bad sides of Catholicism: namely, I was obviously baptized as an infant (I guess you are familiar with Mormon 8, in this regard), and then... nothing, since my parent were and are not religious. Tradition, as Tevye said!. 90% of Italian are this kind of Catholic, and 10% are 'real' practicing Catholics, the rest goes to Church on Christmas and Easter. So, I was kind of agnostic when I met the LDS Church. I like to talk about religion and to learn more.
I was baptised, went to catechism, was confirmed, and even went to Catholic school for a while. Most Catholics are the same way here: only religious on Sundays and holidays. They worship saints, Mary, and do worthless repetitive prayer. You're not going to sit, stand, and kneel your way to Heaven.
Well, we agree on that. We could spend lots of time talking about the great distance of the Catholic Church from the NT Church of Christ, both in doctrine and organization, but I guess this is not our point and, besides, I prefer to talk about positive aspects of each confession, when comparing and sharing with other people. I leave to each one the liberty to believe what they may, even 'strange' doctrines, it's up to them. I share, they share, you share.
By the way, which Church do you belong to? If you do not want to tell, no problem. As I said, I will not in any way detract from what you believe or create spiteful discussions. I really hate that, but I like to talk about religion. I'd rather have a problem with hard-core atheists... What's your position on that? How do you see Dawkins, Dennett and company?
So, you bear false witness and make sarcastic comments about how 'shocking' the video is, invoking even dictionaries which, in turn, discount your words, and I answer rationally, with FACTS and dictionary definitions, and I would be showing cockiness? I am the one who's not Christian? You say Joseph was killed as a consequence of his work (where's this kind of killing justified in Scripture?) and thereby defend his murderers, and I am not Christian?
Was I initially be sarcastic? Yes, I was. If you want to debate, however, that's fine and I won't use that tone.
Do I advocate murder, even that of Smith? No, I don't. If he were going to be executed, he should've been tried first because vigilante justice is fickle at best.
That said, your facts are what the church feeds you.
Well, I am relieved, at least! I am glad when people can talk and discuss openly to learn one from another and not to bash. Just in case, I'm open to learning about anything, from religion to science, sports, nature... whatever your interests are. I do not like debate that much, since it usually gives no positives and just make people contend, sometimes vehemently. I'd like 'civil and honest interchange of ideas' better. I guess we can make it.
While I am against Mormonism, I find that the people themselves are most often hardworking, honest, and generous people. My problem isn't with you as people; it's with the lies that the church tells, the revisions in its own history, its assertions based on a nonexistant history.
I don't make personal attacks, I don't make assumptions about what you believe, and I don't take things out of context to deliberately misrepresent them. And I'll always cite my sources for you to confirm.
OK, that's fine with me, even if I still do not understand why people have so much agains us... I love to read and study Church History, and I do not see any lies or hypocrite revisions. Mistakes of men, yes, lies and deceit, no. I live the Gospel every day, I am an avid student, I am training as a psychologist (so, lies, illusions and deceits are my daily bread) and the fruits of the Restored Gospel, together with God's Spirit, testify to me of its truth, notwithstanding human weaknesses.
"I asked the Personages...which (church) I should join. I was answered 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..." (JS-History, 1:18-20)
As far as I'm concerned, that's the exact same approach that the Catholic Church uses: we are right and everyone else is wrong. That's also the reason why a lot of people don't like or trust Mormons.
I know this point, but consider this: if you were a father, and you gave counsels and informations about life and your nature, to your children, so that they may be happy and peaceful, while they live far from you, and someone came and changed those counsels, so that your children now follow wrong paths and suffer unnecessary pains, not even having a correct idea of who you are, thus being unable to get help from you... wouldn't you be indignated with what these people did?
1)What I believe has certainly not been fabricated, unless you believe the unbelievable stories about the Bom being a copy of Spaulding etc. If you really read the BoM, and even more the D&C, how can you justify Joseph writing or copying such works, given his circumstances, his education, the testimonies about his work, and the fruits thereof?
2) I do not believe in evolution, not even here... since it carries the idea of 'changing' from one thing to another, quite different thing.
No, I don't believe the BOM to be a blatant copy of any one source. Instead, it seems to lift liberally from the KJV, which we know JS had ready access to, and address concerns of his own day. Just because he was uneducated doesn't mean he was stupid. But his lack of education shows in the 1830 printing of the BOM with the utterly poor grammar, spelling, and word usage. It's obvious that the BOM cities were a reference to the Aztec, Mayan, and Toltec ruins, something the church perpetuates.
So, did Joseph copy from the KJV?... well, seems to me that quoting some chapters of Isaiah in a 500+ book and say it lifts liberally is quite an exaggeration. Besides that, the Bible is plagiarizing at its best, since many OT and NT passages quote previous passages or teachings. Where is the book of Alma in the KJV? Where 3 Nephi? Where Helaman? Where Moroni? Where 1000s of other BoM passages? Where is D&C 121 in the KJV, or other sections? As for the grammar, poor argument, already covered.
I never said he copied it. He lifted heavily from it, however, while answering the questions pertinent to his day: why doesn't God speak to us any more? Why aren't there modern prophets? It was also commonly believed that the American Indian was of Jewish ancestry in Smith's day, so he worked that in as well. That he was at least somewhat racist is also apparent. And then there's the cities that you now can't find. Doesn't it make sense that he was referring to the Mayan and Aztec ruins?
Well, in Italian 'lift' would be synonim to 'rob, or steal'. Jesus Himself, then, 'lifted' from the Old Testament many times and in several circumstances... As for the Indians, Jewish, racist and so on... this is as old an argument as my old table, answered millions of times... it seems the truth is hard to swallow, anyway, since falsity comes up so often again. Do a little research, and you'll find the answers. Better still, read the BoM and see if it's not inspired!
Racism has been already covered and answered plentifully enough by BoM scholars and, why! people are so obsessed about this nonexistant problem and did not care a penny about the abominable US society in the XIX and XX century, up until the 1970's, at least??? I have read and am in awe of Martin Luther King and I know something about the civil rights movement, KKK, the South etc. and still people keep their eyes on supposed racism among us?? I have many black friends and I hate this hypocrisy!
Some LDS doctrines have changed (but, why, what about the Old and New Testaments... what about prophets getting revelations in their time, adding or clarifying what previous prophets had taught? Did Moses take away from Noah? Did Noah receive revelation in order to free the Jews?) but no major one, for sure, and our theology has not transformed, or evolved, in another 'creature'. Simply put, as in the Bible, God speaks according to the needs of men on earth, in their time and circumstances.
Unalterable... sure, like the Law of Moses, isn't it? So, Adam was the 1st and last prophet, and you need to throw away Enoc, Noah, Moses, Ezekiel, Isaiah, Jeremiah and so on, since they all had additional revelations and taught additional truths, NOT DESTROYING the previous... 'Unalterable' by MEN, not by GOD. HE does not change, but His WORDS are adapted to His children's circumstances. The Bible is not all corrupt, as I said and as we teach (and you know it), just imperfect in some respects.
The BOM is clear about God not changing. It's also clear that what the church teaches isn't what it taught in years past.
If the Bible is corrupt, mistranslated, or missing many "plain and precious things," why did the church canonize it as is? Why not issue a version with the things that are correct?
God does not change, I said it, too: HE does not change; His WORDS are adapted to His children's circumstances, so something may change in time, just like it happened in the OT and in the NT as well!!! Simple, isn't it? So much for that, too. Why continue to clear out nonexistant problems and clear out our mind and heart with truth, instead? Wouldn't that be more interesting and useful for our life, for our families and society?
Then, as a matter of fact, how many Mormon sites are there which bash and criticize other Christian confessions, examining in every small detail all the faults, frauds, inconsistencies of their leaders, history and doctrine? And now, how many Anti-Mormon sites are there? How many Anti-Mormon YouTube videos and how many Anti-Christian Confessions YouTube videos made by Mormons?
We do not teach, and since my baptism I have never heard it taught, that other religions are bad and totally wrong and that we have nothing to learn from them. Quite the contrary! Even our beloved President Hinckley spoke recently in this regard, and that's why I am a proof of that: I study, respect and am interested in other confessions, I like to talk to their members, IF there's mutual respect, which, unfortunately, is not always the case towards me, not them, esp. with some confessions (JW).
The case in point here is that the tone of the church has changed over the years, but one single fact remains: either the church is or isn't correct. If it's right, everyone else is wrong. If it's wrong, the question is then who, if anyone, is right?
The church has tried and partially succeeded in portraying itself as a sect of mainstream Christianity. They've renounced polygamy, accepted blacks into the priesthood, and use Christian terminology extensively.
Well, that's THE point: either God is, or He isn't. And if He is, either there's a Church, or organization, recognized and authorized and headed by Him (or His Representative-Son), or there isn't. And if there is, there can be ONLY ONE, but how shall one know which one? By reasoning? Going to Harvard Divinity? Opinion Polls? Majority? Tradition? The Bible alone? All have been tried, and you know the results...
We do not detract from any tradition; we share what we feel God has made known to us.
"...convince us of our errors of doctrine, if we have any, by reason, by logical arguments, or by the word of God..." (The Seer, Orson Pratt, Jan 1853)
Do you see how Pratt wants us to compare the BOM to the Bible? That's odd because the church holdstha the Bible is at least incomplete, if not wholly corrupt. The tone has now changed, however, and the Bible is downplayed in the modern church.
Sure, we still do that. We believe in and read and study the Bible, together with other Scriptures, and it's not odd at all!!! 1) It is NOT TRUE, and you know it that we teach the Bible is wholly corrupt, but just incomplete, and that is even philologically, historically and BIBLICALLY proven! 2) Since it is incomplete, this means it still contains a good share of the original Word of God... so why not study it?
And here comes 3) the importance of the Restoration... restore to the original splendor of something obscured from centuries of exposure to elements, just like a work of art: It's not a whole new work, but a restoration of what was in the beginning. It's the same work. The same Church. You say we are far from the NT Church, and that's because a restored work brings to light something which was present, but was not visible before the restoration.
There are tons of researches about the fact that some of our apparently 'strange' doctrines were known and practiced in the early Church, to name just one, baptism for the dead.
4) Either you are not well informed, or you missed something, since the Bible has been the subject of talks during recenty General Conferences, to begin with, and we thoroughly study it on a 4-year basis (OT, NT, BoM, D&C and Church History) in our Sunday School, Seminary and Institute classes, besides personal study!!!
There was no baptism for the dead, silly. The verse used to prove that has nothing to do with it (but I can't remember which one it is).
And why would you bother to study such an incomplete document as the Bible anyway? It's been corrupted and is missing who-knows-what, so its validity is near meaningless.
Oh, silly... Paul was just opening his mouth in 1 Cor. 15:29... 'Baptism for the dead was performed by the dominant church until forbidden by the sixth canon of the Council of Carthage in A.D. 397. Some of the smaller sects, however, continued the practice' (John Tvedtnes).. yea, nothing to do with it, since it only mentions exactly 'baptized for the dead'!!! Go figure.
The Bible has been corrupted and is missing something without any historical and theological doubt, but it's here and has some 1200 pages, so something has been preserved, after all. God allows evil to do its own work, but not as it totally wishes. Should I refer you to good and scholarly titles about how the Bible came to be, the history of the KJV, for example, and so on? Its validity is that of a maimed Word of God, maimed, yes, but Word of God for the rest, too!!!!
I would be glad to say that we have been even partially accepted as Christians... I find this is not the case, especially in Italy, but in the US as well. As for polygamy & priesthood to blacks... answered time and time again, really... and as for Christian terminology, with some exceptions due to different history and tradition, if we believe in Christ we should reflect some, shouldn't we? We use the Bible, too, so we should reflect that, isn't it? What counts, anyway, is the meaning behind it.
Well, the church has partially succeeded in portraying itself as a Christian sect here. In Italy, however, you have a city-state running the entire country, so you should expect no less. It does, however, provide Italian Mormons with the opportunity to feel like victims, which every cult likes to use to reinforce its onw indoctrination.
From your words, seems like you consider this fact a 'bad' thing we are doing. We should have let all 3000+ other Christian denominations reserve this right. Just because we hold different tenets, we should be banned from Christendom? Are our beliefs any more strange to you than the Baptists, the Pentecostals, the JWs, the Catholics or whatever you choose? What an irony! The Church of Jesus Christ is not Christian! I wonder what the Lord thinks of that. Have you asked Him?
The church's opinion is that it is either right or wrong. You can't all be right, but you can all be wrong. And yes, the LDS goes far beyond what most would consider strange, but I've been studying Mormonism for some 10 years and I know what to expect in these debates. I know what position you'll take and what claims you'll make before you actually do it.
I can change my name to Jesus Christ, but does that permit me to walk on water or raise the dead? Of course not; words are just words.
Oh, just as I knew and answered all your points, right? Well, guess what, in the last 10 years you have tried to find fault with the Church, and in the last 10 years (9 1/2) I lived its teachings first hand and come to some different conclusions and results... What about John 7:17 here? Theory or practice? Words are just words, you are right. Live the Restored Gospel, and see what the Word is really like.
This 'victim' thing again. But you should forgive us: it's too easy to feel like a victim when you are one... and you said you did not know nor care about the ratio of Anti-Mormon to Anti-whatever material on YouTube and on the Web? Since 1830 we have been killed, persecuted, raped, tarred, feathered, imprisoned, mocked, attacked, judged... and still I never heard anyone complain about that or play the victim from our pulpits... Sorry, nostra culpa, if sometimes we want to defend ourselves...
You take it out of context. That Mormons have been killed because of the lies of one man is indeed wrong. It is, however, the natural extension of those lies. The LDS overemphasizes that to get sympathy and for those of us who are critical to cease our activities.
So all the founders of the 3000+ Christian sects deserved the same fate (I'd have something to say about murder being a natural extension of freedom of religion... whatever) Why did it not happen? Man, you nail Isaiah 5:20 perfectly... people criticize,, attack, persecute and mock us, and we try to shut up others? So,do what you want, unleash your oh-so-Christian justified hate towards us(after all our founder lied)-we will shut up and not even defend ourselves, or we would be as wrong as Joseph
Oh, I forgot, dictionaries again There are two definitions given for cult, and both confirm that Mormons are a cult... Definition one includes "worship," and definition two is "A system of religious belief and worship." Do Mormons engage in worship? You bet they do! And do Mormons have "a system of religious belief and worship"? Yes.. mmm... seems like Catholics, Baptists, Pentecostals, JWs, 7th Day, whatever Church... well, is a CULT! Do you agree on that?
I accept a far more specific definition of cult: a group, religious (or sometimes political), that has a charismatic leader, adds to existing scripture or reinterprets it, tells members not to look beyond what it claims as fact, chastises members not to accept anything critical of their faith, treats no-members with aloofness, and essentially turns its back on members who leave the fold. I may expand on this definition later, but those are the bare bones of it.
Besides the fact that your definition runs counter to major dictionaries... as I said, the 1st part applies to a certain JESUS, too, whom you may know... Now, we do not tell members not to look beyond what it claims as fact (I would not be writing to you or studying extensively things outside the LDS doctrine)- those are the JW. We do not reprove members for this, only when they accept false doctrines and practices and choose to go against the Lord's word (do not other Churches do the same?)
So, besides the fact that you are trying to change the established dictionary definition of cult to fit your theory, either you do not know us, or mistake us for somebody else (like JW, I'd say), or try to deceive yourself: we do all we can, spending time, money, resources, talents and much more, to invite and reach and open the doors to non-members, we strive towards reactivation and retention in harmony with Jesus' lost sheep teachings and do all we can to invite those who leave to come back..
Are you sure you are not talking about the JW, with all due respect for their sincere faith, who fit the definition to a T? So, it seems clear to me there's no need to expand on something which does not exist. May I suggest you try a good Steak of Truth (taste it, it's free, and Living Water to go with it, too!) instead of roving at the bare bones that the enemy of all truth offers?
Please, turn your face towards the truth, towards your and mine God, talk to Him, do His will and you will see.
The others you mentioned are indeed cults. Remember, I was born Roman Catholic.
You teach that things happened on this continent which cannot be proven, things that are physically impossible to authenticate. In fact, there's no basis in fact for anything particular to Mormonism.
So, what Church do you belong to which is not a cult and fits Christ's NT Church, doctrines and organization? Why! Can Christ's Resurrection be phyisically proven? Are His miracles possible to authenticate today or should we use study, reason, logic AND faith and revelation from God and Gospel living to know for sure that they are indeed true? Are our doctrines like Tithing, marriage, temples, prayer, love, service, charity, respect, revelation, purity, chastity, fidelity etc. without any basis?
I try to counter your arguments without being sarcastic and inviting you to buy a dictionary, as an example, citing facts and history, and I am not being civil? Is sarcasm civil? Is justifying a killing, for whatever reason (did Joseph try to conquer America as an ante-litteram terrorist; were they justified in persecuting him and his people???), Christian and civil? Well, if that's what you think, you are free to do it...
Do not hide the truth, you may gain FREEDOM AND TRUTH (See John 8.32).
That people can believe in this rubbish is testament to their small-minded stupidity and naiveity.
kevinbreen 1 year ago
@kevinbreen This is just what our problem-free world needs. Bashing others about something we do not know nor understand. And there are no Mormon literates, or with a college degree, or with an open mind, or with intelligence and common sense, either, right? Why, why such inhuman comments?
Wehrheim04 1 year ago
Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God who represented Jesus Christ as His revelator of truth.
Anyone can come to know that Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God through the undeniable power of the Holy Spirit.
DefendingMormonism 2 years ago
And let the eternal creations declare his name forever and ever! And again I say, how glorious is the voice we hear from heaven, proclaiming in our ears, glory, and salvation, and honor, and immortality, and eternal life; kingdoms, principalities, and powers!
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
Let the mountains shout for joy, and all ye valleys cry aloud; and all ye seas and dry lands tell the wonders of your Eternal King! And ye rivers, and brooks, and rills, flow down with gladness. Let the woods and all the trees of the field praise the Lord; and ye solid rocks weep for joy! And let the sun, moon, and the morning stars sing together, and let all the sons of God shout for joy!
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
Brethren, shall we not go on in so great a cause? Go forward and not backward. Courage, brethren; and on, on to the victory! Let your hearts rejoice, and be exceedingly glad. Let the earth break forth into singing. Let the dead speak forth anthems of eternal praise to the King Immanuel, who hath ordained, before the world was, that which would enable us to redeem them out of their prison; for the prisoners shall go free.
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
Now, what do we hear in the gospel which we have received? A voice of gladness! A voice of mercy from heaven; and a voice of truth out of the earth; glad tidings for the dead; a voice of gladness for the living and the dead; glad tidings of great joy. How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of those that bring glad tidings of good things, and that say unto Zion: Behold, thy God reigneth! As the dews of Carmel, so shall the knowledge of God descend upon them!
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
THE ends of the earth shall inquire after thy name, and fools shall have thee in derision, and hell shall rage against thee;
While the pure in heart, and the wise, and the noble, and the virtuous, shall seek counsel, and authority, and blessings constantly from under thy hand.
And thy people shall never be turned against thee by the testimony of traitors.
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truth; and thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever.
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven...
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
That the fulness of my gospel might be proclaimed by the weak and the simple unto the ends of the world, and before kings and rulers.
Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
The weak things of the world shall come forth and break down the mighty and strong ones, that man should not counsel his fellow man, neither trust in the arm of flesh...
That faith also might increase in the earth;
That mine everlasting covenant might be established;
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
Wherefore, I the Lord, knowing the calamity which should come upon the inhabitants of the earth, called upon my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and spake unto him from heaven, and gave him commandments;
And also gave commandments to others, that they should proclaim these things unto the world; and all this that it might be fulfilled, which was written by the prophets—
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
Therefore, fear not, little flock; do good; let earth and hell combine against you, for if ye are built upon my rock, they cannot prevail.Behold, I do not condemn you; go your ways and sin no more; perform with soberness the work which I have commanded you.
Look unto me in every thought; doubt not, fear not.
Behold the wounds which pierced my side, and also the prints of the nails in my hands and feet; be faithful, keep my commandments, and ye shall inherit the kingdom of heaven. Amen.
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
Verily, verily, I say unto you, as I said unto my disciples, where two or three are gathered together in my name, as touching one thing, behold, there will I be in the midst of them—even so am I in the midst of you.
Fear not to do good, my sons, for whatsoever ye sow, that shall ye also reap; therefore, if ye sow good ye shall also reap good for your reward.
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
And faith, hope, charity and love, with an eye single to the glory of God, qualify him for the work.
Remember faith, virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, brotherly kindness, godliness, charity, humility, diligence.
Ask, and ye shall receive; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. Amen.
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
O ye that embark in the service of God, see that ye serve him with all your heart, might, mind and strength, that ye may stand blameless before God at the last day.
Therefore, if ye have desires to serve God ye are called to the work;
For behold the field is white already to harvest; and lo, he that thrusteth in his sickle with his might, the same layeth up in store that he perisheth not, but bringeth salvation to his soul;
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
Also, the concept was considered 'scientific fact' by many at the time. William Herschel, the discoverer of the planet Uranus, died in 1822. Herschel argued "[w]ho can say that it is not extremely probable, nay beyond doubt, that there must be inhabitants on the Moon of some kind or another?" Furthermore, "he thought it possible that there was a region below the Sun's fiery surface where men might live, and he regarded the existence of life on the Moon as 'an absolute certainty.'"
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
A word from Acts, linked to John 7:17, which may give you a yardstick for your research: "And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:
But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God" (Acts 5:35-36).
In the end, you have nothing (or everything) to worry: if the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS is false and of men, it will come to naught. Wait, or act.
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
Sorry if I ask, but I still do not understand nor see WHY are you so angry with our Church, or our founder, or our teachings? Have somebody offended or hurt you? Why studying us in order to criticize us? Why losing your precious time on this? Are we so bothering? Are our beliefs so offensive? If you need to research something, why not with the purpose to learn something positive and useful, something true, maybe, to become better, or to serve better. Why not?
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
I am loathe to see people so misled by something so patently false. That should offend you, too. You show me a good Mormon and I'l show you someone who doesn't know their own history. You've only gotten half of the story, I'm sorry to say.
You're now playing the we-don't-attack-you-so-why-are-you-attacking-us card. You need look no farther than the First Vision to see what the church maintains about everyone else.
moparmonster1965 3 years ago
What I loathe is to see people accusing others to be misled by something they do not even try to know for themselves, let alone ask of God and without considering all evidences to the contrary. I have answered each and all of your often shallow points, and now I'm playing the we-don't-attack-you-so-why-are -you-attacking-us card? You need look no farther than YouTube to see what the churches maintains about us in a 1000-1 ratio. Victims... whatever.
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
Joseph wanted only to know which Church to join among those then existing, he did not want to create another one. He just did what all should do: James 1:5, and our Church is the result. What have we done wrong? Whom have we perseuted? Again, just look at the Web, or go to any confession. How many Anti-Mormons are there? And how many Mormon anti-whatever? Have you ever heard bashink other confessions from our pulpits? I didn't. Actions speak louder than works, and this is proof enough.
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
If you want to have a discussion, that's fine, but you posted 29 responses, which I can't possibly answer all of and still get sleep. PM me or something.
moparmonster1965 3 years ago
OK, I have no problem with that. Sorry, but your points needed to be answered exhaustively and not superficially, and you know we are allowed 500 characters at a time here, so... It'll be better for me, too, since I have 3 little children and need some rest, sometimes!
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
Joseph Smith said that there are men living on the moon who dress like Quakers and live to be nearly 1000 years old. Since he was wrong about the moon, is it safe to trust him regarding the way to heaven? (See The Young Womans Journal, Vol 3, pages 263, 264.)
johnyjamie 3 years ago
You know, it's so sad to see a good Christian like you, with a nice family (I have small children, too), showing such an un-Christian behavior. Need some Bible verses about not judging others, even to the point of belittling other people's beliefs? Sorry, but, maybe, you should read the Good Book better.
Why! Copying a rumor from fourth-hand anti-Mormon intellectually dishonest sources to make your point. How sad, too! Is this what the Bible teaches us?
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
The source for this claim is not Joseph Smith himself; the first mention comes in 1881 in Oliver B. Huntington's journal, who claimed that he had the information from Philo Dibble. So, we have a late, third-hand account of something Joseph is supposed to have said...
Even if it turned out that the prophet held these views, nowhere does scripture suggest that a prophet is not allowed to speculate about things that haven't been revealed.
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
Many people during the Nineteenth Century, both the learned and not-so-learned, were speculating on this subject. Joseph Smith's personal opinions and what he taught as revealed doctrine, however, are two entirely different things. The idea that he taught it as a revealed doctrine is based upon Oliver B. Huntington's fifty-year-old, correct or incorrect memory of his blessing, and a rumor that was current in 1881.
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
Prophets and believers are products of their time. Biblical authors, for example, clearly accepted a geocentric cosmos, with a flat earth and heavens supported by four pillars. Like the authors of the Bible, modern prophets are generally beholden to their era's scientific concepts, except where corrections in those concepts are needed to permit the gospel to be understood and applied (from fairwiki).
What about some Scriptures revealed to Joseph by the Lord. Could you write the same?
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
Signs of the true Church: Doctrines and works of a Church that show it is approved by God and is the means the Lord has established for his children to gain the fulness of his blessings. Some of the signs of the true Church are as follows: Correct understanding of the Godhead; First principles and ordinances; Revelation; Prophets; Authority; Additional Scriptures to come forth; Organization; Missionary Work; Spiritual gifts; Temples... and on and on and on. Quite a coincidence.
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
The problem with the Godhead is that the BOM clearly states that all are one God. The trap door "united in purpose" is found nowhere in the BOM. The statement of the Three Witnesses is very clear. The rest of that nonsense ceased being important when Jesus said "It is finished." He didn't say "It's almost done." Or "You're almost there."
moparmonster1965 3 years ago
Yes, but you must harmonize the 'one God' phrase with what all other Scriptures, Bible included, teach - i.e. that the Godhead is one in some senses, but not One person, for that makes no sense, even in the Bible. Did Christ pray to Himself, crying 'Eli, Eli' to Himself, asking the bitter cup to be removed to Himself and then saying 'My own will be done'? Jesus said 'It's finished', and with all other sacred words pronounces on that facteful cross, He was speaking to His Abba, His Dad!
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
Regarding Catholicism post:
True, Catholicism is far from the NT Jesus, but then again, so is Mormonism. I don't think Catholicism has many positive points. They emphasize guilt, penance, and works.
moparmonster1965 3 years ago
Well, is our Jesus (I suppose you are familiar with Professor Millet's work) and the Church are so supposedly different from the NT ones, what about Catholic, Protestant, Pentecostal, JW etc. churches, organization and theology? Seems like a race to determine who has run the furthest away from the Church Christ established...
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
True, and I'd guess the winner would be either LDS or Jehovah's Witnesses.
moparmonster1965 3 years ago
Ah ah, very funny, indeed. What about another joke, in a biblical tone? In this race, the first you mentioned will be last, and the last will be... Well, I won't say last, I do not like this kind of reasoning. Again, what an irony: the Lord's Church would be first in a race to determine who has run the furthest away from the Church Christ established. If Christ's Church is the furthest from Christ's Church, I would begin to worry, indeed.
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
The RLDS now calls themselves Community of Christ, so the name alone is meaningless. Jehovah's Witnesses use the pre-mortal name of Jesus so they must be right too, then. In the Bible, Jesus hung out with the lowest of humanity: the beggars, the lepers, the tax collectors, the prostitutes. A church is anywhere Christians gather and worship, not a building of stone and mortar.
moparmonster1965 3 years ago
Sure, it's meaningless even if Christ said it is not, even in the Bible. You are trying to fit definitions for your own comfort, but, you know, not all roads lead to Rome... The church is NOT ONLY anywhere Christians gather and worship, not necessarily a building, sure, but it has to follow Christ's rules and organization, not yours, not mine. Sorry, but your view is close to what 90% of Italian Catholics believe - do what you want, just 'be good'... and the results are appalling, I tell you.
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
Which JUSTIFY THE WICKED for reward, AND TAKE AWAY THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE RIGHTEOUS from him!" (Isaiah 5:20-23). Quite clear, isn't it.
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
Today, we would call this kind of unequal assault a 'lynching', isn't it? He had (or said he haid, OK) a vision, he established a new religion and so on... reason enough to kill him, to persecute him and his family and the Mormon people, raping women, burning homes and temples, that's reason enough for all of these HISTORICAL atrocities? And he would, therefore, responsible for all of this? So, these people were justified in doing this, according to your reasoning? Just 'consequences', you say?
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
You're puttin g words in my mouth and assuming I hold positions that I don't. None of those things are right, no matter what. I was referring Smith only.
moparmonster1965 3 years ago
Well, since you started advocating the fact that Joseph was not a martyr, implying he killed someone, too (and I replied you on that) and that he started the process that led to his death somewhat apologetically for the murderers... Well, if I misinterpreted you real thoughts, forgive me. I was wrong. I don't like the judge-race sports!
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
I never claimed that he deserved to be killed, only that his actions were the direct result thereof. That said, a murder victim, yes; a martyr, no.
moparmonster1965 3 years ago
OK, sorry for the misunderstanding, but since Joseph was surely a witness of Christ (whether you agree or not with his work), and given the definition of 'martyr' as s.o. who witnessed of his faith, bravely bearing persecutions and tortures, even until violent death; who bears great pains and sufferings, even unto the giving of his own life, in order to defend an ideal or cause...
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
I'm going to assume you're referring to the First Vision here. Are you aware that there are at least four different versions? And that it wasn't even in print until some 18 years later?
moparmonster1965 3 years ago
Well, I know all of that. Covered as extensively as possible... What about applying this measure to and discarding Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus? What about discarding, at least, all the 4 Gospels, written several years after Christ's death? What about accepting the BoM, abridged by Mormon from plates written when the events therein were actually happening, almost in real time? What about accepting the revelations of the D&C, written in real-revelation time? Does time change truth?
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
I would answer that by telling you to refer to the first edition of any of your standard works if you want to see how they've changed. D&C has seen large swaths of text added to it over the years, quietly and without fanfare, as if the church were trying to make things seem more seamless than they really were...
moparmonster1965 3 years ago
Got them all... never heard of editorial revisions... how many did the Bible go through? 100, 1000, 10000? Never heard that when you dictate several pages, it is easy to do mistakes, omit commas, write with a bad calligraphy? That's why we had to correct the original manuscripts, that are still here and you can see them, if you want. As for the D&C, your point is senseless: 1) It is a collection of revelations, continuous revelations, so it has to be enlarged from time to time...
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
perfect, he'd use good grammar, right? We know that the BOM is a literal translation and we know that it was lead by God. I can prove that the printer didn't change the manuscript he produced and that Nepji, Moroni, and Mormon were lead by God in their respective roles in the book's publishing.
What does that leave you? The possiblities are that God is an idiot (which we'll both agree isn't true), or that a barely literate Joseph Smith wrote the BOM, claiming divinity.
moparmonster1965 3 years ago
Ever tried to write a dictation 500 pages long in 65 days? Even if I dictated perfectly, with a Vittorio Gassman-reading- quality, you would still do some mistakes, especially if I did not tell you where to put commas and other punctation and if you were not an English PhD.
"And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ".
So, could JS write the BoM?What does that leave you?
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
Do you understand that we're not talking about a period here and a capitalization there? We're talking about major grammatical revision of misspellings, improper word usage, and even on two occasions the wrong name being used. Did you now that WERE has been changed to WAS 15+ times? And WERE to WAS 22+ times? And IS to ARE 16+ times? And A removed from the text at least 13 times? It makes sense that if God is perfect, he'd use good grammar, right? The 1830 BOM makes God sound like a moron.
moparmonster1965 3 years ago
Wow, and what doctrine 'were' and 'was' represent? Maybe like: "And now my brethren, if ye were (was?) righteous and were (was?)willing to hearken to the truth, and give heed unto it, that ye might walk uprightly before God, then ye would not murmur because of the truth, and say: Thou speakest hard things against us" (1 Nephi 16.3).
If you'd like, the BoM manuscripts are available and there are several good books answering this issue.
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
Now I start to believe that you are not even Christian and that I was mistaken from the beginning... since your poor and totally spineless argument would totally destroy the Bible, too. You are speaking about changes in doctrine, and you come up with prepositions... God IS perfect, I hope you know that, but He works through us, and we are NOT perfect, I hope you know it, and writing a 500+-page book in 65 days with third grade education... well, makes me wonder if your points are honest or not.
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
2) Again, either you do not know yet, or you forgot... without fanfare??? Never heard of the law of common consent in our Church? We use it every time, even to sustain the new Primary teacher in our branch... go figure for new revelations or Scriptures! Seamless, or hidden, you might say... all the contrary: all revelations and official declarations have always been PUBLIC and have to sustained by MEMBERS of the Church during PUBLIC meetings. So much for this, too.
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
And that's the problem with this point: the church has very quietly changed the texts without said fanfare. Common consent has nothing to do with this; it's an attempt to make the scriptures more succinct without drawing any attention to itself. That's why there have been no public declarations, no announcements, and no notice. These aren't new revelations; they're revising the old ones. Take the oldest BOM you can find and compare it to the newest you can find.
moparmonster1965 3 years ago
...who completely devotes himself to something, bearing great trials and sacrifices,who is forced to be abused, ill-treated and the like, and given the fact that he was persecuted even as a youth, before founding the Church in 1830... I thought he fits perfectly the definition of 'martyr'. I do not see anything he made or said so serious as to deserve to be tarred, feathered, mobbed and finally killed. Anyway, each one is free to have his opinions, that's for sure.
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
Wow, I'm suprised by the glossing over of the reasons that Smith was in jail. Shocking.
moparmonster1965 3 years ago
Yea, shocking indeed, but there was not enough time to add all the legal and human misdeeds perpetraded against the Saints and the Prophet... false charges, frauds, accusations, false promises by the Governor of Illinois, cold blood murder by tens of mobbing people with black-painted faces of 2 innocent prisoners still in wait of the sentence for a process based on false allegations... it would take a 10-hour documentary to present the facts behind the Prophet and his brother's martyrdom...
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
You need to invest in a dictionary. Smith doesn't fit into the role of martyr no matter how you shape the argument.
You're just playing the typical Mormon victim role to gain sympathy.
"...with a firm, quick step, and a determined expression of countenance, approached the door, and pulling a six-shooter...from his pocket...and snapped the pistol six successive times... I sfterwards understood that two or three were wounded...two of whom I am informed died." (HOTC Vol 7 p 100-103)
moparmonster1965 3 years ago
Wow, that's a good example of going the 'extra mile' to break Jesus' commandment in Matthew 7:1! You speak and you do not know what you say, and I need to forgive you, as the same Jesus said we should do, but to help you not to commit this transgression again, please let me inform you that I have at least 10 dictionaries in my home, of various languages... and the first point is cleared, I guess.
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
Second, I make appeal to your (at least) intellectual honesty: if two of the most authorative dictionaries of the English and Italian language, namely the Merriam-Webster and the De Mauro-Paravia, don't get it wrong, 'martyr', from the Greek meaning 'WITNESS' (by the way, Joseph Smith witnessed of Jesus Christ all of his life, and this cost him his life... so, 1st strike), has the following definitions, which you should read carefully, and I would not even need to tell you their implications:
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
De Mauro-Paravia:
During the first centuries of Christianity, s.o. who witnessed of his faith, bravely bearing persecutions and tortures, even until violent death.
2 s.o. who bears great pains and sufferings, even unto the giving of his own life, in order to defend an ideal or cause.
3 s.o. who completely devotes himself to something, bearing great trials and sacrifices.
4 s.o. suffering for serious physical illnesses | s.o. who is forced to be abused, ill-treated and the like.
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
Merriam-Webster:
1: a person who voluntarily suffers death as the penalty of witnessing to and refusing to renounce a religion
2: a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principle
3: VICTIM ; especially : a great or constant sufferer <a martyr to asthma all his life —
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
The problem with your having cited this as support for your claim is that when Smith began to shoot back at his attackers, he was obviously not a voluntary sufferer. He wanted to live as would any of us in that situation.
Smith wasn't a victim, but rather a man who was suffering the consequences of events that he himself put into motion.
moparmonster1965 3 years ago
Well, as the dictionary says, there's no need to be a voluntary sufferer to be named a 'Martyr', or Witness. You are right, he wanted to live, as all of us want to, but he was 'prevented', to use an euphemism!!! :((
He had been mobbed and attacked for many years, just because he believed in something different, and finally they managed to kill him, tens of murderers against 4 man in a jail, which tried to defend themselves with what weapons they had...
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
So, if my reading skills have not completely vanished during my university studies, EACH AND EVERY SINGLE of EACH of these 2 indipendent, authoritative dictionaries confirms, oh no, WITNESSES that Joseph Smith, however you shape the argument, the grammar or the language, WAS a martyr in all senses of the word.
Well, it seems dictionaries are on the side of TRUTH (I am grateful for that when I have to do some research for my studies!) and not of FALSE WITNESSES and SLANDER...
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
As for your last point, repeated over and over again without even reflecting on it for a second... I am no Mormon victim (well, that's easy to offend someone and then, when he reacts, call him a victim... in psychology, this wrong way of communicating is called 'double bind', as Bateson and Watzlawick called it), I have not sympathy as my end and I ask you the following:
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
That's exactly what you're trying to do: paint yourself and your faith in the unenviable light of being persecuted and misunderstood. I'm fluent in Mormon and you can't fool me with the church's double-speak and Christian terminology with different meanings.
moparmonster1965 3 years ago
I do not like painting... especially when there's no need to. Well, as HISTORY puts it, Mormons HAVE been persecuted and misunderstood. Seems like they had to go through half of America to Salt Lake Valley to escape all of that... Luckily, today only the 2nd part is true!
Again, dictionaries aren't Mormon or Catholic or whatever, they're just plain DICTIONARIES. Read 'persecution' and 'martyr' and judge for yourself...
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
Who's fooling anyone? Is citing the Lord's words and facts fooling around? I just answered factually your points, isn't it? I certainly do not double-speak and, sorry, I am not as fluent in 'Christian' terminology as to be able to double-speak... I am a plain 'Mormon' from Italy, just trying to set the records and the words straight.
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
Here's the crux of the problem: most people don't understand the language that Mormons collectively use, but I do. For example, I'll refer specifically to Jesus. What Mormons don't tell outsiders is that you're taught he is an exhalted being and that man can be a god like him. That the Godhead is one god in purpose only in Mormonism is another thing that's not widely known. Things like that.
Your using God's word is a selective affair at best, cherry picking through the Bible and BOM.
moparmonster1965 3 years ago
Well, we do not teach it at the beginning, sure, but we do tell it at one point. After all, isn't exaltation one of our 'main' peculiar doctrines. I don't know what happens in the US, but here we tell it, just as surely as the Godhead matter (we're in Italy - Catholic Church - Trinity... sure you understand the problem!).
I like cherries, but not word ones. Is using the exact answer to an issue cherry-picking, like the Joseph Martyr-Carthage mob affair?
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
Is that cherry picking? No, it's me using Mormon literature to find the information to support my position. I'm reading my copy of the BOM student manual and it does exactly the same thing, even going so far as to quote extensively from a book that it supposedly distances itself from: McConkie's Mormon Doctrine. I find that the book also uses many quotes from the Bible that don't even apply. Gosepel Principles does the same thing, too.
moparmonster1965 3 years ago
Well, Mormon Doctrine is certainly controversial for some points, but it's clear and useful for others, and when it is, we use it, even for Institute manuals, so what's the issue? Manuals are useful for our lessons (I'm Sunday School president in my branch, so I know something about them!), but not the summum bonum, and they may contain, as they do, quotes and references to deepen the lesson and study the subject further, maybe even if they do not fit perfectly the lesson at hand.
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
When I use Mormon Doctrine, all I hear is the mantra "It's not doctrine, it's not doctrine." Okay, but why would the church use the very same book as support for things that are considered doctrine, especailly given the fact that it was neither authorized, nor commissioned by the church? That doesn't make sense. It's a double standard; when I use it, it's wrong and not doctrine, but when the church uses it, it's perfectly fine.
moparmonster1965 3 years ago
Well, the fact is, and I am sure you are aware of that, that even some GA's were not so at ease with some of Elder McConkie's stances, and Mormon Doctrine, though considered a 'classic', is certainly not as authorative as other manuals. As Sunday School president, I know that we should not use other materials than Scriptures, manuals and the Ensign/Liahona. I would not use MD, but only for personal study. Our doctrine comes from Scriptures and living prophets and apostles, not MD.
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
Agreed on all counts here, but again, why would the church quote something so extensively that isn't correct? If the apostles speak for the same God that the prophet does, why would he permit such erroneous tripe to be condoned by them?
moparmonster1965 3 years ago
True indeed, for the Church does NOT quote in official teachings or manuals those MD entries not in full harmony with the Church doctrine. As you know, Elder McConkie was adamant in his witness of Christ, but sometimes he expressed merely his personal opinions. Furthermore, you should know that ONLY the Prophet and president of the Church is authorized to declare the official doctrine of the Church.
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
Yet God allowed McConkie to publish the book inspite of that fact that it might mislead Mormons. If you shoot a shotgun, chances are, you'll hit something. Same with MD, chances are, he'd be right about something, sure, but how do you discern between that which is right and that which is wrong?
Adolf Hitler said that the best way of getting someone to swallow a lie is to put it between two truths.
moparmonster1965 3 years ago
Well, God allows terrorists to attack our cities, and children to die, and porn movies to be produced... I am a member of the church and I am free just like any apostle to do whatever I want: it's called free agency! Each will face the consequences of his words, thoughts and actions, anyway! Your argument about McConkie being 'allowed' is as shallow as anything I ever heard, really. Come on...
By the way, MD will not be a doctrinal constitution, but to say it 'misleads' us is a bit too much!!
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
How do you discern between that which is right and that which is wrong? Revelation through the Holy Ghost, maybe??? Just like with any other thing, maybe?? Just as you might know for sure that Christ's Church and authority is again on the Earth? What greater knowledge can you have than from God? The best way of getting someone to swallow a lie is to put it between two truths, just like politicians, false prophets and churches and Satan do. I would add to say half the truth...
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
Furthermore, your point is fallacious, since it misuses a word 'lie',l which does not apply to MD. Not to be official doctrine does not mean to be a lie. A lie is something which runs totally contrary to the Scriptures and to the official declarations of our Prophets and apostles, a false doctrine, we might say, and this is certainly not the case... So much for this, again. There would be so many treasures to learn and we are still wandering in shallow and supposed accusations and wrongs, why?
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
So, that's no tripe at all, and the personal opinions of any of our 15 prophets, seers and revelators are never passed as official declarations of doctrine, as shown by the fact, for example, that we do not use MD in our Gospel Doctrine classes as a manual. When it is useful, we use it to deepen our understanding, when it is not, we do not use it. There are really a few books accepted as official Church publications, and some are listed in Preach My Gospels, for example. So much for that.
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
That's simply says that Monson's words are nothing but farts in an empty room, since they're not doctrine.
"The Lord will never allow the President of the Vhurch to lead us astray." (Gospel Principles, P. 50)
This goes back to cherry-picking. Either the prophet speaks the word of god or he doesn't. I'm not talking about when he tells his wife "Pass the salt," either. When he's inspired to speak of god, that's revelation and/or doctrine.
moparmonster1965 3 years ago
1) My congratulations for the elegant language... I'll pass over it, anyway. 2)'The personal opinions of any of our 15 prophets, seers and revelators are never passed as official declarations of doctrine'. I said 'PERSONAL OPINIONS', not official declarations, for those are Scripture to us! HE SPEAKS THE WILL OF GOD when he speaks officially to the Church, like in GC, but not when he has an interview with the SL Tribune, for example!
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
You are surely not familiar with D&C 1 and with the Institute Religion 333 student manual, among other things, or you wouldn't even have lost your time with such an empty argument.
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
And you are right about the fact that it was neither authorized, nor commissioned by the church. Elder McConkie being the author, and the book resembling a great, authorative encycolpedia of LDS doctrine, it soon became and still is a classic, widely read, but I must say seldom quoted, say, during General Conferences. It's certainly useful, but that's not OFFICIAL LDS Doctrine 100%, and you know that. We do not have double standards. When MD is wrong, it's wrong, and when it's right, it's right
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
You're leaving the door open to cherry pick through MD, like the church does with everything else. You want to say some things are correct and some things aren't. Why would God permit such things to be published in his name that were wrong or misleading? That makes absoultely no sense.
moparmonster1965 3 years ago
Yes, we can cherry pick in good books to get only those parts that are useful and in full harmony with the official doctrine of the Church, and, as I said, only few books are accepted as official Church publications, after passing long and careful revisions by the Correlation Committee. MD is not one of them, so it has not 'been published in God's name'. You criticize MD without reason, and then you criticize our Scriptures which are, instead, from God. That makes absolutely no sense to me.
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
You've just contradicted what you said in the post above. Since you brought it up, your canon is actually meaningless because if the Bible isn't correct, it shouldn't be accepted, should it? That otherwise makes no sense. MD has been used by the church to support its standard works, effectively undermining your argument for that which is canonized.
moparmonster1965 3 years ago
You have been shown to be wrong many times, even by dictionaries, and I would be contradicting myself? 'If the Bible isn't correct, it shouldn't be accepted, should it?' If it were 100% wrong, you omitted (what about half truths here?). If there were just 10 correct verses in the whole Bible, and there are thousands more indeed, we would accept those and the Bible would be, say, 1% correct...
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
So, since the Bible is just slightly imperfect or incomplete, we accept is as a Standard Work. No need to remind you our 8th Article of Faith, isn't it? MD has been used to support the understanding of our SW, just like other manuals and books and commentaries, with no pretense of being an official publication of the Church. It's just been considered more 'classic' than other books for diverse reasons. Canonization and books written even by Prophets are 2 different things, and you know it.
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
Furthermore, the Church does NEVER let the door open to cherry pick through its official publications, so God NEVER allows to publish wrong or misleading things in His name. Let me assure you we are very strict in this regard. But with other books, they are not 100% 'molten gold', as we say in Italy, otherwise the Church would hold as official publications 1000s of titles, and this is not the case. Yes, some things are correct, and others are mere personal opinions, even if from GA's or leaders.
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
You're wrong there and that's the reason the Eighth Article of Faith. If I use something that doesn't confirm your views, you'll simply tell me it's wrong, but you can freely pick and choose what you feel supports your argument.
moparmonster1965 3 years ago
Let's rephrase: If people use something which is not in harmony with the full view of the Gospel we have through the Restoration, we say it has some problems. The Bible alone is totally insufficient to definitively ground the whole Gospel with clarity, and the proof are the thousands of Churches teaching thousands of different and conflicting doctrines, all from the same Bible!!! We do not pick, we feast at the Scriptural banquet the Lord offers us and you, too.
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
If someone attacked you and your family, would you defend yourself and your loved ones, even with force if necessary (not that I am favorable to weapons, all the contrary, but let's suppose), or would you just be killed? The Prophet and his 3 friends were jailed under false accusations and betrayed by the false promises of a US Governor, then killed by a mob of tens of black-faced men (that's Christian indeed, very fair), and they just tried to defend themselves with what small weapons they had.
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
Oh, according to you, thay just had to open the door to the mob and say: 'Oh, please kill us, please, kill myself, my beloved brother Hyrum and my dear friends Willard and John. We can't wait to have the honor of tasting your bullets'.
Shame on everyone who accuses innocent victims anywhere in the world, in every age, of being violent just because they try to defend themselves from vicious attacks and abuses.
In the strong words of THE LORD, through Isaiah:
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
Which JUSTIFY THE WICKED for reward, AND TAKE AWAY THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE RIGHTEOUS from him!" (Isaiah 5:20-23).
If you want to know the truth, study it, believe, and live it, and you will see (John 7:17). Ask God in the name of Christ, and He will answer you!
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
Wow, I touched a nerve, didn't I?
moparmonster1965 3 years ago
Wow, you are great at hiding the fact that I striked out each and all of your contentious arguments, using your same tools: dictionaries you thought I should buy, words whose meaning you did not understand and so on... As a psychology student, let me assure you that if you indeed touched my emotional nerves, I would have reacted with rage and disgust, whilst I answered RATIONALLY and FACTUALLY all your fallacious arguments... Truth is hard to swallow, but it's the only thing that makes us free!
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
"O, my beloved brethren, give ear to my words. Remember the greatness of the Holy One of Israel. Do not say that I have spoken hard things against you; for if ye do, ye will revile against the truth; for I have spoken the words of your Maker. I know that the words of truth are hard against all uncleanness; but the righteous fear them not, for they love the truth and are not shaken" (2 Nephi 9:40).
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
Which JUSTIFY THE WICKED for reward, AND TAKE AWAY THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE RIGHTEOUS from him!" (Isaiah 5:20-23)".
You did not touch any nerve at all. This is THE LORD's answer to your contention about Joseph's martyrdom and his innocence vs the murderous mob.
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
"If his claims and declarations were built upon fraud and deceit, there would appear many errors and contradictions, which would be easy to detect. (Doctrines of Salvation, Joseph Fielding Smith, 1954, 1:188)
I can do this with nothing but your own works. Your cockiness isn't very Christian, but if want to discuss this, be civil and read carefully. Check my sources, too. I have nothing to hide and nothing to gain here.
moparmonster1965 3 years ago
Right, tell me where fraud and deceit, errors and contradictions lie, or, better, why don't you ask God, the Eternal Father, what HE HIMSELF thinks of the matter? Or, another choice, watch for the fruits of his work, tell me which doctrines you find offensive... charity? service? temples? the Priesthood? Family Home Evening? Word of Wisdom? Tithing? Scripture study? Law of chastity? Articles of Faith?
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
Which would you like first? There's a lot of material to cover and this will probably be the first time you've heard about any of it.
I never used the word offensive, I said wrong, as in incorrect. And since English isn't your native language, if I say something you don't understand, don't hesitate to ask for clarification before we move on.
moparmonster1965 3 years ago
Well, let's start, I'm curious. I've read tons of anti-material since my conversion to Christ's Church... After all, I live in Italy, where we have a scanalous state-Church situation since... centuries ago!!!
Yes, I do not have perfect English (Italian neither!), but I'm a translator. I'll ask, anyway, if necessary... you have so many vocabulary in comparison to Italian...
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
Yes, English is based largely on Latin with some German influence.
And I grew up strict Roman Catholic, so I understand what you mean there. Since you weren't born LDS, I assume you grew up Catholic, too. The only religion I know more about than Catholicism is Mormonism. I think we'll both agree that the Catholic Church is wholly incorrect and bastardizes existing text for its own benefit.
Is there anything else you'd like to cover? I want to be on equal footing here.
moparmonster1965 3 years ago
Well, I am a perfect example of all the bad sides of Catholicism: namely, I was obviously baptized as an infant (I guess you are familiar with Mormon 8, in this regard), and then... nothing, since my parent were and are not religious. Tradition, as Tevye said!. 90% of Italian are this kind of Catholic, and 10% are 'real' practicing Catholics, the rest goes to Church on Christmas and Easter. So, I was kind of agnostic when I met the LDS Church. I like to talk about religion and to learn more.
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
I was baptised, went to catechism, was confirmed, and even went to Catholic school for a while. Most Catholics are the same way here: only religious on Sundays and holidays. They worship saints, Mary, and do worthless repetitive prayer. You're not going to sit, stand, and kneel your way to Heaven.
moparmonster1965 3 years ago
Well, we agree on that. We could spend lots of time talking about the great distance of the Catholic Church from the NT Church of Christ, both in doctrine and organization, but I guess this is not our point and, besides, I prefer to talk about positive aspects of each confession, when comparing and sharing with other people. I leave to each one the liberty to believe what they may, even 'strange' doctrines, it's up to them. I share, they share, you share.
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
By the way, which Church do you belong to? If you do not want to tell, no problem. As I said, I will not in any way detract from what you believe or create spiteful discussions. I really hate that, but I like to talk about religion. I'd rather have a problem with hard-core atheists... What's your position on that? How do you see Dawkins, Dennett and company?
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
So, you bear false witness and make sarcastic comments about how 'shocking' the video is, invoking even dictionaries which, in turn, discount your words, and I answer rationally, with FACTS and dictionary definitions, and I would be showing cockiness? I am the one who's not Christian? You say Joseph was killed as a consequence of his work (where's this kind of killing justified in Scripture?) and thereby defend his murderers, and I am not Christian?
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
Was I initially be sarcastic? Yes, I was. If you want to debate, however, that's fine and I won't use that tone.
Do I advocate murder, even that of Smith? No, I don't. If he were going to be executed, he should've been tried first because vigilante justice is fickle at best.
That said, your facts are what the church feeds you.
moparmonster1965 3 years ago
Well, I am relieved, at least! I am glad when people can talk and discuss openly to learn one from another and not to bash. Just in case, I'm open to learning about anything, from religion to science, sports, nature... whatever your interests are. I do not like debate that much, since it usually gives no positives and just make people contend, sometimes vehemently. I'd like 'civil and honest interchange of ideas' better. I guess we can make it.
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
While I am against Mormonism, I find that the people themselves are most often hardworking, honest, and generous people. My problem isn't with you as people; it's with the lies that the church tells, the revisions in its own history, its assertions based on a nonexistant history.
I don't make personal attacks, I don't make assumptions about what you believe, and I don't take things out of context to deliberately misrepresent them. And I'll always cite my sources for you to confirm.
moparmonster1965 3 years ago
OK, that's fine with me, even if I still do not understand why people have so much agains us... I love to read and study Church History, and I do not see any lies or hypocrite revisions. Mistakes of men, yes, lies and deceit, no. I live the Gospel every day, I am an avid student, I am training as a psychologist (so, lies, illusions and deceits are my daily bread) and the fruits of the Restored Gospel, together with God's Spirit, testify to me of its truth, notwithstanding human weaknesses.
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
"I asked the Personages...which (church) I should join. I was answered 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..." (JS-History, 1:18-20)
As far as I'm concerned, that's the exact same approach that the Catholic Church uses: we are right and everyone else is wrong. That's also the reason why a lot of people don't like or trust Mormons.
moparmonster1965 3 years ago
I know this point, but consider this: if you were a father, and you gave counsels and informations about life and your nature, to your children, so that they may be happy and peaceful, while they live far from you, and someone came and changed those counsels, so that your children now follow wrong paths and suffer unnecessary pains, not even having a correct idea of who you are, thus being unable to get help from you... wouldn't you be indignated with what these people did?
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
Yes, I agree, but that doesn't apply here when what you believe has been fabricated and is evolving even as we speak.
moparmonster1965 3 years ago
1)What I believe has certainly not been fabricated, unless you believe the unbelievable stories about the Bom being a copy of Spaulding etc. If you really read the BoM, and even more the D&C, how can you justify Joseph writing or copying such works, given his circumstances, his education, the testimonies about his work, and the fruits thereof?
2) I do not believe in evolution, not even here... since it carries the idea of 'changing' from one thing to another, quite different thing.
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
No, I don't believe the BOM to be a blatant copy of any one source. Instead, it seems to lift liberally from the KJV, which we know JS had ready access to, and address concerns of his own day. Just because he was uneducated doesn't mean he was stupid. But his lack of education shows in the 1830 printing of the BOM with the utterly poor grammar, spelling, and word usage. It's obvious that the BOM cities were a reference to the Aztec, Mayan, and Toltec ruins, something the church perpetuates.
moparmonster1965 3 years ago
So, did Joseph copy from the KJV?... well, seems to me that quoting some chapters of Isaiah in a 500+ book and say it lifts liberally is quite an exaggeration. Besides that, the Bible is plagiarizing at its best, since many OT and NT passages quote previous passages or teachings. Where is the book of Alma in the KJV? Where 3 Nephi? Where Helaman? Where Moroni? Where 1000s of other BoM passages? Where is D&C 121 in the KJV, or other sections? As for the grammar, poor argument, already covered.
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
I never said he copied it. He lifted heavily from it, however, while answering the questions pertinent to his day: why doesn't God speak to us any more? Why aren't there modern prophets? It was also commonly believed that the American Indian was of Jewish ancestry in Smith's day, so he worked that in as well. That he was at least somewhat racist is also apparent. And then there's the cities that you now can't find. Doesn't it make sense that he was referring to the Mayan and Aztec ruins?
moparmonster1965 3 years ago
Well, in Italian 'lift' would be synonim to 'rob, or steal'. Jesus Himself, then, 'lifted' from the Old Testament many times and in several circumstances... As for the Indians, Jewish, racist and so on... this is as old an argument as my old table, answered millions of times... it seems the truth is hard to swallow, anyway, since falsity comes up so often again. Do a little research, and you'll find the answers. Better still, read the BoM and see if it's not inspired!
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
Racism has been already covered and answered plentifully enough by BoM scholars and, why! people are so obsessed about this nonexistant problem and did not care a penny about the abominable US society in the XIX and XX century, up until the 1970's, at least??? I have read and am in awe of Martin Luther King and I know something about the civil rights movement, KKK, the South etc. and still people keep their eyes on supposed racism among us?? I have many black friends and I hate this hypocrisy!
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
Some LDS doctrines have changed (but, why, what about the Old and New Testaments... what about prophets getting revelations in their time, adding or clarifying what previous prophets had taught? Did Moses take away from Noah? Did Noah receive revelation in order to free the Jews?) but no major one, for sure, and our theology has not transformed, or evolved, in another 'creature'. Simply put, as in the Bible, God speaks according to the needs of men on earth, in their time and circumstances.
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
In light of these, you then have a huge problem:
Now the decrees of God are unalterable (Alma 41:8)
For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing? (Mormon 9:9)
You can't quote the Bible and maintain that's its' corrupt at the same time.
moparmonster1965 3 years ago
Unalterable... sure, like the Law of Moses, isn't it? So, Adam was the 1st and last prophet, and you need to throw away Enoc, Noah, Moses, Ezekiel, Isaiah, Jeremiah and so on, since they all had additional revelations and taught additional truths, NOT DESTROYING the previous... 'Unalterable' by MEN, not by GOD. HE does not change, but His WORDS are adapted to His children's circumstances. The Bible is not all corrupt, as I said and as we teach (and you know it), just imperfect in some respects.
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
The BOM is clear about God not changing. It's also clear that what the church teaches isn't what it taught in years past.
If the Bible is corrupt, mistranslated, or missing many "plain and precious things," why did the church canonize it as is? Why not issue a version with the things that are correct?
moparmonster1965 3 years ago
God does not change, I said it, too: HE does not change; His WORDS are adapted to His children's circumstances, so something may change in time, just like it happened in the OT and in the NT as well!!! Simple, isn't it? So much for that, too. Why continue to clear out nonexistant problems and clear out our mind and heart with truth, instead? Wouldn't that be more interesting and useful for our life, for our families and society?
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
Then, as a matter of fact, how many Mormon sites are there which bash and criticize other Christian confessions, examining in every small detail all the faults, frauds, inconsistencies of their leaders, history and doctrine? And now, how many Anti-Mormon sites are there? How many Anti-Mormon YouTube videos and how many Anti-Christian Confessions YouTube videos made by Mormons?
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
I have no idea on any of those points, but they really have no effect on the discussion at hand.
moparmonster1965 3 years ago
We do not teach, and since my baptism I have never heard it taught, that other religions are bad and totally wrong and that we have nothing to learn from them. Quite the contrary! Even our beloved President Hinckley spoke recently in this regard, and that's why I am a proof of that: I study, respect and am interested in other confessions, I like to talk to their members, IF there's mutual respect, which, unfortunately, is not always the case towards me, not them, esp. with some confessions (JW).
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
The case in point here is that the tone of the church has changed over the years, but one single fact remains: either the church is or isn't correct. If it's right, everyone else is wrong. If it's wrong, the question is then who, if anyone, is right?
The church has tried and partially succeeded in portraying itself as a sect of mainstream Christianity. They've renounced polygamy, accepted blacks into the priesthood, and use Christian terminology extensively.
moparmonster1965 3 years ago
Well, that's THE point: either God is, or He isn't. And if He is, either there's a Church, or organization, recognized and authorized and headed by Him (or His Representative-Son), or there isn't. And if there is, there can be ONLY ONE, but how shall one know which one? By reasoning? Going to Harvard Divinity? Opinion Polls? Majority? Tradition? The Bible alone? All have been tried, and you know the results...
We do not detract from any tradition; we share what we feel God has made known to us.
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
"...convince us of our errors of doctrine, if we have any, by reason, by logical arguments, or by the word of God..." (The Seer, Orson Pratt, Jan 1853)
Do you see how Pratt wants us to compare the BOM to the Bible? That's odd because the church holdstha the Bible is at least incomplete, if not wholly corrupt. The tone has now changed, however, and the Bible is downplayed in the modern church.
moparmonster1965 3 years ago
Sure, we still do that. We believe in and read and study the Bible, together with other Scriptures, and it's not odd at all!!! 1) It is NOT TRUE, and you know it that we teach the Bible is wholly corrupt, but just incomplete, and that is even philologically, historically and BIBLICALLY proven! 2) Since it is incomplete, this means it still contains a good share of the original Word of God... so why not study it?
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
And here comes 3) the importance of the Restoration... restore to the original splendor of something obscured from centuries of exposure to elements, just like a work of art: It's not a whole new work, but a restoration of what was in the beginning. It's the same work. The same Church. You say we are far from the NT Church, and that's because a restored work brings to light something which was present, but was not visible before the restoration.
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
There are tons of researches about the fact that some of our apparently 'strange' doctrines were known and practiced in the early Church, to name just one, baptism for the dead.
4) Either you are not well informed, or you missed something, since the Bible has been the subject of talks during recenty General Conferences, to begin with, and we thoroughly study it on a 4-year basis (OT, NT, BoM, D&C and Church History) in our Sunday School, Seminary and Institute classes, besides personal study!!!
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
There was no baptism for the dead, silly. The verse used to prove that has nothing to do with it (but I can't remember which one it is).
And why would you bother to study such an incomplete document as the Bible anyway? It's been corrupted and is missing who-knows-what, so its validity is near meaningless.
moparmonster1965 3 years ago
Oh, silly... Paul was just opening his mouth in 1 Cor. 15:29... 'Baptism for the dead was performed by the dominant church until forbidden by the sixth canon of the Council of Carthage in A.D. 397. Some of the smaller sects, however, continued the practice' (John Tvedtnes).. yea, nothing to do with it, since it only mentions exactly 'baptized for the dead'!!! Go figure.
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
The Bible has been corrupted and is missing something without any historical and theological doubt, but it's here and has some 1200 pages, so something has been preserved, after all. God allows evil to do its own work, but not as it totally wishes. Should I refer you to good and scholarly titles about how the Bible came to be, the history of the KJV, for example, and so on? Its validity is that of a maimed Word of God, maimed, yes, but Word of God for the rest, too!!!!
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
I would be glad to say that we have been even partially accepted as Christians... I find this is not the case, especially in Italy, but in the US as well. As for polygamy & priesthood to blacks... answered time and time again, really... and as for Christian terminology, with some exceptions due to different history and tradition, if we believe in Christ we should reflect some, shouldn't we? We use the Bible, too, so we should reflect that, isn't it? What counts, anyway, is the meaning behind it.
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
Well, the church has partially succeeded in portraying itself as a Christian sect here. In Italy, however, you have a city-state running the entire country, so you should expect no less. It does, however, provide Italian Mormons with the opportunity to feel like victims, which every cult likes to use to reinforce its onw indoctrination.
moparmonster1965 3 years ago
From your words, seems like you consider this fact a 'bad' thing we are doing. We should have let all 3000+ other Christian denominations reserve this right. Just because we hold different tenets, we should be banned from Christendom? Are our beliefs any more strange to you than the Baptists, the Pentecostals, the JWs, the Catholics or whatever you choose? What an irony! The Church of Jesus Christ is not Christian! I wonder what the Lord thinks of that. Have you asked Him?
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
The church's opinion is that it is either right or wrong. You can't all be right, but you can all be wrong. And yes, the LDS goes far beyond what most would consider strange, but I've been studying Mormonism for some 10 years and I know what to expect in these debates. I know what position you'll take and what claims you'll make before you actually do it.
I can change my name to Jesus Christ, but does that permit me to walk on water or raise the dead? Of course not; words are just words.
moparmonster1965 3 years ago
Oh, just as I knew and answered all your points, right? Well, guess what, in the last 10 years you have tried to find fault with the Church, and in the last 10 years (9 1/2) I lived its teachings first hand and come to some different conclusions and results... What about John 7:17 here? Theory or practice? Words are just words, you are right. Live the Restored Gospel, and see what the Word is really like.
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
This 'victim' thing again. But you should forgive us: it's too easy to feel like a victim when you are one... and you said you did not know nor care about the ratio of Anti-Mormon to Anti-whatever material on YouTube and on the Web? Since 1830 we have been killed, persecuted, raped, tarred, feathered, imprisoned, mocked, attacked, judged... and still I never heard anyone complain about that or play the victim from our pulpits... Sorry, nostra culpa, if sometimes we want to defend ourselves...
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
You take it out of context. That Mormons have been killed because of the lies of one man is indeed wrong. It is, however, the natural extension of those lies. The LDS overemphasizes that to get sympathy and for those of us who are critical to cease our activities.
moparmonster1965 3 years ago
So all the founders of the 3000+ Christian sects deserved the same fate (I'd have something to say about murder being a natural extension of freedom of religion... whatever) Why did it not happen? Man, you nail Isaiah 5:20 perfectly... people criticize,, attack, persecute and mock us, and we try to shut up others? So,do what you want, unleash your oh-so-Christian justified hate towards us(after all our founder lied)-we will shut up and not even defend ourselves, or we would be as wrong as Joseph
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
Oh, I forgot, dictionaries again There are two definitions given for cult, and both confirm that Mormons are a cult... Definition one includes "worship," and definition two is "A system of religious belief and worship." Do Mormons engage in worship? You bet they do! And do Mormons have "a system of religious belief and worship"? Yes.. mmm... seems like Catholics, Baptists, Pentecostals, JWs, 7th Day, whatever Church... well, is a CULT! Do you agree on that?
2) We do not indoctrinate, we TEACH.
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
I accept a far more specific definition of cult: a group, religious (or sometimes political), that has a charismatic leader, adds to existing scripture or reinterprets it, tells members not to look beyond what it claims as fact, chastises members not to accept anything critical of their faith, treats no-members with aloofness, and essentially turns its back on members who leave the fold. I may expand on this definition later, but those are the bare bones of it.
moparmonster1965 3 years ago
Besides the fact that your definition runs counter to major dictionaries... as I said, the 1st part applies to a certain JESUS, too, whom you may know... Now, we do not tell members not to look beyond what it claims as fact (I would not be writing to you or studying extensively things outside the LDS doctrine)- those are the JW. We do not reprove members for this, only when they accept false doctrines and practices and choose to go against the Lord's word (do not other Churches do the same?)
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
So, besides the fact that you are trying to change the established dictionary definition of cult to fit your theory, either you do not know us, or mistake us for somebody else (like JW, I'd say), or try to deceive yourself: we do all we can, spending time, money, resources, talents and much more, to invite and reach and open the doors to non-members, we strive towards reactivation and retention in harmony with Jesus' lost sheep teachings and do all we can to invite those who leave to come back..
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
Are you sure you are not talking about the JW, with all due respect for their sincere faith, who fit the definition to a T? So, it seems clear to me there's no need to expand on something which does not exist. May I suggest you try a good Steak of Truth (taste it, it's free, and Living Water to go with it, too!) instead of roving at the bare bones that the enemy of all truth offers?
Please, turn your face towards the truth, towards your and mine God, talk to Him, do His will and you will see.
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
The others you mentioned are indeed cults. Remember, I was born Roman Catholic.
You teach that things happened on this continent which cannot be proven, things that are physically impossible to authenticate. In fact, there's no basis in fact for anything particular to Mormonism.
moparmonster1965 3 years ago
So, what Church do you belong to which is not a cult and fits Christ's NT Church, doctrines and organization? Why! Can Christ's Resurrection be phyisically proven? Are His miracles possible to authenticate today or should we use study, reason, logic AND faith and revelation from God and Gospel living to know for sure that they are indeed true? Are our doctrines like Tithing, marriage, temples, prayer, love, service, charity, respect, revelation, purity, chastity, fidelity etc. without any basis?
Wehrheim04 3 years ago
I try to counter your arguments without being sarcastic and inviting you to buy a dictionary, as an example, citing facts and history, and I am not being civil? Is sarcasm civil? Is justifying a killing, for whatever reason (did Joseph try to conquer America as an ante-litteram terrorist; were they justified in persecuting him and his people???), Christian and civil? Well, if that's what you think, you are free to do it...
Do not hide the truth, you may gain FREEDOM AND TRUTH (See John 8.32).
Wehrheim04 3 years ago