srm
-
Posts
480 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by srm
-
-
Hi srm,
No, the Lord said
that they were wrong.
their creeds were an abomination
that those professors (the local preachers) were corupt
Ok. I was quoting a general statement for discussion sake. My quote was the LDS believe that God saw them all as abominations. Would you disagree with that statement?
Yes, I disagree. I think that we believe that the other Churches are wrong...that the creeds are an abomination and that those preachers were corrupt.
-
Traveler,
Of course nothing excuses the terrorism that the saints were subjected to, but how much of the trouble that followed could have been avoided if the saints hadn't done some things leading up to it like destroying of the printing press, practicing illegal polygamy, etc?
The problems started long before the press was destroyed.
I think that it more of an economic/political reason than polygamy...
-
<div class='quotemain'>
"Joseph was supposed to ride in front with the driver but the driver kicked Joseph out of the wagon so a teenage girl could ride with him. The foot print was later discovered in young Joseph’s chest. Joseph was alone and lost consciousness. He was picked up by a stranger that carried young Joseph ten miles to the wagon camp and then disappeared. "
what is your source
The History of Joseph Smith by his mother Lucy Mack Smith.
The Traveler
which version?
-
Thanks for your input Ray. When Joseph Smith was told not to follow/join "any for they are all an abomination in My sight." What do you think was being communicated there? They were not all apostate or they were?
Thank you
No, the Lord said
that they were wrong.
their creeds were an abomination
that those professors (the local preachers) were corupt
Besides the 3 Nephits there is also the apostle John. A interesting character in history is a person called Prester John that surfaced during the crusades. The Catholics believe him to be a fantasy but the Moslems believe him to be real and a friend of all good peoples. BTW he was not your standard variety Trinitarian and is believed to have been a nestorian Christian.
When the family of Joseph Smith moved to New York Joseph was still a young boy and could hardly walk from his operation two years before. Joseph’s mother had hired a man to drive a wagon and Joseph was supposed to ride in front with the driver but the driver kicked Joseph out of the wagon so a teenage girl could ride with him. The foot print was later discovered in young Joseph’s chest. Joseph was alone and lost consciousness. He was picked up by a stranger that carried young Joseph ten miles to the wagon camp and then disappeared.
Final thought: When the Spanish came to the new world the became very interested in finding a fountain of youth. According to the stories they had heard that there were people that had found this fountain that once someone had drunk they would not die. According to stories there were at least 3 that had found this fountain and had walked among the native Americans. Some of the Spanish explorers were so convinced that they risked all they had to find the fountain. I wonder if this fountain was the “fountain of living waters” spoken of by Christ?
The Traveler
"Joseph was supposed to ride in front with the driver but the driver kicked Joseph out of the wagon so a teenage girl could ride with him. The foot print was later discovered in young Joseph’s chest. Joseph was alone and lost consciousness. He was picked up by a stranger that carried young Joseph ten miles to the wagon camp and then disappeared. "
what is your source
-
Originally posted by SarahMaree@Jan 5 2006, 06:42 PM
Hey y'all- I started reading this book called "The King of Beaver Island" and it's about this guy James Strang. He claimed to be the next prophet following Joseph Smith's assassination, and he had this whole competition going with Brigham Young. He formed a new "Zion" on some island in Wisconsin and had a whole bunch of followers while everyone else was heading west, and he basically formed like a royalty system where he was king.
Has anyone ever heard of him before? My friend said that we never talk about false prophets, but he just seemed like he was such a big deal that I'm surprised I've never heard of him before.
I think that it's beneficial to study people like this in church history, because you can see just how they influence people to follow them. Do y'all think that it's better to just never mention them?
I love Strang's quote (on his deathbed) when asked about succession in the leadership of his church.
"I don't want to talk about it"
-
-
He will be wearing a red robe.Originally posted by bizabra@Aug 3 2005, 09:30 PM
So, when Jesus returns to Earth as ya'all expect he will someday, what will he be wearing? Will he wear the clothing he was accustomed to wear when he was alive on Earth? Robes, sandals, long hair, a beard, etc. Or will he be wearing a business suit such as CHURCH authorities all favor? Will his hair be neatly trimmed and he won't have facial hair, just like a missionary?
Or does the planet Kolob have it's own fashion sense, with immortal fashion designers coming up with new and fun styles for each season?
What do you think?
-
The leadership of whom you speak did not felt that it was authentic to the time period...not that it was an authentic letter. Granted they clearly didn't know but authentic or not it was a significant piece of LDS history...oh, BTW, you've tipped your hand.Originally posted by Shawn@Jul 20 2005, 11:28 PM
Snow-
Makes sense. Although I'm not entirely sure the LDS thought the Salamander Letter was farsical. To be honest, I'm not sure that many Latter-day Saints even really knew about it so maybe my using it as an example was weak to begin with. Never-the-less, the people I associated with at the time knew of it, and the leadership believed in it enough to buy it, so I don't think it was taken lightly by all. Good comments though.
SHAWN
-
I think that it is a moot point because it is not gonna happen...however, for the sake of the question. I would go to the Lord for a spiritual comfirmation.Originally posted by Shawn@Jul 15 2005, 09:07 PM
Just taking a poll. On a scale of 1 to 10, how much anxiety and trouble would you experience if Gordon B Hinckley announced that the BOM will no longer be considered scripture to members of the Church?
Thanks,
Shawn
-
Originally posted by Maureen+Jul 28 2005, 04:03 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Maureen @ Jul 28 2005, 04:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--dontagreeljefe@Jul 28 2005, 03:53 PM
My question can you be asked to leave the temple for not dressing appropriatly.
Now, I'm no expert mind you
but from what I understand; the temple workers would not even give you permission to enter the temple if you are not dressed appropriately.M.
You would not be turned away for not wearing 'sunday clothes'
I went just recently in very casual clothes...no-one said anything.
-
If I recall polycarp claimed to have studied under John. Do you have any proof?
On the other hand...Joseph Smith studied under John too (and many others including Jesus).
-
We aren't saying that it wasn't a legitmate ordinance...rather that we don't do it now in favor of another legitmate ordinance...anointing with oil.Originally posted by Jason@Jun 28 2005, 09:50 AM
Ok, Cal.
Mormons used to baptise in the Temples for "health" purposes. They had to obtain a recommend, and they fully expected that this "ordinance" would restore the sick to a normal state.
This practice occured from the days of Joseph Smith untill the early 20th century, when it was done away.
IF this was a true ordinance (and I can't see how a Mormon could claim otherwise being approved by Smith, Young, Taylor, & Woodruff) then how can the Mormons change it?
That is exactly like the Roman Catholics and their inclusion of Pouring, Sprinkling, in addition to Immersion baptism.
So yes, Mormons are "changing" their ordinances. They claim it's a "legitimate development" just like the Catholics do. But for some reason, when the Catholics do it, it's apostate, when the Mormons do it, it's "continuous revelation".
How's that?
-
Because we feel that the changes are directed/approved via revelation from God.Originally posted by Cal@Jun 27 2005, 11:27 AM
In noticing the changes in temple ordinances over the years, the thought came to me: Isn't that what the apostacy, in part a least, was supposed to have been all about in the first place?
We explain that a restoration of the true gospel was needed, partly, at least, because the early church began to change the ordinances and doctrines that were part of the "true" church. JS, supposedly, restored the true methodology of these ordinances. For example, baptism, was supposed to be done by emersion, not sprinking. This change was, supposedly, one of the great abomination of the apostacy.
But, how is changing the ordinances in the temple any different? If we were to say, well, some people in the church are uncomfortable with getting dunked under water, does that justify changing the ordinance so that people feel better about it.
We have been judgemental of the Catholic church for changing the baptismal ordinance to make it more convenient and less objectionable to the masses. But what have we been doing to our own ordinances.....same thing?
-
I've always enjoyed being president of the Church.
-
Jason, you don't count that little jab as being in conflict with your statement, "I've no intention of turning this into a debate thread"Originally posted by Jason@May 16 2005, 11:48 AM
srm
Perhaps the most compelling is the fact that God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith and through him restored the Church. Why would God need to restore it if it had not been taken away AND, who would know better than God?
Of course, if it was God who appeared to Joseph Smith, then you've got a good point here. Thanks srm.
-
Maybe because those who were offended stand more of a chance of coming back...because they have a testimony.Originally posted by Jason@May 19 2005, 11:03 AM
So my wife has recently asked to have her name removed from the records of the LDS church. She sent her letter both to the local bishop, and to church headquarters in SLC.
No big deal, so far so good.
Then yesterday we get this letter from SLC headquarters stating that they're processing her request, but with the letter they send this little 1 page pamphlet under the picture and signatures of the First Presidency. The pamphlet is about 4 short paragraphs, and is directed toward someone who's left for only one reason. Apparently Salt Lake thinks that the only people who want their names removed are the people who were "offended" in some way. It then states that they're welcome back to "feel the joy" they once felt at any time.
Why on earth do they think that the only people who leave are the ones who were offended? Im not saying that there aren't those who leave for this reason, but it seems that the vast majority of people I've met who are ex-mo's left for other (shall I say more "valid") reasons.
Hmm..
Those who leave due to doctrinal issues would have a longer row to hoe to make it back.
But, Jason, when you and your lovely wife have eaten husks long enough....
-
Perhaps the most compelling is the fact that God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith and through him restored the Church. Why would God need to restore it if it had not been taken away AND, who would know better than God?Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@May 11 2005, 03:00 PM
I just want to know what your opinion is. You need not provide any evidence. Just what you think justifies your personal belief is this.
Thanks.
PS. I've no intention of turning this into a debate thread. Just wanna hear your private views. :)
-
Originally posted by Amillia+Apr 1 2005, 08:36 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Amillia @ Apr 1 2005, 08:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Strawberry Fields@Apr 1 2005, 07:10 AM
Still? Why would Michael use the money meant for Terri's rehab to pay his high powered, right to death attorney, to kill her? I know there will be the Michael supporters that will say that that is what Terri wanted but, his actions have placed much doubt on that.
Why did he wait until he had her rehab money in the bank before he brought that up?
Sure he was the dutiful husband until he had that money and then he remembered that she wanted to die.
To my knowledge, the people who recall Terri's dying wishes have the last name of Shiavo and Terri was unable to speak for herself.
Michael has been fighting to have Terri's wishes granted ever since he has received that money.
One can only second guess why the Schindlers made this decision given the state they were in. Hopefully the reason will emerge soon and the speculation will cease.
I think the husband had the right to get a lawyer if he was the responsible party. Which he was. He was doing what he felt he should do and used the means to take care of Terri with that money even if it meant taking care of her by releasing her from that dispicable shell of a body.
I see no compromise in ethics to use the money for Terri's care here. It was for benefiting her the best way he could.
When Michael sued he requested money for her care for the rest of her life...he claimed it was about 50 years. once the money arrived...within months he stopped therapy, gave a dnr order and when she got an infection that he knew could be fatal he refused antibiotics. That 50 years changed to months.
In speaking to a lover he told her (according to her testimony) that he didn't know what she wanted.
100s of thousands of dollars earmarked for her care were spent on lawyers trying to kill her.
When questioned in a deposition about why he would not allow the parents to care for her he replied.
After the hell they (the parents) put me through...
then after a lawyer whispered into his ear he said...oh and also it is what terri wants.
-
Does a week long list of activities make a church more true? Why?Originally posted by inactivetx@Mar 28 2005, 11:29 AM
Wow - didn't mean to step on toes here
1 - since I didn't attend Sacrament yesterday, I was not aware that it was a regular sacrament meeting. I was told it would be a F&T meeting several weeks back. I was mistaken. I feel much better knowing the meeting was focused on the sacrafice of our Savior.
2 - I believe I do understand the atonement. My concern was that it is a word that is used frequently in the Church, so much so that it becomes ordinary and loses it's true meaning. I think it would be fair to focus on the meaning of the atonement in an in-depth way and Easter provides the perfect opportunity. I understand that bearing testimony is giving honor and recognition of the atonement, but so would a study of the atonement - why and how - would be equally beneficial.
Again, my frustration with this matter is due to my religious past where Easter was a week long process where each action of the Passion is re-acted in a physical way from the waving of Palm Branches to foot washing and institution of the sacrament, the stripping of the altar, the Vigil, looking upon the cross and hearing Christ's plea to the Father as he dies. Reading as a congregation the trial of Christ and having to admit that yes, I, demanded His Death. And then experience the jublilation when the empty tomb was found and hearing of the apostles visitations by Christ and take joy in the knowledge that He lives! And because He lives, I live and have hope and joy for the future. My sins can be forgiven and I can return to the presence of Heavely Father. And after 40 days of Lent this week is a truely heartwrenching and jubliant journey. It is this experience that I miss in the LDS church.
Nancy
-
Golly, Joseph was sealed to a 14 year old...but you don't need that book to learn it. or that brigham had many wives.Originally posted by alpha_female@Mar 26 2005, 12:03 AM
Oh, stuff like how Joe Smith married 14 year old girls, and BY had 55 wives. Basically polygamy that the fundies who committed the murders practiced because it was the original practice of your church.
-
yes, perhaps, but then a statement such as, "majority of pedophiles are respected, HETEROSEXUAL males." is incorrect. In fact The 'homosexual lobby' will claim that a male pedophile sexually abusing a young male is not a homosexual act. I disagree.Originally posted by pushka@Mar 26 2005, 11:56 AM
Srm...the unfortunate truth about paedophiles is that they do not only have sexual relations with boys, they do the same with girls too...yes, there will be some homosexual paedophiles, but there are also heterosexual ones too.
-
Happy Easter Everyone!
Thanks for the suggestions to personally imbelish LDS celebrations of Easter by attending other churches, etc, but I guess what concerns me is why should I have to?
Well, because it is something that we don't do... if it is something you want on easter Sunday you will have to get it elsewhere.
Why doesn't The Lord's Church put greater emphasis on this Holiday?
I think that there is great emphasis...every week the sacrament remembers The death, resurection and atonement of Jesus. It "ain't" a once a year thing.
As I mentioned I didn't make it to Sacrament meeting today but it would have been interesting to see how many mentioned the death & ressurection of the Savior instead of just the 'atonement', KWIM? How many times do LDS focus on how Christ accompished the atonement rather than just that it happened? I guess that is truly what I think is missing from LDS Easter this year.
Just the atonement? are you serious?
What is your understanding of the atonement and what it was?
Again - Happy Easter! (btw - the blueberry pancakes at the in-laws were delicious!)
Nancy
Happy Easter to you too.
-
Originally posted by JRodan+Mar 26 2005, 02:57 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JRodan @ Mar 26 2005, 02:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Outshined@Mar 26 2005, 02:48 PMOriginally posted by -JRodan@Mar 26 2005, 08:31 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Outshined@Mar 26 2005, 06:47 AM
That's odd; I've never heard the name "Joe Smith" mentioned in an LDS Church. Maybe you were in the wrong building.
Seems alphy may be on more familiar terms with his majesty than you are comfortable with.
Seems you assume too much...
"alphy" doesn't seem to know any more about it than you do. His most intimate family never called him "Joe". And JS's name is rarely mentioned in most Sacrament meetings. Don't let facts get in the way, though...
I'm not going to assume what Sacrament meetings you attend, but I hear his name mentioned fairly often in the ones I attend, especially on F&T Sundays. I wouldn't begin to assume what terms of endearment his immediate family may or may not have used. I wouldn't even assume you knew, though it appears you seem to think you've a firm assumption of the "facts." Your comfort level does seem a bit agitated by anyone not Mormon referring to him familiarly and that's to be understood.
Those opposed to Joseph and his work often called him Joe or Ol' Joe. Most everyone else called him Joseph.
Oh, or Holy Joe
-
Originally posted by alpha_female+Mar 26 2005, 12:26 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (alpha_female @ Mar 26 2005, 12:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--pushka@Mar 22 2005, 08:22 PM
In what way is soceity offering social rewards for children 'experimenting sexually'? How do you know that children are doing that anyway?...this is your assumption based upon your beliefs about homosexuality.
You really are beginning to sound very desperate over the issue of homosexuality, equating it first to child abuse and now to violence in movies...
Right on! Statistics actually show that the majority of pedophiles are respected, HETEROSEXUAL males. Most homosexuals out there aren't out to turn everyone gay, nor are they after your children. Only bigotry is.
Incidentally, I know someone who knew the family, and they were described to me as WIERDOS!! This person was only refering to Martha's dad as being the MAJOR WEIRDO out of all of them, plus her mom was so clinically depressed that she rarely came out of her room only to verbally abuse her children. Martha's the sanest of all of them.
If a man has a sexual relationship with a another male (young or old)...it is a homosexual relationship...
To say that, "Statistics actually show that the majority of pedophiles are respected, HETEROSEXUAL males." is a specious smokescreen.
Repentance question
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
very funny!