- members visit other members in their homes: YES!"
My Reply: Um..NO...they do not to teach in an official capacity and not uniformily..no set organization..please name the group within this church that does this...
Pray do tell me..do ALL the "primary" classes teach the SAME thing all over the world?..and which Baptist organization are you speaking of...Seventh-Day, Southern, World Alliance, Central, General Association [pauses to take long breath...lol], Free Will, Calvinist, etc [the list is toooo loonnnggg to put up]..problem is...so are all the differances...very few actual have what you claim...lol..but keep trying...lol
jshumway04/slu's quote: "no. they do not. ... isn't something that those receiving revelation would do. they would follow the promptings of the spirit to educate the specific group being taught rather than read out of a manual what has been pre approved for that week. "
My reply: um...that is why the letters (NT) were sent to all the churches...why...to keep them all from straying from what was taught...variances of doctrine were creeping into the church. ONE Lord, ONE Baptism and ONE FAITH
um..NO again...did I tell you I have a degree in Religious Studies and that my focus is on Early Christianity 1st-3rd century...and that I am currently working on my MA?..so I can say this with an affirmative "NO" on all the rest of your list...want me to e-mail you the reasons why?..I will.
Um...take it up with the Lord - it was He who said they were an abomination - and we just follow what HE says - yep - you belong to the church of the DEVIL - apostate christianity - falsehoods are your meat.
My reply: ah...now there's apostate Christianity at its finest. What's the matter? - got your feelings hurt? Take it up with the Lord - oh wait - you don't believe in any kind of revelation or communication with God - go play with a Book filled with just pages of words that you think will give you your answer.
slu2com Qutoe: " No, Im just tired of this topic...Yea, I've got a relationship with Jesus. Yea I believe in revelation. And NO I don't think the LDS church is the "only true church".
My reply: aww...I'm sorry you are tired of this topic since you seem to keep it going with your lame videos...lol What I think you ARE tired of - is looking like an idiot because your answers are lame as your videos.
Really?...you believe in "revelation"? hmm...could have fooled me - "Sola Scriptura"
Ah the life where... you could look at porn and drink alcohol ...have sex out of wedlock as most apostate christians do to thier wicked hearts content...and then just believe that you are still saved for your profession of faith in Christ - hmmm...nice easy life huh....being a disciple of Christ requires sacrifice and work - guess you couldn't cut it huh so you chose a relgion that would accomadate your LIFESTYLE. "Eat drink and be merry for .... only beat you with a few stripes"
"you could look at porn and drink alcohol ...have sex out of wedlock as most apostate christians do to thier wicked hearts content"
This is where you go from being idiotic, to absurd. Im happily married, and I don't drink much. Maybe a beer for dinner every once in awhile.
But nothing like how Joseph Smith started a bar in Nauvoo, was the first person to get a liquor license in the town, and when he was in Carthage jail, he drank more than myself in an average sitting. Im not ashamed
If you did believe in Prophets and Apostles like you claim and Revelation - you would then be a member of "The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-Day Saints" - so where are your Prophets and Apostles? - name me some of them. TEll me what revelations they have given to the BODY of the church...and where they are canonized...just like all who preceded.
AS for the remark about which comes first as listed in the Bible - We know by Modern REVELATION which do - as if the order matters.
jshumway04 's quote: "You've simply been brainwashed to believe that you are the only people who have that organization."
My reply: ROLF...um and the alternative?...let me see..um...nope?...nothing...let's see about the TRUTH..we have people who go out to visit familys called home/visit teachers, primary, seminary, missionaries, all the offices meantioned in the scriptures, revelation, gifts of the Spirit, sacrament, water baptism that lots of apostate churches don't do anymore..etc...
jshumway04 quote: "you mean like... baptists, evangelicals, and jehova's witnesses? just to name a few. "
Not all of those things (if any) I mentioned can be found in ONE of them...but nice try...keep trying like what the apostate Christians have tried to do...like now they have what is called Family Night...taken of course from our Family Home Evening...this can be proved as in my religious studies we tract changes in religions and thier adaptations from others...I could list many examples.
A member huh?...well you should get your name off the records fast wolf-in-sheeps clothing...I .had a missionary like you in my mission ...he got sent home because he was gay...and that is why he fought against the church...is that your problem?
Also...being a moron is not to be confused with being Mormon. Prophets you say are everywhere...well MORON...compare what prophets of old did to those apostate so-called christian prophets of today...where are thier scriptures?
Ijshumway04 quote: "'m gonna have to go ahead and say you're lying. You cannot be sent home from your mission from being gay."
Um...wrong again...they CAN'T go and will be sent home if they are. Now if they have "same sex attraction" and are not acting on it and this is cleared with the proper authorities - then they can go. Figures a kid barely 22 would understand this especially one that didn't serve an honorable mission....so when are you removing your name from the records?
jshumway04's comment: "Read that and then tell me that Christ meant for their to be just ONE man as a prophet for all."
Ok..moron..tell me what that means?...this I got to hear...lol...weak minded wuss...that is why you left the church...you are WEAK and simple minded....to be in agreement with apostate christiandom...well leave the church - time for sifting is at hand...go weak one...go be like the seed cast upon the hard ground where birds will eat it.
1jshumway04 's quote" ... Cor. 14:31 "for ye may ALL prophecy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted."
My reply: You really must be a moron...you obviously are one of two things. 1) a stupid member (soon to be ex-member) 2) a lying born-again like the loser who makes these videos and is pretending to be a member.
Any member who knows a little about the church understands all can recieve revelation for themselves or for those within their stewardhips within the church.
jshumway04 quote: "yep, i am very aware of that. now explain to me why those people "...[bl;ah,blah,blah]...you say that we need just one prophet for all. when in the bible is there only ONE prophet or where does it say there should only be ONE? "
My reply: It doesn't say this..MORON..you must not be a member because you really don't know the teachings...all the Apostles are also Prophets..duh
jshumway04 ' quote: "it isn't. a prophet, as i've shown, is somebody who has a testimony of Christ. it says so in your own bible dictionary"..
My reply: Slu, slu, slu...lol..you err not knowing the scriptures...this is VERY obvious...yes..all those who confess JESUS is the CHRIST is doing so prophetically...but as an official position for a body of believers we see that prophets give revelation and this is recorded and canonized..please refer me to those whom you know who have done this?
It says in a "general sense" - in the context here and also known by ALL members of my faith (obviously not by you) we understand it in the same way I have explained it to you and still you argue with someone who knows how we interpret this and what a Prophet is..you have to be a real dumb idiot to not know that LDS position is that there is ONE man at a given time (even though others have this gift) that can speak for the body of the church in this capacity - and your point?
You still avoid my question "show me where you know a Prophet has given revelation to you or anyone else for that matter and where it has been canonized for the BODY of the church and accepted as such by the body of all believers"?..well I'm waiting...since you say all are prophets we should have an abundant amount to draw from...lol
jshumway04 's quote: 'so your fancy organization is no better than the rest because guess what... they all have prophets too! "
My reply: You speak like you are not a member, yet you say you are...lol..hmm..a disciple of that great liar and master deciever...if you are - so when are you removing your name from the records again?...if you do..send me a copy of the letter...I would love to see it - but I suspect there won't be one because you are a fake.
jshumway04 quote: "i've answered a lot for you. maybe you could answer something for me now. like...."
My reply: nice try..no you have not..and no I am not going to fall inot this typical tactic of anti-mormons...
"why did joseph smith label [blah, blah, blah, etc]... "
My REPLY: "you call yourself a member and don't know this?..lol..sure you understood the teachings..just proves my point..you try harder to find fault than to re-search your own faith..
Slu's comment : "PLEASE tell me, in your opinion, what percentage of members do you think know that figure 7 of facsimile 2 in the book of abraham has a penis in it? and after you honestly answer that then you can go ahead and say i must not be a member because i don't know the mormon answer to it. "
My reply: ROLF!!!...you are just too funny slu...seriously seek help..better yet..spend your time actually reading answers to all those old anti-mormon questions we have already answered...lol
Just send me the info of your ex-communication - I have no intrest in talking to an idiot...lol..scan it and post it on Youtube...liberate yourself from the TRUTH into falsehood - it's easier isn't it?..go sin to your hearts content..and then just go say a few hail marys (if you decide to go Catholic) or just profess before the altar your sins or read a pre-set prayer about how you accept jesus (part of the three-headed god of the TRINITY) as your saviour and you are saved for life...lol..
jshumway04's quote" please help me because i'm just so stupid and i don't understand"
MY REPLY: I tried..lol...since you've already made up your mind..just leave the church already..we don't need you..Satan is waiting with his arms wide open for you though..keep running in that direction.
I also believe you may not be who you claim as this dimwit above in the video I noticed also had another alias on Youtube...hmmm...lol..it's ok if it is you..you're an idiot in either alias...lol
You have yet to still NAMe me some of your so-called prophets and apostles..and what revelation they have given to the BODY of the so-called APostate christian church (as if such a thing as a BODY of christians agree on anything)...lol...well where are they? WE can read about those in the Bible and in the Book of Mormon and D&C and PofGP...still waiting.
"Where have they (the LDS leadership) denounced the theme that I read about in my video? Can you point it out? You haven't yet "
Seriously SMPF38. If you have already answered this question above, this should be easy for you.
So where have the LDS leadership specifically denounced this doctrine that Brigham Young, John Taylor, B.H. Roberts and Bruce McConkie all refer to *as per my video??
If you can't answer this specifically, you have no credibility.
You say that Joseph Smith saying "complete apostasy" is religious bigotry?
Well, that means that Roger Williams of the oldest Baptist Church in America was too, "The apostasy... hath so far corrupted all, that there can be no recovery out of that apostasy until Christ shall send forth new apostles to plant churches anew."
And you can count in Dr. Harry Emerson Fosdick, prominent American Baptist clergyman and author. And John Wesley the founder of Methodism. Thomas Jefferson. Will Durant...
And the Bible, which uses "mean" words like heretic/infidel. If you were consistent in your criticism of LDS, you would also consider the Bible "bigoted" for many of the words and phrases found within it?
But you aren't consistent, so that is obviously lost on you.
SLU: Where have they (the LDS leadership) denounced the theme that I read about in my video?
We had an entire conversation on this already, where LDS leaders praises the overall Christian community, starting from Joseph Smith all the way to Hinckley. Do you really want to go through that again?
Your video begins with a deception that we already covered. The man made "creeds" of other Churches were called an "abomination", not the "churches" themselves. We have been over this already.
SMPF38: where LDS leaders praises the overall Christian community, starting from Joseph Smith all the way to Hinckley
SLU2com: that is just politics. Just becuase they list a few nice things about a certain group to pander an audiance deoesn't negate the overall tone of the LDS gospel.
The very first thing that Joseph Smith starts his church on is the theory that all of the other churches are "abominations" and that they are "wrong". This theme is consistent from then to now.
slu: The very first thing that Joseph Smith starts his church on is the theory that all of the other churches are "abominations".
You are still doing it. The "other churches" were not called an abomination. The "man-made creeds" that were developed by greek philosophers and voted upon in councils were called abominations. Not the churches or the people themselves.
Sorry, did you read the whole 9th version in it's entirety? Just curious, because it seems like you and I are thinking of two completely different tongue lashings...
Joseph Smith spoke about their teachers how they are corrupt. Spoke about how "they are all wrong".. Etc.. Etc.. This is PofGP, Joseph Smith's history cpt1.
"I (or you, or anybody) could have written a book called "Mormon Doctrine", but that doesn't make my statements binding on the Church members. "
Fine with me, but the prophets also backed a lot of what Bruce McConkie wrote, well before he wrote it.
You are making a mountain out of a mole hill.
If you follow my other references, you will see DOCTRINE that Brigham Young said was doctrine, from the prophet confirming exactly what I quote Bruce McConkie saying as "Mormon Doctrine"..
LDS do not believe that you will spend eternity in a lake of fire and brimstone but if you cannot live where God and Christ dwell then your mind will be harrowed up with the thoughts of what could have been and it will be as an unquenchable fire. Christ taught that we will be judged according to our works done in the flesh. When a person has paid the price for unrepentant sins they will then receive their reward according to how they lived. Christ said In my Fathers house there are many mansions
"LDS do not believe that you will spend eternity in a lake of fire"
That's fine. And you can take that up with Jesus someday. But I didn't say that LDS did believe in that terminology. There is a lot of doctrines and terms in the Bible that LDS reject. I am COMPLETELY aware of that.
But if you want to know more about the "lake of fire" read some of Jesus' words. Someday you will start getting to know Him better.
You brought up the Hell thing in your video and you did it knowing what most Christians perceive Hell to be ie a place where they spend eternity in torment in fire and brimstone and you tried to use it to your advantage to shock everyone about lds teachings. It is decieving because it is not true. If you want to try and teach lds doctrine teach the truth so people can understand it.
Incase you weren't aware, I gave references to the right side of this video. You are welcome to hunt down the references on the net if you doubt what I am presenting here.
I encourage it. Please, look up these references for yourself. JournalOfDiscourses. org has an incomplete collection of these works.
And other references can be found on the net as well. Some you have to pay for (who'd of guessed), and some you don't.
Thanks for that, I do have the journal of discourses that has over 1500 sermons in it. I must confess that these days it is easier to look them up on the internet. I'm not doubting what was said I'm saying that you didn't present it so that people could understand it when you spoke about hell and damnation.
Now that is a bit unfair isn't it? Are not LDS members allowed to have their own opinions or even differ in opinions from one another? Has every Catholic always agreed with the doctrine of a fellow Catholic? Has every evangelical minister always taught the same doctrine? I think not
Only if truth is subjective and due to interpretation..
I guess it's a double edge sword to speak of "plain and precious truths", when not even Mormonsim at it's simplest is very simple.
Core issues, and fundamental doctrines in Mormonism have been misinterpreted by LDS leaders decade after decade. Like I said, I have created several videos on that particular subject alone.
Seriously, is this a subjective interpretation based on the prophet?
So one prophet can understand the scripture one way, and another prophet can understand the same scripture completely different. And thats OK??? Seriously?
According to SLU, our scriptures religion must be flawed because the texts are open to interpretation.
As you have correctly pointed out, he is very inconsistent, because the Bible is also open to interpretation. Many groups regard it to be the word of God, yet many interpretations have resulted from the same text. It has always been that way, and we can go back to discuss the differing views present at Council of Nicea as an example.
Such inconsistencies in slu's arguments are lost on him.
"According to SLU, our scriptures religion must be flawed because the texts are open to interpretation."
Actually I was reflecting on past conversations. I don't believe the Bible to be without inerrant people.
I just think it's halarious when LDS try to accuse Biblical doctrine being flawed (which is why they think the Book of Mormon is a perfect addition to the cannon)..
But with Mormon scriptures there are two major strikes.
It changes constantly, and it is not antiquic, not aged
SLU: I just think it's halarious when LDS try to accuse Biblical doctrine being flawed..
Perhaps you find it funny because it is a silly concept that you just made up. LDS don't find Biblical doctrine flawed, just YOUR interpretation of the Bible.
SLU:..which is why they think the Book of Mormon is a perfect addition to the cannon
More misleading statements from SLU. Every LDS knows that even the Book of Mormon can contain "mistakes of men". There is no "perfect" or complete book.
I know, it amazes me how many people can read the bible and interpret things so differently just to pursue their own arguement which is of course what they say we do. Never mind, the church is still true.
SLU: Seriously, is this a subjective interpretation based on the prophet?
If there is specific revelation given on a particular subject, the prophet must interpret on his own. In that case, two prophets may have differing opinions.
LDS don't have an unrealistic and unBiblical concept of inerrant prophets who constantly stream God's will all of the time.
Typo, I meant to say "[Unless] there is specific revelation given on a particular subject, the prophet must interpret on his own. In that case, two prophets may have differing opinions.
If you believe that there are no charitable or kind Mormons then I am really surprised. I cannot believe that you truly believe that. You added your own words here. Reaping damnation to your souls means that you cannot progress. We believe in eternal progression and that if you are damned then your eternal progress is halted until something is done about it. And you quote hell from the christian point of view which is different from the LDS point of view.
Hehehehe this is so refreashing I am happy to be mormon and glad to see that the Christlike Christian show his true colors. Mormons do not follow mainstream christianity because why follow when we can lead? I feel this is the true church as it was restored by God Himself thru Jesus Christ. That only we can be saved thru Him our Savior.
That DVD, specifically the arguments presented on it have been torn to shreds by organizations such as FAIR. I was simply pointing that out. It is sad to see what anti-Mormons such as yourself have had to resort to.
When you make your videos, it is clear from your own voice and posture that you yourself aren't even convinced that you are making good use of the time in your life. Truly sad.
I think LDS use the label "anti-Mormon" way too freely.
I mean what is it, "if you are not for us, you are against us"?
What ever happened to honest and open discourse, without having to marginalize and discriminate against someone?
You calling me anti-Mormon doesn't hurt my feelings. It just makes me worried about the relationship that Mormons are developing with others based when they try to do this to others. You people use a lot of labels.
First of all, this is a classic example of your inconsistency. Tell me, would you toss out Matthew, or Luke? They are just repetitive, right? And the Bible stories don't really teach anything more than a simple list of beliefs would teach. Why bother?
Beyond that inconsistency in your argument, I would like to point out that there are clarifications on baptism, the nature of God, WHY we must live by faith, information on God's plan, etc.
SMPF38: First of all, this is a classic example of your inconsistency.
SLU: How so? How is asking you this simple question inconsistent? Seems consistent to me. I ask you to address well known Mormon claims and accusations about scriptures. And you divert. Good one. And yes, that is consistent SMPF..
You've listed a couple of generic things that you think the Book of Mormon has that the Bible does not. Lets put the references there too
SLU: How so? How is asking you this simple question inconsistent?
If you can explain to me why you think it is important to have Matthew, Luke, Mark, and John in the New Testament, you will see exactly why you are being inconsistent.
SLU: And you divert.
That isn't a diversion. If you can explain to me why it is important to have those 4 gospels in the New Testament, you will directly answer your own question about the Book of Mormon.
"If you can explain to me why you think it is important to have Matthew, Luke, Mark, and John in the New Testament, you will see exactly why you are being inconsistent."
First, we are talking about Christ's apostles in the New Testament. People that were with Jesus, walked with, talked with, and shared food with.
To get their stories of being with the Savior is far more important to me (and I am only speaking for myself), than a 19th century work of religious fiction.
But you are avoiding my point. On the surface, the 4 gospels teach basically the same things, many of the same stories, the same doctrines. Even many of the same parables. So why is it important to keep all 4 in the New Testament?
Since I sense you will likely avoid my point, I will help you along. The reason is that we have different witnesses testifying of the same truths. Furthermore, we have some accounts that give some clarifications and additional information. This is very useful.
"I (or you, or anybody) could have written a book called "Mormon Doctrine", but that doesn't make my statements binding on the Church members. "
Fine with me, but the prophets also backed a lot of what Bruce McConkie wrote, well before he wrote it.
You are making a mountain out of a mole hill.
If you follow my other references, you will see DOCTRINE that Brigham Young said was doctrine, from the prophet confirming exactly what I quote Bruce McConkie saying as "Mormon Doctrine"..
And a lot of religious fiction is useful too. Lord of the Rings for example. Written by a Christian author, about a fictional story with a great moral lesson behind the storyline.
A lot of religious fiction is a great testimony and compliment to what is written in the Bible. However, nothing measures up to the real thing. Certainly not the Book of Mormon.
So now that we have established that I did not "divert". Let's move on to the second part of my response, which also was not a diversion, because I gave examples, but you want references. Sure.
Adams Fall and Human Suffering are explained (2 Nephi 2:2225)(Ether 12:27)(2 Nephi 2:1116)(2 Nephi 2:21)(2 Nephi 2:27). Free agency discussed in Alma 42:915 and Moroni 7:1619. Alma 13:2-5 discusses the premortal preparation of individuals.
Well, I wasn't finished. But again you insert another of your inconsistencies. Don't you believe that "faith in Christ" is all that is necessary for salvation?
Well, you might as well throw your Bible away then. You don't need a huge book for just that one concept.
Surely understanding God's character, plan, advice, and teachings are helpful in our lives. Don't you think?
In Alma 7:1113 we learn that the Savior took upon Him not only our sins but also our pains, sicknesses, and infirmities that He might according to the flesh know how to succor [or come to the aid of] his people.
The doctrine of Christs redemptive power over little children (see Moroni 8:420).
The "first Principles and Ordinances" (Faith, repentance, baptism) are discussed throughout.
Church Organization (mostly in Moroni).
The role of angels in revelation and salvation(Moroni 7:29-32)
"In Alma 7:1113 we learn that the Savior took upon Him not only our sins but also our pains, sicknesses, and infirmities that He might according to the flesh know how to succor [or come to the aid of] his people."
Come on, this is just Joseph Smith quoting more Isaiah.
Which passage of Isaiah are you referring to specifically?
Also, even if this was a quote from Isaiah (it isn't) we know that scripture (like the New Testament) is full of quotes and phrases from the Old Testament. Sometimes the New Testament usages provide additional information and/or clarification.
You said it was a "quote". Not that it matters, because you are still devaluing the Bible itself in your argument either way.
So, not only are do you find that quoting the Old Testament (as is done in the New Testament) is not worthwhile, but also phrasing things differently (also done in the New Testament) is worthless as well?
"So, not only are do you find that quoting the Old Testament (as is done in the New Testament) is not worthwhile, but also phrasing things differently (also done in the New Testament) is worthless as well?"
Worthless?!
I was just asking you for new principles that would apply to my salvation does the Book of Mormon offer. And you just prescribe me a principle right out of Isaiah 53!
That's not NEW!!
Im not saying Isaiah 53 is worthless. I am just saying WE ALREADY HAVE IT.
Utah: I was just asking you for new principles that would apply to my salvation... And you just prescribe me a principle right out of Isaiah 53!
Nice try. I gave you a list off the top of my head of several principles. You felt that ONE of the things on that list was just a different way of presenting Isa 53. That you ignored the others is YOUR problem. I would be more than happy to replace it with another.
The Bible says that it is critical to understand the nature of God->Ether 3:16
SLU2: the only one that applied to my salvation, ...
Understanding God's plan and God's nature are important to salvation. So are the principles of the gospel, such as baptism by immersion for the remission of sins. Yes, these are Biblical, but apparently the Bible wasn't clear enough for you. Therefore, very clear and easy to understand principles are given in the Book of Mormon pertaining to salvation (along with many teachings that help us learn from the mistakes of others, etc.)
What is your point? This is the reason why LDS was established because God told JS that all churches were wrong. Just as the Protestant Churches proclaiming Catholic church "Babylon" or the "Harlot woman". The difference between Mormons and so-called mainstream Christians is that Mormons don't go around calling you guys names, and you people do the complete opposite!
"The difference between Mormons and so-called mainstream Christians is that Mormons don't go around calling you guys names, and you people do the complete opposite!"
That is far from the truth. I have not called you, or any of your leaders names.
However, if you look at the words of the LDS prophets of the past, they have ostracized and belittled all other forms of Christianity since the beginning of their church.
Your statement is misleading. Although LDS leaders have criticized the doctrines of other Christian denominations, such as the Trinity doctrine, it is misleading to say that they have "ostracized" or "belittled" other Christian "forms." LDS leaders have not belittled individuals, they have merely pointed out false doctrines.
"it is misleading to say that they have "ostracized" or "belittled" other Christian "forms.""
Did you not listen to the whole video?
"LDS leaders have not belittled individuals, they have merely pointed out false doctrines."
In fact that is false. In case you didn't listen to the video, both John Taylor and Bruce McConkie made it very clear that Christians are damned to hell.
What SLU doesn't tell you is the circumstances under which these statements were made. Nor does he reveal the truth about what is actually considered abominable (creeds, not people).
SLU doesn't tell you that Bruce R. McConkie was not an apostle when he made that statement and that his tone was harshly criticized by the First Presidency.
SLU does not tell you that LDS scriptures say honorable Christians have a wonderful afterlife (Read Doctrine and Covenants 76:71-80,91) Shall I continue?
"SLU doesn't tell you that Bruce R. McConkie was not an apostle when he made that statement and that his tone was harshly criticized by the First Presidency."
He was a general authority (something that SMPF38 leaves out), and would later become an apostle.
And my point of this, was to show that even the LDS leadership elite do not know how to correctly interpret their own doctrine. So how can they expect others to interpret it correctly. What confusion!!!
SLU: He was a general authority (something that SMPF38 leaves out), and would later become an apostle.
I didn't make a video claiming that Bruce R. McConkie was something that he wasn't. YOU DID! Don't you think it is important to note that the FIRST PRESIDENCY of the LDS CHURCH repudiated McConkie's book? So, who is misleading?
We both know the answer to that question.
slu: And my point of this...
Anyone can see your video and see what you were trying to do. You aren't fooling anyone.
"Anyone can see your video and see what you were trying to do."
And for you to think I should be ashamed is weak, worthless, and un-warranted.
I stated "oh here is a quote by ol' Bruce McConkie. Who was an apostle [WAS because he no longer is]. And was the writer of Mormon Doctrine [again WAS, because he is dead]..
Identifying who this man was is VERY important. And even when he wrote the book he was a General Authority of the LDS church.
Here is a quote by McConkie, a general authority who wrote a book BEFORE he became an apostle and that very same book I am quoting from was repudiated by the First Presidency of the Church.
Your deception is twofold 1) an apostle wrote the book - incorrect 2) the book was received as official doctrine - to the contrary, it was rejected
SLU: No foul, no harm. Move on
If you feel that being misleading is harmless. Go for it. Just don't expect me to let it slide.
"Your deception is twofold 1) an apostle wrote the book - incorrect 2) the book was received as official doctrine - to the contrary, it was rejected"
An apostle did write the book. Look it up, Bruce McConkie was an apostle within years of writting this book. And more so than his rank at the time. It was obvious that McConkie was a high ranking leader in the LDS church as a general authority.
And despite his rank, calling and dedication.. He still was off target on LDS doctrine.
You are attempting to portray McConkie's book as official LDS doctrine. You try to paint it as official, saying "apostle Bruce R. McConkie" wrote it, when in fact it was general authority McConkie who wrote the book. He became an Apostle later. Even MORE misleading in your attempt to paint certain views as Church doctrine, is ignoring the repudiation of the book by the First Presidency.
SLU:..despite his rank, calling...
He what? Made opinions? Less than 1% of his material was incorrect.
"You are attempting to portray McConkie's book as official LDS doctrine."
Im talking about continued revelations. If these men speak for God, do His will, and understand His principles in a way that no one else on earth does..
Then how is it that they get just as many things "wrong" as the so-called "anti-Mormons" do.
I've witnessed hundreds of things that many LDS prophets have claimed as "everlasting principles" that most LDS won't even recognize as doctrine anymore.
SLU: If these men speak for God, do His will, and understand His principles in a way that no one else on earth does.
However, McConkie never portrayed his book as revelation, but specifically said in the opening pages that he alone was responsible for its content (something else you also fail to acknowledge). And without authorization from the First Presidency, he has no right to reveal doctrine to the whole of the Church to begin with.
From HIS point of view, he wrote what HE thought was "Mormon Doctrine". But McConkie didn't have the authority on what is and isn't "Mormon Doctrine" as far as the Church is concerned. His introduction pages DID in fact indicate that he was not speaking for the Church.
I (or you, or anybody) could have written a book called "Mormon Doctrine", but that doesn't make my statements binding on the Church members.
SLU: He named his book "Mormon Doctrine". So either it is, or it is not.
The book was "Mormon Doctrine" BY BRUCE R. McCONKIE. Bruce called it that title, not the Church. It wasn't published by the Church, wasn't approved by the Church (in fact it was repudiated by the First Presidency of the Church). The introduction explained that he alone was responsible for the material in the book.
Let's say that a Christian man wrote a book called "Christian Doctrine".
"I (or you, or anybody) could have written a book called "Mormon Doctrine", but that doesn't make my statements binding on the Church members. "
Fine with me, but the prophets also backed a lot of what Bruce McConkie wrote, well before he wrote it.
You are making a mountain out of a mole hill.
If you follow my other references, you will see DOCTRINE that Brigham Young said was doctrine, from the prophet confirming exactly what I quote Bruce McConkie saying as "Mormon Doctrine"..
SLU: Im talking about continued revelations. If these men speak for God, do His will, and understand His principles in a way that no one else on earth does...
In which part of McConkie's book does he claim that he is receiving revelation? Where does McConkie say he is speaking for God? Where does McConkie say that he is speaking in an official capacity as a general authority?
He doesn't. In fact, he states quite the opposite.
"During his service as a general authority, he published several doctrinal books and articles and wrote the chapter headings of the LDS standard works."
This is easily found on Wikipedia.
In fact, Bruce McConkie while serving as General Authority, and during the time that he wrote the book "Mormon Doctrine", was written doctrines for the LDS church, and was publishing his works as "standard works" on the LDS church.
His book "Mormon Doctrine" may be a misleading title. But I didn't write it.
"You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as the standards of doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works.
Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church.. If Joseph Fielding Smith (prophet) writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted."
SLU: ...during the time that he wrote the book "Mormon Doctrine", was written doctrines for the LDS church, and was publishing his works as "standard works" on the LDS church.
But "Mormon Doctrine" wasn't one of them, now was it. It in fact was written outside of his capacity and calling as a general authority. As I said, his book DOES contain Mormon Doctrine and ALMOST all of it does in fact correctly reflect official teachings of the Church. But some of it doesn't; your favorite parts.
But the quotes that I made from "Mormon Doctrine" in this video are supported by doctrines that LDS prophets from earlier days had made very comparable sermons on the same subject.
I listed these statements by prophets in this video too.
So it's not just the word of Bruce McConkie. These words are also backed up by the doctrinal words of Brigham Young, and John Taylor.
Joseph F. Smith explained, "It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words (a prophet), and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they don't square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine."
"It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside."
Who's to say it's not "the Lord has revealed"?
Several prophets and apostles agreed that it was something that the Lord had revealed, and Brigham Young said it could be considered doctrine if "he sent it out to men".. Which he did.
So if these prophets, and apostles are in agreement. Does that make you wrong SMPF?
utah: Who's to say it's not "the Lord has revealed"?
The First Presidency. That's who. They present official declarations to the Church as "revelation" that can be canonized and is binding to the members as doctrine. This has been done on several occasions.
So you are saying a doctrinal point of view that SEVERAL LDS prophets agree on with Mr. McConkie, were trumped by the First Presidency at the time of McConkie writing this book?
Seriously?
I thought you just got done telling me that more than 90% of that book has correct doctrine.
So are you taking that statement back?
Or how do you know that this particular point of doctrine is one of the incorrect doctrines? Did they specifically single this one out?
SLU: Maybe you should make a video and clear all of this up?
What's the point of making another video for you? I made this one watch?v=zgfpxhp7w8M which covers the same points that I have just discussed with you concerning Mormon doctrine. You simply refuse to accept how the LDS belief system works.
"you just took part of my response to you and ignored the rest. Tsk, tsk."
Yes, you've done it to me at least 6 times in the last couple of days within this conversation.
Point remains: Where have the LDS leaders denounced this particular doctrine (as read in my video), that many prophets, and at least one apostle have CLEARLY and redundantly recited and condoned throughout the decades.
Where have they denounced the theme that I read about in my video? Can you point it out? You haven't yet
I've asked a dozen times now at least on where EXACTLY the LDS leadership have denounced the hateful words like in Pearl of Great Price Chpt 1, Joseph Smith's history. The whole "all of the other [churches] are wrong" and that "all of them are ABOMINATIONS"..
You say that because the LDS church said nice things about other religions, that is proof that they denounce such speech.
"No, instead you perpetuate the misleading nature of the title, and you amplify it by the way you present it. "
It's not misleading on my part. I am simply referring to what SEVERAL LDS leaders agree on. And that I reference the book "Mormon Doctrine" makes no difference to the integrity of the arguement. The quote that I used was indeed written by a leader of the LDS church, who was at the time writing "Standard Works" for the church, and would soon after become an apostle.
Actually, Mormons do still circumsize not by tradition or cleanliness. But by doctrinal commands of the original prophet.
Joseph Smith's translation of the Bible indicates that the performance of circumcision on the eighth day after birth symbolized "that children are not accountable before me until they are eight years old" (JST Gen. 17:4-20; cf. D&C 68:25; 74:1-7).
D&C 68:25 says nothing about circumcision. D&C 74:1-7 does not say that circumsicion is required either. It says that little children are holy and sanctified through the atonement of Christ. It does say that they become accountable at age 8 and that is when they are deemed necessary for repentance, baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Hey, I agree, the heart is what should be circumcised but again, 1 Cor 1:17 does NOT say that water baptism is no longer required. Maybe you should lend me your goggles so I can see it better.
He thanks God for it because some of these people did not realize what the baptism meant. if you read the next verse, he says "lest any of you say that I baptized in my own name" He was telling them that they were all baptized in the name of C
Comment removed
jshumway04 3 years ago
jshumway04 quote:
"Baptists for example...
- members visit other members in their homes: YES!"
My Reply: Um..NO...they do not to teach in an official capacity and not uniformily..no set organization..please name the group within this church that does this...
imtherealthing 3 years ago
jshumway04 ' quote: "-primary: YES!"
My reply: Um..NO again..nice try
Pray do tell me..do ALL the "primary" classes teach the SAME thing all over the world?..and which Baptist organization are you speaking of...Seventh-Day, Southern, World Alliance, Central, General Association [pauses to take long breath...lol], Free Will, Calvinist, etc [the list is toooo loonnnggg to put up]..problem is...so are all the differances...very few actual have what you claim...lol..but keep trying...lol
imtherealthing 3 years ago
Comment removed
jshumway04 3 years ago
jshumway04/slu's quote: "no. they do not. ... isn't something that those receiving revelation would do. they would follow the promptings of the spirit to educate the specific group being taught rather than read out of a manual what has been pre approved for that week. "
My reply: um...that is why the letters (NT) were sent to all the churches...why...to keep them all from straying from what was taught...variances of doctrine were creeping into the church. ONE Lord, ONE Baptism and ONE FAITH
imtherealthing 3 years ago
jshumway04 quote:
-seminary: YES!
Man..you are so losing this argument...lol
um..NO again...did I tell you I have a degree in Religious Studies and that my focus is on Early Christianity 1st-3rd century...and that I am currently working on my MA?..so I can say this with an affirmative "NO" on all the rest of your list...want me to e-mail you the reasons why?..I will.
imtherealthing 3 years ago
Um...take it up with the Lord - it was He who said they were an abomination - and we just follow what HE says - yep - you belong to the church of the DEVIL - apostate christianity - falsehoods are your meat.
imtherealthing 3 years ago
Go play with a peep-stone!
slu2com 3 years ago
slu2com 's quote: "Go play with a peep-stone!"
My reply: ah...now there's apostate Christianity at its finest. What's the matter? - got your feelings hurt? Take it up with the Lord - oh wait - you don't believe in any kind of revelation or communication with God - go play with a Book filled with just pages of words that you think will give you your answer.
imtherealthing 3 years ago
No, Im just tired of this topic. And I use the peep-stone reference because I think Mormonism is silly.
Watch my video that I made about moving past the LDS religion, and moving on with my life.
Yea, I've got a relationship with Jesus. Yea I believe in revelation. And NO I don't think the LDS church is the "only true church".
Like I said, go play with a peep-stone. Im done.
slu2com 3 years ago
slu2com Qutoe: " No, Im just tired of this topic...Yea, I've got a relationship with Jesus. Yea I believe in revelation. And NO I don't think the LDS church is the "only true church".
My reply: aww...I'm sorry you are tired of this topic since you seem to keep it going with your lame videos...lol What I think you ARE tired of - is looking like an idiot because your answers are lame as your videos.
Really?...you believe in "revelation"? hmm...could have fooled me - "Sola Scriptura"
imtherealthing 3 years ago
"Really?...you believe in "revelation"? "
ABSOLUTELY!!!
When I pray, I get an answer. That's revelation you fool!
slu2com 3 years ago
Ah the life where... you could look at porn and drink alcohol ...have sex out of wedlock as most apostate christians do to thier wicked hearts content...and then just believe that you are still saved for your profession of faith in Christ - hmmm...nice easy life huh....being a disciple of Christ requires sacrifice and work - guess you couldn't cut it huh so you chose a relgion that would accomadate your LIFESTYLE. "Eat drink and be merry for .... only beat you with a few stripes"
imtherealthing 3 years ago
"you could look at porn and drink alcohol ...have sex out of wedlock as most apostate christians do to thier wicked hearts content"
This is where you go from being idiotic, to absurd. Im happily married, and I don't drink much. Maybe a beer for dinner every once in awhile.
But nothing like how Joseph Smith started a bar in Nauvoo, was the first person to get a liquor license in the town, and when he was in Carthage jail, he drank more than myself in an average sitting. Im not ashamed
slu2com 3 years ago
Comment removed
jshumway04 3 years ago
jshumway04
If you did believe in Prophets and Apostles like you claim and Revelation - you would then be a member of "The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-Day Saints" - so where are your Prophets and Apostles? - name me some of them. TEll me what revelations they have given to the BODY of the church...and where they are canonized...just like all who preceded.
AS for the remark about which comes first as listed in the Bible - We know by Modern REVELATION which do - as if the order matters.
imtherealthing 3 years ago
Comment removed
jshumway04 3 years ago
Comment removed
jshumway04 3 years ago
jshumway04 's quote: "You've simply been brainwashed to believe that you are the only people who have that organization."
My reply: ROLF...um and the alternative?...let me see..um...nope?...nothing...let's see about the TRUTH..we have people who go out to visit familys called home/visit teachers, primary, seminary, missionaries, all the offices meantioned in the scriptures, revelation, gifts of the Spirit, sacrament, water baptism that lots of apostate churches don't do anymore..etc...
imtherealthing 3 years ago
Comment removed
jshumway04 3 years ago
jshumway04 quote: "you mean like... baptists, evangelicals, and jehova's witnesses? just to name a few. "
Not all of those things (if any) I mentioned can be found in ONE of them...but nice try...keep trying like what the apostate Christians have tried to do...like now they have what is called Family Night...taken of course from our Family Home Evening...this can be proved as in my religious studies we tract changes in religions and thier adaptations from others...I could list many examples.
imtherealthing 3 years ago
Comment removed
jshumway04 3 years ago
jshumway04
A member huh?...well you should get your name off the records fast wolf-in-sheeps clothing...I .had a missionary like you in my mission ...he got sent home because he was gay...and that is why he fought against the church...is that your problem?
Also...being a moron is not to be confused with being Mormon. Prophets you say are everywhere...well MORON...compare what prophets of old did to those apostate so-called christian prophets of today...where are thier scriptures?
imtherealthing 3 years ago
Comment removed
jshumway04 3 years ago
Ijshumway04 quote: "'m gonna have to go ahead and say you're lying. You cannot be sent home from your mission from being gay."
Um...wrong again...they CAN'T go and will be sent home if they are. Now if they have "same sex attraction" and are not acting on it and this is cleared with the proper authorities - then they can go. Figures a kid barely 22 would understand this especially one that didn't serve an honorable mission....so when are you removing your name from the records?
imtherealthing 3 years ago
Comment removed
jshumway04 3 years ago
jshumway04's comment: "Read that and then tell me that Christ meant for their to be just ONE man as a prophet for all."
Ok..moron..tell me what that means?...this I got to hear...lol...weak minded wuss...that is why you left the church...you are WEAK and simple minded....to be in agreement with apostate christiandom...well leave the church - time for sifting is at hand...go weak one...go be like the seed cast upon the hard ground where birds will eat it.
When you man-up...come back...
imtherealthing 3 years ago
Comment removed
jshumway04 3 years ago
1jshumway04 's quote" ... Cor. 14:31 "for ye may ALL prophecy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted."
My reply: You really must be a moron...you obviously are one of two things. 1) a stupid member (soon to be ex-member) 2) a lying born-again like the loser who makes these videos and is pretending to be a member.
Any member who knows a little about the church understands all can recieve revelation for themselves or for those within their stewardhips within the church.
imtherealthing 3 years ago
Comment removed
jshumway04 3 years ago
jshumway04 quote: "yep, i am very aware of that. now explain to me why those people "...[bl;ah,blah,blah]...you say that we need just one prophet for all. when in the bible is there only ONE prophet or where does it say there should only be ONE? "
My reply: It doesn't say this..MORON..you must not be a member because you really don't know the teachings...all the Apostles are also Prophets..duh
poor slu
imtherealthing 3 years ago
Comment removed
jshumway04 3 years ago
jshumway04 ' quote: "it isn't. a prophet, as i've shown, is somebody who has a testimony of Christ. it says so in your own bible dictionary"..
My reply: Slu, slu, slu...lol..you err not knowing the scriptures...this is VERY obvious...yes..all those who confess JESUS is the CHRIST is doing so prophetically...but as an official position for a body of believers we see that prophets give revelation and this is recorded and canonized..please refer me to those whom you know who have done this?
imtherealthing 3 years ago
Comment removed
jshumway04 3 years ago
jshumway04
It says in a "general sense" - in the context here and also known by ALL members of my faith (obviously not by you) we understand it in the same way I have explained it to you and still you argue with someone who knows how we interpret this and what a Prophet is..you have to be a real dumb idiot to not know that LDS position is that there is ONE man at a given time (even though others have this gift) that can speak for the body of the church in this capacity - and your point?
imtherealthing 3 years ago
jshumway04
You still avoid my question "show me where you know a Prophet has given revelation to you or anyone else for that matter and where it has been canonized for the BODY of the church and accepted as such by the body of all believers"?..well I'm waiting...since you say all are prophets we should have an abundant amount to draw from...lol
imtherealthing 3 years ago
jshumway04 's quote: 'so your fancy organization is no better than the rest because guess what... they all have prophets too! "
My reply: You speak like you are not a member, yet you say you are...lol..hmm..a disciple of that great liar and master deciever...if you are - so when are you removing your name from the records again?...if you do..send me a copy of the letter...I would love to see it - but I suspect there won't be one because you are a fake.
imtherealthing 3 years ago
Comment removed
jshumway04 3 years ago
jshumway04 quote: "i've answered a lot for you. maybe you could answer something for me now. like...."
My reply: nice try..no you have not..and no I am not going to fall inot this typical tactic of anti-mormons...
"why did joseph smith label [blah, blah, blah, etc]... "
My REPLY: "you call yourself a member and don't know this?..lol..sure you understood the teachings..just proves my point..you try harder to find fault than to re-search your own faith..
imtherealthing 3 years ago
Comment removed
jshumway04 3 years ago
Slu's comment : "PLEASE tell me, in your opinion, what percentage of members do you think know that figure 7 of facsimile 2 in the book of abraham has a penis in it? and after you honestly answer that then you can go ahead and say i must not be a member because i don't know the mormon answer to it. "
My reply: ROLF!!!...you are just too funny slu...seriously seek help..better yet..spend your time actually reading answers to all those old anti-mormon questions we have already answered...lol
imtherealthing 3 years ago
Comment removed
jshumway04 3 years ago
Just send me the info of your ex-communication - I have no intrest in talking to an idiot...lol..scan it and post it on Youtube...liberate yourself from the TRUTH into falsehood - it's easier isn't it?..go sin to your hearts content..and then just go say a few hail marys (if you decide to go Catholic) or just profess before the altar your sins or read a pre-set prayer about how you accept jesus (part of the three-headed god of the TRINITY) as your saviour and you are saved for life...lol..
imtherealthing 3 years ago
Comment removed
jshumway04 3 years ago
jshumway04's quote" please help me because i'm just so stupid and i don't understand"
MY REPLY: I tried..lol...since you've already made up your mind..just leave the church already..we don't need you..Satan is waiting with his arms wide open for you though..keep running in that direction.
I also believe you may not be who you claim as this dimwit above in the video I noticed also had another alias on Youtube...hmmm...lol..it's ok if it is you..you're an idiot in either alias...lol
imtherealthing 3 years ago
jshumway04
You have yet to still NAMe me some of your so-called prophets and apostles..and what revelation they have given to the BODY of the so-called APostate christian church (as if such a thing as a BODY of christians agree on anything)...lol...well where are they? WE can read about those in the Bible and in the Book of Mormon and D&C and PofGP...still waiting.
imtherealthing 3 years ago
Comment removed
jshumway04 3 years ago
Comment removed
jshumway04 3 years ago
"Where have they (the LDS leadership) denounced the theme that I read about in my video? Can you point it out? You haven't yet "
Seriously SMPF38. If you have already answered this question above, this should be easy for you.
So where have the LDS leadership specifically denounced this doctrine that Brigham Young, John Taylor, B.H. Roberts and Bruce McConkie all refer to *as per my video??
If you can't answer this specifically, you have no credibility.
slu2com 3 years ago
I will seriously put you in time-out if you can't speak straight forward, without talking out of the side of your mouth.
slu2com 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nothing at all SMPF?
I haven't put you in timeout yet. But you have lost even more credibility than before.
Like I told YOU earlier, YOUR description of an anti-mormon fits you so well.
slu2com 3 years ago
You say that Joseph Smith saying "complete apostasy" is religious bigotry?
Well, that means that Roger Williams of the oldest Baptist Church in America was too, "The apostasy... hath so far corrupted all, that there can be no recovery out of that apostasy until Christ shall send forth new apostles to plant churches anew."
And you can count in Dr. Harry Emerson Fosdick, prominent American Baptist clergyman and author. And John Wesley the founder of Methodism. Thomas Jefferson. Will Durant...
smpf38 3 years ago
"Well, that means that Roger Williams of the oldest Baptist Church in America was too,"
As well as the Pope of Rome and several other historical figures. Yes.
slu2com 3 years ago
And the Bible, which uses "mean" words like heretic/infidel. If you were consistent in your criticism of LDS, you would also consider the Bible "bigoted" for many of the words and phrases found within it?
But you aren't consistent, so that is obviously lost on you.
smpf38 3 years ago
" If you were consistent in your criticism of LDS"
What I think LDS are heretics.. "Believers in false doctrine". Yes.
slu2com 3 years ago
SLU: Where have they (the LDS leadership) denounced the theme that I read about in my video?
We had an entire conversation on this already, where LDS leaders praises the overall Christian community, starting from Joseph Smith all the way to Hinckley. Do you really want to go through that again?
Your video begins with a deception that we already covered. The man made "creeds" of other Churches were called an "abomination", not the "churches" themselves. We have been over this already.
smpf38 3 years ago
SMPF38: where LDS leaders praises the overall Christian community, starting from Joseph Smith all the way to Hinckley
SLU2com: that is just politics. Just becuase they list a few nice things about a certain group to pander an audiance deoesn't negate the overall tone of the LDS gospel.
The very first thing that Joseph Smith starts his church on is the theory that all of the other churches are "abominations" and that they are "wrong". This theme is consistent from then to now.
slu2com 3 years ago
slu: The very first thing that Joseph Smith starts his church on is the theory that all of the other churches are "abominations".
You are still doing it. The "other churches" were not called an abomination. The "man-made creeds" that were developed by greek philosophers and voted upon in councils were called abominations. Not the churches or the people themselves.
smpf38 3 years ago
"Not the churches or the people themselves"..
Sorry, did you read the whole 9th version in it's entirety? Just curious, because it seems like you and I are thinking of two completely different tongue lashings...
Joseph Smith spoke about their teachers how they are corrupt. Spoke about how "they are all wrong".. Etc.. Etc.. This is PofGP, Joseph Smith's history cpt1.
slu2com 3 years ago
"I (or you, or anybody) could have written a book called "Mormon Doctrine", but that doesn't make my statements binding on the Church members. "
Fine with me, but the prophets also backed a lot of what Bruce McConkie wrote, well before he wrote it.
You are making a mountain out of a mole hill.
If you follow my other references, you will see DOCTRINE that Brigham Young said was doctrine, from the prophet confirming exactly what I quote Bruce McConkie saying as "Mormon Doctrine"..
slu2com 3 years ago
BTW- If anyone wants references to the scripts that I've listed in this video. Check out the description of this video to the right.
slu2com 3 years ago
LDS do not believe that you will spend eternity in a lake of fire and brimstone but if you cannot live where God and Christ dwell then your mind will be harrowed up with the thoughts of what could have been and it will be as an unquenchable fire. Christ taught that we will be judged according to our works done in the flesh. When a person has paid the price for unrepentant sins they will then receive their reward according to how they lived. Christ said In my Fathers house there are many mansions
2morrowman 3 years ago
"LDS do not believe that you will spend eternity in a lake of fire"
That's fine. And you can take that up with Jesus someday. But I didn't say that LDS did believe in that terminology. There is a lot of doctrines and terms in the Bible that LDS reject. I am COMPLETELY aware of that.
But if you want to know more about the "lake of fire" read some of Jesus' words. Someday you will start getting to know Him better.
slu2com 3 years ago
You brought up the Hell thing in your video and you did it knowing what most Christians perceive Hell to be ie a place where they spend eternity in torment in fire and brimstone and you tried to use it to your advantage to shock everyone about lds teachings. It is decieving because it is not true. If you want to try and teach lds doctrine teach the truth so people can understand it.
2morrowman 3 years ago
"You brought up the Hell thing in your video "
Incase you weren't aware, I gave references to the right side of this video. You are welcome to hunt down the references on the net if you doubt what I am presenting here.
I encourage it. Please, look up these references for yourself. JournalOfDiscourses. org has an incomplete collection of these works.
And other references can be found on the net as well. Some you have to pay for (who'd of guessed), and some you don't.
slu2com 3 years ago
Thanks for that, I do have the journal of discourses that has over 1500 sermons in it. I must confess that these days it is easier to look them up on the internet. I'm not doubting what was said I'm saying that you didn't present it so that people could understand it when you spoke about hell and damnation.
2morrowman 3 years ago
I have to say it's hard to know what LDS believe about this subject. The topic has been tossed around, and recreated several times in Mormonism.
This is true for a lot of LDS doctrine.
slu2com 3 years ago
BTW- I've made videos on changing Mormon doctrine, several are on this account, and several on my other account utahpirateradio
slu2com 3 years ago
Now that is a bit unfair isn't it? Are not LDS members allowed to have their own opinions or even differ in opinions from one another? Has every Catholic always agreed with the doctrine of a fellow Catholic? Has every evangelical minister always taught the same doctrine? I think not
2morrowman 3 years ago
Only if truth is subjective and due to interpretation..
I guess it's a double edge sword to speak of "plain and precious truths", when not even Mormonsim at it's simplest is very simple.
Core issues, and fundamental doctrines in Mormonism have been misinterpreted by LDS leaders decade after decade. Like I said, I have created several videos on that particular subject alone.
slu2com 3 years ago
"Now that is a bit unfair isn't it?"
Seriously, is this a subjective interpretation based on the prophet?
So one prophet can understand the scripture one way, and another prophet can understand the same scripture completely different. And thats OK??? Seriously?
slu2com 3 years ago
Peter, Paul and Barnabas all disagreed with each other on points of doctrine. Guess we should chuck out the bible using your theory
2morrowman 3 years ago
According to SLU, our scriptures religion must be flawed because the texts are open to interpretation.
As you have correctly pointed out, he is very inconsistent, because the Bible is also open to interpretation. Many groups regard it to be the word of God, yet many interpretations have resulted from the same text. It has always been that way, and we can go back to discuss the differing views present at Council of Nicea as an example.
Such inconsistencies in slu's arguments are lost on him.
smpf38 3 years ago
"According to SLU, our scriptures religion must be flawed because the texts are open to interpretation."
Actually I was reflecting on past conversations. I don't believe the Bible to be without inerrant people.
I just think it's halarious when LDS try to accuse Biblical doctrine being flawed (which is why they think the Book of Mormon is a perfect addition to the cannon)..
But with Mormon scriptures there are two major strikes.
It changes constantly, and it is not antiquic, not aged
slu2com 3 years ago
SLU: I just think it's halarious when LDS try to accuse Biblical doctrine being flawed..
Perhaps you find it funny because it is a silly concept that you just made up. LDS don't find Biblical doctrine flawed, just YOUR interpretation of the Bible.
SLU:..which is why they think the Book of Mormon is a perfect addition to the cannon
More misleading statements from SLU. Every LDS knows that even the Book of Mormon can contain "mistakes of men". There is no "perfect" or complete book.
smpf38 3 years ago
"There is no "perfect" or complete book. "
Again, since the Book of Mormon is VERY incomplete. As was told by Joseph Smith, only about 1/3 of it was actually translated.
And since it OBVIOUSLY has thousands of mistakes..
What makes the Book of Mormon more "complete" or more accurate than the Bible?
And, furthermore. What important doctrines does the Book of Mormon have that the Bible does not have? Anything?
slu2com 3 years ago
SLU: What makes the Book of Mormon more "complete" or more accurate than the Bible?
Exactly what Joseph Smith said, "that by reading [the Book of Mormon], you can get closer to God than by reading any other book."
smpf38 3 years ago
"Exactly what Joseph Smith said, "that by reading [the Book of Mormon], you can get closer to God than by reading any other book."
That philosophy has no merit.
slu2com 3 years ago
I know, it amazes me how many people can read the bible and interpret things so differently just to pursue their own arguement which is of course what they say we do. Never mind, the church is still true.
2morrowman 3 years ago
"Peter, Paul and Barnabas all disagreed with each other on points of doctrine. Guess we should chuck out the bible using your theory "
I think you are trying to tie in un-gospel traditions that the apostles were trying to incorporate into the church.
Much like the Romans did, and much like the Mormons are doing..
But true, Christ taught doctrine was not a point of disagreement amongst the apostles.
It's only when they introduced new crap, did anything conflict.
slu2com 3 years ago
No actually it was old crap as you put it. They were having trouble getting around circumcision. Guess they couldn't accept new revelation either
2morrowman 3 years ago
SLU: Seriously, is this a subjective interpretation based on the prophet?
If there is specific revelation given on a particular subject, the prophet must interpret on his own. In that case, two prophets may have differing opinions.
LDS don't have an unrealistic and unBiblical concept of inerrant prophets who constantly stream God's will all of the time.
smpf38 3 years ago
Typo, I meant to say "[Unless] there is specific revelation given on a particular subject, the prophet must interpret on his own. In that case, two prophets may have differing opinions.
smpf38 3 years ago
"LDS don't have an unrealistic and unBiblical concept of inerrant prophets who constantly stream God's will all of the time. "
How conveinent.
slu2com 3 years ago
If you believe that there are no charitable or kind Mormons then I am really surprised. I cannot believe that you truly believe that. You added your own words here. Reaping damnation to your souls means that you cannot progress. We believe in eternal progression and that if you are damned then your eternal progress is halted until something is done about it. And you quote hell from the christian point of view which is different from the LDS point of view.
2morrowman 3 years ago
"If you believe that there are no charitable or kind Mormons then I am really surprised. "
I don't know where you got that idea.
Just because Mormon doctrine bashes other faiths, it doesn't mean that LDS people are un-charitable.
The Catholic church is VERY charitable, and this comes from a church who killed millions via the inquisitions..
Charity doesn't mean truth.
slu2com 3 years ago
The more than holy Joseph Smith Jr. AMAZING!!
Lt. General, King, Presidential Candidate,
Prophet, WOW! AND.......Ta Ta! The only living
creature to have ever seen GOD! (ONE of his several "First Visions")
And, he translated the BoM with a training
bra with 2 rocks (Urim and Thummim)in it and
another rock that he put in his hat. No wonder Mormons believe as they do. It's
the only religion to come out of a hat.
JCPUTT 3 years ago
Hehehehe this is so refreashing I am happy to be mormon and glad to see that the Christlike Christian show his true colors. Mormons do not follow mainstream christianity because why follow when we can lead? I feel this is the true church as it was restored by God Himself thru Jesus Christ. That only we can be saved thru Him our Savior.
jralaska20 3 years ago
jralaska20:
.
.How old were you when those Mormons put the
ring in your nose? This guy is QUOTING your hateful doctrines.
All this started by a screwball kid from a
screwball family looking at a rock in his
hat. Damn!! You bastards are soft.
JCPUTT 3 years ago
Here is a response to the DVD:
h t t p : // (no w w w)
en.fairmormon (dot) org/Search_for_the_Truth_DVD
smpf38 3 years ago
"Here is a response to the DVD: "
I actually haven't made a DVD. Are you spamming me?
Can I come and spam your blog?
slu2com 3 years ago
Your video refers to an "anti-Mormon" DVD.
That DVD, specifically the arguments presented on it have been torn to shreds by organizations such as FAIR. I was simply pointing that out. It is sad to see what anti-Mormons such as yourself have had to resort to.
When you make your videos, it is clear from your own voice and posture that you yourself aren't even convinced that you are making good use of the time in your life. Truly sad.
smpf38 3 years ago
"refers to an "anti-Mormon" DVD."
I think LDS use the label "anti-Mormon" way too freely.
I mean what is it, "if you are not for us, you are against us"?
What ever happened to honest and open discourse, without having to marginalize and discriminate against someone?
You calling me anti-Mormon doesn't hurt my feelings. It just makes me worried about the relationship that Mormons are developing with others based when they try to do this to others. You people use a lot of labels.
slu2com 3 years ago
I wouldn't call anyone who disagrees with LDS doctrine an "anti-Mormon".
I reserve that title for those who are misleading, intellectually dishonest, and logically inconsistent.
You and those who made this DVD are excellent examples.
smpf38 3 years ago
"I reserve that title for those who are misleading, intellectually dishonest, and logically inconsistent."
You are welcome to assume the title for youself if you would like. I nominate you.
slu2com 3 years ago
SLU: You are welcome to assume the title for youself if you would like. I nominate you.
O.K. SMPF is an "anti-Mormon" ... according to SLU.
I think that speaks volumes about your logic and consistency. Thanks for proving my point.
smpf38 3 years ago
At very least we are making progress then.
So tell me this. And after that statement, this answer should come very easily and naturally.
What specific doctrines can I find in the Book of Mormon that I can not find in the Bible?
What does the Book of Mormon add or complete in the Bible?
What is the Bible lacking SMPF38? Anything?
slu2com 3 years ago
SLU: What is the Bible lacking SMPF38? Anything?
First of all, this is a classic example of your inconsistency. Tell me, would you toss out Matthew, or Luke? They are just repetitive, right? And the Bible stories don't really teach anything more than a simple list of beliefs would teach. Why bother?
Beyond that inconsistency in your argument, I would like to point out that there are clarifications on baptism, the nature of God, WHY we must live by faith, information on God's plan, etc.
smpf38 3 years ago
SLU: What is the Bible lacking SMPF38? Anything?
SMPF38: First of all, this is a classic example of your inconsistency.
SLU: How so? How is asking you this simple question inconsistent? Seems consistent to me. I ask you to address well known Mormon claims and accusations about scriptures. And you divert. Good one. And yes, that is consistent SMPF..
You've listed a couple of generic things that you think the Book of Mormon has that the Bible does not. Lets put the references there too
slu2com 3 years ago
SLU: How so? How is asking you this simple question inconsistent?
If you can explain to me why you think it is important to have Matthew, Luke, Mark, and John in the New Testament, you will see exactly why you are being inconsistent.
SLU: And you divert.
That isn't a diversion. If you can explain to me why it is important to have those 4 gospels in the New Testament, you will directly answer your own question about the Book of Mormon.
smpf38 3 years ago
"If you can explain to me why you think it is important to have Matthew, Luke, Mark, and John in the New Testament, you will see exactly why you are being inconsistent."
First, we are talking about Christ's apostles in the New Testament. People that were with Jesus, walked with, talked with, and shared food with.
To get their stories of being with the Savior is far more important to me (and I am only speaking for myself), than a 19th century work of religious fiction.
slu2com 3 years ago
But you are avoiding my point. On the surface, the 4 gospels teach basically the same things, many of the same stories, the same doctrines. Even many of the same parables. So why is it important to keep all 4 in the New Testament?
Since I sense you will likely avoid my point, I will help you along. The reason is that we have different witnesses testifying of the same truths. Furthermore, we have some accounts that give some clarifications and additional information. This is very useful.
smpf38 3 years ago
"I (or you, or anybody) could have written a book called "Mormon Doctrine", but that doesn't make my statements binding on the Church members. "
Fine with me, but the prophets also backed a lot of what Bruce McConkie wrote, well before he wrote it.
You are making a mountain out of a mole hill.
If you follow my other references, you will see DOCTRINE that Brigham Young said was doctrine, from the prophet confirming exactly what I quote Bruce McConkie saying as "Mormon Doctrine"..
slu2com 3 years ago
"This is very useful. "
And a lot of religious fiction is useful too. Lord of the Rings for example. Written by a Christian author, about a fictional story with a great moral lesson behind the storyline.
A lot of religious fiction is a great testimony and compliment to what is written in the Bible. However, nothing measures up to the real thing. Certainly not the Book of Mormon.
slu2com 3 years ago
SLU: And you divert...
So now that we have established that I did not "divert". Let's move on to the second part of my response, which also was not a diversion, because I gave examples, but you want references. Sure.
Adams Fall and Human Suffering are explained (2 Nephi 2:2225)(Ether 12:27)(2 Nephi 2:1116)(2 Nephi 2:21)(2 Nephi 2:27). Free agency discussed in Alma 42:915 and Moroni 7:1619. Alma 13:2-5 discusses the premortal preparation of individuals.
.... to be cont.
to
smpf38 3 years ago
Great thanks for those examples. And now to the most important point of all of these additions to scripture.
How does ANY of this help my salvation?
slu2com 3 years ago
SLU: How does ANY of this help my salvation?
Well, I wasn't finished. But again you insert another of your inconsistencies. Don't you believe that "faith in Christ" is all that is necessary for salvation?
Well, you might as well throw your Bible away then. You don't need a huge book for just that one concept.
Surely understanding God's character, plan, advice, and teachings are helpful in our lives. Don't you think?
So where was I ...
smpf38 3 years ago
In Alma 7:1113 we learn that the Savior took upon Him not only our sins but also our pains, sicknesses, and infirmities that He might according to the flesh know how to succor [or come to the aid of] his people.
The doctrine of Christs redemptive power over little children (see Moroni 8:420).
The "first Principles and Ordinances" (Faith, repentance, baptism) are discussed throughout.
Church Organization (mostly in Moroni).
The role of angels in revelation and salvation(Moroni 7:29-32)
smpf38 3 years ago
"In Alma 7:1113 we learn that the Savior took upon Him not only our sins but also our pains, sicknesses, and infirmities that He might according to the flesh know how to succor [or come to the aid of] his people."
Come on, this is just Joseph Smith quoting more Isaiah.
slu2com 3 years ago
Which passage of Isaiah are you referring to specifically?
Also, even if this was a quote from Isaiah (it isn't) we know that scripture (like the New Testament) is full of quotes and phrases from the Old Testament. Sometimes the New Testament usages provide additional information and/or clarification.
smpf38 3 years ago
"Which passage of Isaiah are you referring to specifically?"
Same one that is in Mosiah 14. It's a paraphrased version of Isaiah 53. Geeze, these are the EASY ones SMPF!
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
utah: It's a paraphrased version of Isaiah 53
You said it was a "quote". Not that it matters, because you are still devaluing the Bible itself in your argument either way.
So, not only are do you find that quoting the Old Testament (as is done in the New Testament) is not worthwhile, but also phrasing things differently (also done in the New Testament) is worthless as well?
smpf38 3 years ago
"So, not only are do you find that quoting the Old Testament (as is done in the New Testament) is not worthwhile, but also phrasing things differently (also done in the New Testament) is worthless as well?"
Worthless?!
I was just asking you for new principles that would apply to my salvation does the Book of Mormon offer. And you just prescribe me a principle right out of Isaiah 53!
That's not NEW!!
Im not saying Isaiah 53 is worthless. I am just saying WE ALREADY HAVE IT.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
Utah: I was just asking you for new principles that would apply to my salvation... And you just prescribe me a principle right out of Isaiah 53!
Nice try. I gave you a list off the top of my head of several principles. You felt that ONE of the things on that list was just a different way of presenting Isa 53. That you ignored the others is YOUR problem. I would be more than happy to replace it with another.
The Bible says that it is critical to understand the nature of God->Ether 3:16
smpf38 3 years ago
SMPF: Nice try. I gave you a list off the top of my head of several principles.
SLU2: the only one that applied to my salvation, and of course, the only Biblically sound principle that you described came from Isaiah.
That Joseph Smith copied doesn't matter.
slu2com 3 years ago
SLU2: the only one that applied to my salvation, ...
Understanding God's plan and God's nature are important to salvation. So are the principles of the gospel, such as baptism by immersion for the remission of sins. Yes, these are Biblical, but apparently the Bible wasn't clear enough for you. Therefore, very clear and easy to understand principles are given in the Book of Mormon pertaining to salvation (along with many teachings that help us learn from the mistakes of others, etc.)
smpf38 3 years ago
"O.K. SMPF is an "anti-Mormon" ... according to SLU. "
No, according to your words earlier.. You defined an anti-Mormon as this:
"I reserve that title for those who are misleading, intellectually dishonest, and logically inconsistent."
And I have found all of those traits belong to you. So you must be what you most despise.. If your formula is sound that is..??
slu2com 3 years ago
Me: "I reserve that title for those who are misleading, intellectually dishonest, and logically inconsistent."
SLU: And I have found all of those traits belong to you.
I am more than happy to leave that decision up to whomever may happen upon our conversations.
smpf38 3 years ago
"I am more than happy to leave that decision up to whomever may happen upon our conversations. "
Cool, just know that you are already nominated.
And be grateful that I allow you to comment on my videos. That's not a favor that you've always extended to others.
slu2com 3 years ago
What is your point? This is the reason why LDS was established because God told JS that all churches were wrong. Just as the Protestant Churches proclaiming Catholic church "Babylon" or the "Harlot woman". The difference between Mormons and so-called mainstream Christians is that Mormons don't go around calling you guys names, and you people do the complete opposite!
avaikico 4 years ago
"The difference between Mormons and so-called mainstream Christians is that Mormons don't go around calling you guys names, and you people do the complete opposite!"
That is far from the truth. I have not called you, or any of your leaders names.
However, if you look at the words of the LDS prophets of the past, they have ostracized and belittled all other forms of Christianity since the beginning of their church.
slu2com 4 years ago
Your statement is misleading. Although LDS leaders have criticized the doctrines of other Christian denominations, such as the Trinity doctrine, it is misleading to say that they have "ostracized" or "belittled" other Christian "forms." LDS leaders have not belittled individuals, they have merely pointed out false doctrines.
ScottsdaleStylee 3 years ago
"it is misleading to say that they have "ostracized" or "belittled" other Christian "forms.""
Did you not listen to the whole video?
"LDS leaders have not belittled individuals, they have merely pointed out false doctrines."
In fact that is false. In case you didn't listen to the video, both John Taylor and Bruce McConkie made it very clear that Christians are damned to hell.
slu2com 3 years ago
Then allow me to ask you a few questions, if you believe that my statements are false.
What is it that John Taylor and Bruce McConkie disagree with?
Who are they speaking to?
What are they speaking about?
Why are they saying it?
ScottsdaleStylee 3 years ago
I think "abominations" is name calling - like very big time. I don't know of any other denomination which has officially called you that.
Estaban333 4 years ago
What SLU doesn't tell you is the circumstances under which these statements were made. Nor does he reveal the truth about what is actually considered abominable (creeds, not people).
SLU doesn't tell you that Bruce R. McConkie was not an apostle when he made that statement and that his tone was harshly criticized by the First Presidency.
SLU does not tell you that LDS scriptures say honorable Christians have a wonderful afterlife (Read Doctrine and Covenants 76:71-80,91) Shall I continue?
smpf38 3 years ago
"SLU doesn't tell you that Bruce R. McConkie was not an apostle when he made that statement and that his tone was harshly criticized by the First Presidency."
He was a general authority (something that SMPF38 leaves out), and would later become an apostle.
And my point of this, was to show that even the LDS leadership elite do not know how to correctly interpret their own doctrine. So how can they expect others to interpret it correctly. What confusion!!!
slu2com 3 years ago
SLU: He was a general authority (something that SMPF38 leaves out), and would later become an apostle.
I didn't make a video claiming that Bruce R. McConkie was something that he wasn't. YOU DID! Don't you think it is important to note that the FIRST PRESIDENCY of the LDS CHURCH repudiated McConkie's book? So, who is misleading?
We both know the answer to that question.
slu: And my point of this...
Anyone can see your video and see what you were trying to do. You aren't fooling anyone.
smpf38 3 years ago
smpf38, thank you for illustrating the great confusion, even within the leadership of the LDS religion.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
"Anyone can see your video and see what you were trying to do."
And for you to think I should be ashamed is weak, worthless, and un-warranted.
I stated "oh here is a quote by ol' Bruce McConkie. Who was an apostle [WAS because he no longer is]. And was the writer of Mormon Doctrine [again WAS, because he is dead]..
Identifying who this man was is VERY important. And even when he wrote the book he was a General Authority of the LDS church.
No foul, no harm. Move on.
slu2com 3 years ago
Here is a quote by McConkie, a general authority who wrote a book BEFORE he became an apostle and that very same book I am quoting from was repudiated by the First Presidency of the Church.
Your deception is twofold 1) an apostle wrote the book - incorrect 2) the book was received as official doctrine - to the contrary, it was rejected
SLU: No foul, no harm. Move on
If you feel that being misleading is harmless. Go for it. Just don't expect me to let it slide.
smpf38 3 years ago
"Your deception is twofold 1) an apostle wrote the book - incorrect 2) the book was received as official doctrine - to the contrary, it was rejected"
An apostle did write the book. Look it up, Bruce McConkie was an apostle within years of writting this book. And more so than his rank at the time. It was obvious that McConkie was a high ranking leader in the LDS church as a general authority.
And despite his rank, calling and dedication.. He still was off target on LDS doctrine.
slu2com 3 years ago
You are attempting to portray McConkie's book as official LDS doctrine. You try to paint it as official, saying "apostle Bruce R. McConkie" wrote it, when in fact it was general authority McConkie who wrote the book. He became an Apostle later. Even MORE misleading in your attempt to paint certain views as Church doctrine, is ignoring the repudiation of the book by the First Presidency.
SLU:..despite his rank, calling...
He what? Made opinions? Less than 1% of his material was incorrect.
smpf38 3 years ago
"You are attempting to portray McConkie's book as official LDS doctrine."
Im talking about continued revelations. If these men speak for God, do His will, and understand His principles in a way that no one else on earth does..
Then how is it that they get just as many things "wrong" as the so-called "anti-Mormons" do.
I've witnessed hundreds of things that many LDS prophets have claimed as "everlasting principles" that most LDS won't even recognize as doctrine anymore.
Strange..
slu2com 3 years ago
SLU: If these men speak for God, do His will, and understand His principles in a way that no one else on earth does.
However, McConkie never portrayed his book as revelation, but specifically said in the opening pages that he alone was responsible for its content (something else you also fail to acknowledge). And without authorization from the First Presidency, he has no right to reveal doctrine to the whole of the Church to begin with.
smpf38 3 years ago
"However, McConkie never portrayed his book as revelation"..
No, he portrayed it as "Mormon Doctrine."..
Not "Mormon Revelation". Not "Mormon Opinion". Not "Not quite Mormon Doctrine".
No.. He named his book "Mormon Doctrine".
So either it is, or it is not.
If it is not, that proves my point of how rediculas this "modern day authority" is.
He was a man in the LDS leadership, and held a role of authority.
This "authority" theory doesn't hold much merit..
slu2com 3 years ago
SLU: He named his book "Mormon Doctrine".
From HIS point of view, he wrote what HE thought was "Mormon Doctrine". But McConkie didn't have the authority on what is and isn't "Mormon Doctrine" as far as the Church is concerned. His introduction pages DID in fact indicate that he was not speaking for the Church.
I (or you, or anybody) could have written a book called "Mormon Doctrine", but that doesn't make my statements binding on the Church members.
smpf38 3 years ago
"but specifically said in the opening pages that he alone was responsible for its content"
And for the title? "Mormon Doctrine".
Again, it either IS Mormon Doctrine, or it is not. What say ye?
slu2com 3 years ago
SLU: He named his book "Mormon Doctrine". So either it is, or it is not.
The book was "Mormon Doctrine" BY BRUCE R. McCONKIE. Bruce called it that title, not the Church. It wasn't published by the Church, wasn't approved by the Church (in fact it was repudiated by the First Presidency of the Church). The introduction explained that he alone was responsible for the material in the book.
Let's say that a Christian man wrote a book called "Christian Doctrine".
Either it is, or it isn't? Right?
smpf38 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I (or you, or anybody) could have written a book called "Mormon Doctrine", but that doesn't make my statements binding on the Church members. "
Fine with me, but the prophets also backed a lot of what Bruce McConkie wrote, well before he wrote it.
You are making a mountain out of a mole hill.
If you follow my other references, you will see DOCTRINE that Brigham Young said was doctrine, from the prophet confirming exactly what I quote Bruce McConkie saying as "Mormon Doctrine"..
slu2com 3 years ago
SLU: Im talking about continued revelations. If these men speak for God, do His will, and understand His principles in a way that no one else on earth does...
In which part of McConkie's book does he claim that he is receiving revelation? Where does McConkie say he is speaking for God? Where does McConkie say that he is speaking in an official capacity as a general authority?
He doesn't. In fact, he states quite the opposite.
smpf38 3 years ago
"During his service as a general authority, he published several doctrinal books and articles and wrote the chapter headings of the LDS standard works."
This is easily found on Wikipedia.
In fact, Bruce McConkie while serving as General Authority, and during the time that he wrote the book "Mormon Doctrine", was written doctrines for the LDS church, and was publishing his works as "standard works" on the LDS church.
His book "Mormon Doctrine" may be a misleading title. But I didn't write it.
slu2com 3 years ago
And again, the quote that I used from Bruce McConkie in this video is complimented by similar doctrinal statements by several LDS prophets.
slu2com 3 years ago
"You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as the standards of doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works.
Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church.. If Joseph Fielding Smith (prophet) writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted."
smpf38 3 years ago
SLU: ...during the time that he wrote the book "Mormon Doctrine", was written doctrines for the LDS church, and was publishing his works as "standard works" on the LDS church.
But "Mormon Doctrine" wasn't one of them, now was it. It in fact was written outside of his capacity and calling as a general authority. As I said, his book DOES contain Mormon Doctrine and ALMOST all of it does in fact correctly reflect official teachings of the Church. But some of it doesn't; your favorite parts.
smpf38 3 years ago
"But some of it doesn't; your favorite parts. "
But the quotes that I made from "Mormon Doctrine" in this video are supported by doctrines that LDS prophets from earlier days had made very comparable sermons on the same subject.
I listed these statements by prophets in this video too.
So it's not just the word of Bruce McConkie. These words are also backed up by the doctrinal words of Brigham Young, and John Taylor.
slu2com 3 years ago
Joseph F. Smith explained, "It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words (a prophet), and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they don't square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine."
smpf38 3 years ago
"It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside."
Who's to say it's not "the Lord has revealed"?
Several prophets and apostles agreed that it was something that the Lord had revealed, and Brigham Young said it could be considered doctrine if "he sent it out to men".. Which he did.
So if these prophets, and apostles are in agreement. Does that make you wrong SMPF?
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
utah: Who's to say it's not "the Lord has revealed"?
The First Presidency. That's who. They present official declarations to the Church as "revelation" that can be canonized and is binding to the members as doctrine. This has been done on several occasions.
smpf38 3 years ago
"The First Presidency. That's who."
So you are saying a doctrinal point of view that SEVERAL LDS prophets agree on with Mr. McConkie, were trumped by the First Presidency at the time of McConkie writing this book?
Seriously?
I thought you just got done telling me that more than 90% of that book has correct doctrine.
So are you taking that statement back?
Or how do you know that this particular point of doctrine is one of the incorrect doctrines? Did they specifically single this one out?
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
utah: So you are saying a doctrinal point of view that SEVERAL LDS prophets agree on with Mr. McConkie...
You just took part of my response to you and ignored the rest. Tsk, tsk.
utah: I thought you just got done telling me that more than 90% of that book has correct doctrine.
I would say much more than 90%.
SLU: Or how do you know that this particular point of doctrine is one of the incorrect doctrines?
Again, you have ignored the answers that I have already given.
smpf38 3 years ago
"Again, you have ignored the answers that I have already given. "
Are you serious?
Let's reflect on what you have said about this.
Because I don't see where you have stated that this particular doctrine (as read in my video), has been denounced in the LDS religion.
Where have they said this?
Maybe you should make a video and clear all of this up? I would love to see you make this point VERY CLEARLY.
slu2com 3 years ago
SLU: Maybe you should make a video and clear all of this up?
What's the point of making another video for you? I made this one watch?v=zgfpxhp7w8M which covers the same points that I have just discussed with you concerning Mormon doctrine. You simply refuse to accept how the LDS belief system works.
smpf38 3 years ago
v=zgfpxhp7w8M
is my video that we are watching right now!
slu2com 3 years ago
"you just took part of my response to you and ignored the rest. Tsk, tsk."
Yes, you've done it to me at least 6 times in the last couple of days within this conversation.
Point remains: Where have the LDS leaders denounced this particular doctrine (as read in my video), that many prophets, and at least one apostle have CLEARLY and redundantly recited and condoned throughout the decades.
Where have they denounced the theme that I read about in my video? Can you point it out? You haven't yet
slu2com 3 years ago
SLU: ...you've [ignored portions of my response] at least 6 times in the last couple of days within this conversation.
Please give an example SLU.
SLU: Where have they denounced the theme that I read about in my video?
You are smoking too much pot. I gave extensive examples when you made the "Mormon Bashing, Why do they do it" video. watch?v=qmjKkFY6X64
I was the first to respond to that video and we had a very long conversation on this topic. You simply ignored everything I had to say.
smpf38 3 years ago
"Please give an example SLU."
I've asked a dozen times now at least on where EXACTLY the LDS leadership have denounced the hateful words like in Pearl of Great Price Chpt 1, Joseph Smith's history. The whole "all of the other [churches] are wrong" and that "all of them are ABOMINATIONS"..
You say that because the LDS church said nice things about other religions, that is proof that they denounce such speech.
They have never denounced it though.
slu2com 3 years ago
SLU: The whole "all of the other [churches] are wrong"
Believing or saying that other churches are "wrong" isn't "hateful".
By the way, you believe that Mormons, Hindus, Buddhists, Catholics, and Muslims are wrong.
SLU: You say that because the LDS church said nice things about other religions, that is proof that they denounce such speech.
LDS are taught IN CHURCH not to criticize other religions. They are taught not to be hateful, or prideful. It is up to the members to comply.
smpf38 3 years ago
"By the way, you believe that Mormons, Hindus, Buddhists, Catholics, and Muslims are wrong."
Mostly Mormons.
slu2com 3 years ago
SLU: His book "Mormon Doctrine" may be a misleading title. But I didn't write it.
No, instead you perpetuate the misleading nature of the title, and you amplify it by the way you present it.
smpf38 3 years ago
"No, instead you perpetuate the misleading nature of the title, and you amplify it by the way you present it. "
It's not misleading on my part. I am simply referring to what SEVERAL LDS leaders agree on. And that I reference the book "Mormon Doctrine" makes no difference to the integrity of the arguement. The quote that I used was indeed written by a leader of the LDS church, who was at the time writing "Standard Works" for the church, and would soon after become an apostle.
utahpirateradio 3 years ago
You should read some of messages sent to me from mormons. Name calling champions!
Estaban333 3 years ago
Actually, Mormons do still circumsize not by tradition or cleanliness. But by doctrinal commands of the original prophet.
Joseph Smith's translation of the Bible indicates that the performance of circumcision on the eighth day after birth symbolized "that children are not accountable before me until they are eight years old" (JST Gen. 17:4-20; cf. D&C 68:25; 74:1-7).
slu2com 4 years ago
Even though it is not a Biblical doctrine.
Romans 2:25-28
slu2com 4 years ago
D&C 68:25 says nothing about circumcision. D&C 74:1-7 does not say that circumsicion is required either. It says that little children are holy and sanctified through the atonement of Christ. It does say that they become accountable at age 8 and that is when they are deemed necessary for repentance, baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost.
ChristopherMillz 4 years ago
There is a deeper explaination of it here, including the association with the JST.
lightplanet. com/mormons/daily/interfaith/Circumcision_EOM.htm
slu2com 4 years ago
Just like circumcision. Even though Mormons still circumcise, it is not required! Only the heart (a spiritual element) must be circumcised.
Romans 2:25-28
Water baptism is also not required, even though by tradition many religions still do it.
1 Cor 1:17
slu2com 4 years ago
Hey, I agree, the heart is what should be circumcised but again, 1 Cor 1:17 does NOT say that water baptism is no longer required. Maybe you should lend me your goggles so I can see it better.
ChristopherMillz 4 years ago
"1 Cor 1:17 does NOT say that water baptism is no longer required. "
Then Paul led his followers astray by not baptising many of them. He actually thanks God that he didn't baptisemost of them.
slu2com 4 years ago
He thanks God for it because some of these people did not realize what the baptism meant. if you read the next verse, he says "lest any of you say that I baptized in my own name" He was telling them that they were all baptized in the name of C