thews
-
Posts
156 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by thews
-
-
My Bishop and I are really good friends and he often says that anti material is as poisonous as pornography. As pornography degrades and skews and binds people to a warped reality, so does anti material.
There is none so blind as those who will not see.
"Anti" is a negative phrase to keep you from understanding the real history. Actual factual history is not "Anti" ...it's just factual data.
-
You mean, the letter that was freakin' addressed to her PARENTS?
Yes I know... it clearly states "you three" in it. FAIRMORMON twists "the real" issue with it as to who it wqs addressed to, when in fact it's a moot point. The only condition Joseph Smith states is "not safe" is if Emma was there. No mention of bad guys, no mention of mobs, but the only condition it is not safe is if his wife Emma was there, and he stated he thought she wasn't going to be there, and he had a room "intirely to myself." Also note that Joseph Smith promised Sarah's parents eternal salvation, and that is was God will that they come, and it was now or never. Add into this Sarah's father had 38 wives of his own, and she had just turned 17.
If you really want to read Fair's arguments with the 4 "distortions," they are all much ado about nothing, and do not address what Joseph Smnith actually said, but for some reason talk abotu what some other guy name Smith said. This is clearly an attemt to add Sarah Ann Whitney to his wives, and he did marry her. Again, the letter is addresed to all of them, it is addressed to Sarah's parents, so this is a fact and and a non issue.
Question: Why was the only condition deemed "not safe" is when Joseph Smith
's wife wasn't there, and he stated he was "lonesome" and "Lonely"? You have to really look at this critically, because this is a letter from the Mormon prophet of God in Joseph Smith, the LDS church acknowledges it is in fact written by Joseph Smith, there are pictures of it on the web, and Joseph Smith instructs them to burn it, which Sarah didn't... it's a real insight into the mind of Joseph Smith. Read it and tell me what you honestly think.
-
In researching the facts, I don't need to read the Book of Mormon to acknowledge them, nor do I need to pray for guidance when I know facts are facts, and they are in fact true. In this case, if Swedenborg wrote about the three levels of heaven naming the "Celestial kingdom," I don't have to force the square peg into the round hole to make sense out of it. When I know Joseph Smith tried to sell the Book of Mormon for $3000, I also don't have to force that square peg into a round hole. When I know that Joseph Smith used his magic stone to cheat people out of their money by glass-looking before writing the Book of Mormon, I again don't have to rationalize it. If you take all of these things and look at the timeline, Joseph Smith really changed his theology when comparing 1830 to 1842. If you logically look at this progression after 1840, that's when polygamy/polyandry was introduced. Was this really of God, or of Joseph Smith? If you contend this is wrong (I do), then Joseph Smith, who supposedly knew God existed and was watching his every move, was doing some really bad things. Now logically, does it make sense that Joseph Smith knew God existed and the Book of Mormon was true, or is it more logical that Joseph Smith knew the Book of Mormon was false and was using the Mormon church to satisfy his own desires? (Note read the published letter to Sarah Ann Whitney with an ounce of critical thought and this is easy to see). Now add in that Joseph Smith was in the process of changing the bible when he died. Does this seem like God was pleased with his work, or frowned upon it? Does this seem pro or con when reading the bible regarding false prophets and their fate? Why would God allow this, and if you think he would, why didn't he have someone else finish it? Add it all up, and I contend it's why you didn't answer the question regarding Swedenborg's writings about the Celestial kingdom before 1800, and I would also contend that it's because it sides with the Book of Mormon not being true rather than being true.Evidence that Joseph was a fraud and that I should leave the church? Try researching a bit further with the thought that the church is true and you just might find the rest of the story.
What do you think of the writings of Paul in the New Testament?
I think you're trying to change the subject to keep from answering the question about Swedenborg's writings and the vision of James G. Marsh.
-
Wow, I have been duped. Thank you so much for enlightening me with detail that I have never heard. I will resign immediately.
Oh, could you provide some sources from someone other than an D.Michael Quinn......he was excommunicated for being an apostate and since his works have largely been discredited, I would rather bet my Eternal salvation on sources a bit more reliable than an avowed homosexual and ex member of the church.
Other than bad sarcasm I hardly see your point. Is the Elder's Journal not evidence enough?
What do you make of Swedenborg's writings before 1800?Elder's Journal of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Far West, Missouri, July 1828
Vol.1, No.3, p.48
-
Three persons who are one being.
Godhead - The Encyclopedia of Mormonism
"I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods"
Joseph Smith taught: Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God. I say that is a strange God anyhow-three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization anyhow. "
The LDS doctrine of the Godhead differs from the various concepts of the Trinity. Several postbiblical trinitarian doctrines emerged in Christianity. This "dogmatic development took place gradually, against the background of the emanationist philosophy of Stoicism and Neoplatonism (including the mystical theology of the latter), and within the context of strict Jewish monotheism" (ER 15:54). Trinitarian doctrines sought to elevate God's oneness or unity, ultimately in some cases describing Jesus as homoousious (of the same substance) with the Father in order to preclude any claim that Jesus was not fully divine. LDS understanding, formulated by latter-day revelation through Joseph Smith, rejects the idea that Jesus or any other personage loses individuality by attaining Godhood or by standing in divine and eternal relationships with other exalted beings.
This is from BYU... I'm not getting how it can be up to the person to changes what the LDS church teaches to fit what they believe, and still be LDS?
-
You can view this 2 ways:
1. Joseph Smith read his writings and got his belief from his writings.
2. Swedenborg studied early Christian writings and saw it written somewhere, or was himself enlightened by the Spirit of God, and Joseph Smith is but restoring a truth that was once had.
Just because others said it first, or coined the phrase, doesn't mean it's not true, nor is it evidence Joseph Smith was not inspired. It's all in how you choose to see it.
I tend to be much more logical. If Swedenborg wrote about it before Joseph Smith, it's logical that whoever wrote the Book of Mormon "borrowed" this concept from Swedenborg (for the record I don't believe Joseph Smith wrote it). In using your logic, Swedenborg is a prophet of God. I'm not buying that he "saw it somwhere." There always seems to be a square peg and a round hole to this kind of logic. You don't have to agree with me to see the point, but in this instance clearly the "restored" part of the afterlife was Swedenborg's first, through his vision.
Just as the Visions of James G. Marsh saw two personages:
Logic would dictate that Joseph Smith knew of this (Joseph Smith was the editor of the Elders Journal that published his obituary) and borrowed the boy's story."7 May, 1838. James G. Marsh, 14-year-old son of the president of the Quorum of Twelve, dies. The Elder's Journal issue of July notes that at age nine this boy "had a remarkable vision, in which he talked with the Father and many of the ancient prophets face to face, and beheld the Son of God coming in his glory." No publication at this time had yet referred to Smith's vision of the Father and the Son."
(D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, p.628)
Elder's Journal of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Far West, Missouri, July 1828
Vol.1, No.3, p.48
OBITUARY.
DIED on the 7th of May last, James G. Marsh, second son of Thomas B. Marsh, aged 14 years, 11 months and seven days.
From early infancy he manifested a love and reverence towards his Heavenly Father, while his parents diligently taught him the first principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ. And having a thirst for knowledge and a love of good principles, he eagerly embraced the gospel, and was baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints, early in the spring of 1832, being between eight and nine years of age.
His great love of knowledge led him to take hold of every opportunity to read the most useful books, and as he was a lover of the gospel, he made himself well acquainted with the sacred writings, and even at this early age, he had become well skilled in profane as well as sacred history.
It seems that the Lord had respect unto this lover of righteousness, for when he was but about nine years of age, he had a remarkable vision, in which he talked with the Father and many of the ancient prophets face to face, and beheld the Son of God coming in his glory.
Don't these two things (Swedenborg and James G. Marsh) morph into Mormonism? One need only believe in these people's visions to accept them as divine. Using logic, I hardly see either as an accident, or coincidence, but rather further proof that Joseph Smith was not a prophet of God, but believed in magic and other people's visions. 2 cents...
-
I don't understand this. Are you saying the reward you'll get for being obidient is to attain a level of heaven where you'll get to be with your parents?This is not what LDS believes. There is a very big cost to enter the highest glory of heaven. Maintaining a temple recommend is about one of the hardest things to do as a Christian. It is so hard that even physical witnesses to the Book of Mormon fell away from the church.
You and I may have a different understanding of what "saved" means. I'm a very logical person so I tend to split hairs with the way a word is used. If what you mean by "saved" is "resurrected", then yes, virtually everyone is saved. But, there is a lot more to it than that. Let's take Telestial glory for instance - the lowest degree of glory. Sure, it is better than earth. Satan is on earth but not in Telestial kingdom. But, you cannot live with the Father and the Son in the Telestial Kingdom. Is that not a hell of some kind? If I were to think of my own parents with the knowledge that I had a testimony that if I would just be obedient I could live with mom and dad through eternities and then because I was being an idiot and did not follow through I ended up apart from them for all time and eternity - that would be a big hell for me! So, does that mean I'm saved?
OK, so I did hear it, I was baptized a Mormon and now I reject Joseph Smith as a false prophet of God. I am a Christian though, but I did get the opportunity... please explain what I can expect in the afterlife per LDS doctrine.This is not true of LDS teachings either. Each and every person who has ever lived on earth have equal opportunity to hear the gospel and accept God's mercy. There's no such thing as "given enough time"... Nope. It's either you accept or you don't. The only difference is - LDS teaches that if you didn't get the opportunity to hear the truth on earth, you still have the opportunity to hear it after you pass through the veil of death.
The levels of glory were written in the late 1700's before Joseph Smith. Who should one read?I think you need to read a bit more about the levels of glory. I gave an inkling of the Telestial kingdom (lowest kingdom) on the paragraph above.
-
Totally agree...it is outside of the restoration period (Swedenborg) and the man is righteous enough, he would be able to receive direct revelation and be edified.
So you're saying Swedenborg had visions by divine intervention?
-
Fair enough. I appreciate your honest answer, but would urge you to read the letter written by Joseph Smith to Sarah Ann Whitney, as this is really cut and dry IMO.Thews, I'm certainly not mad. I do believe that he married many women, and some even young. I don't believe he married for sexual relations. I believe he married them because he was told to. The Lord has commanded many things, even in the Bible, that seem to contradict His own word.
This is the problem I always had with Mormonism. How can something be right one day, and wrong the next? Why would the Lord change his mind when the bible clearly defines the word of God will never change? My opinion is that God is perfect... no mistakes and no changes required when the word is perfect. If it changes, or needs to change, then it's not perfect and not the word of God. Again, racism and polygamy/polyandry are fundamentally wrong and I really can't see how they would ever be "good" in God's eyes, but that's just me.What I have come to know is what Joseph Smith taught, if the Lord commands it, it is right.
You are being very fair to me and I understand how Mormons have been attacked for what they believe. I thank you for your honest input.I misunderstood your earlier posts, I thought I read where you said we are wrong. But, I'm not concerned enough about it to go back and look. If I was wrong then I apologize.
Magic is magic, and glass-looking through seer stones was considered magic, as were a lot of things Joseph Smith believed in, including the Jupoter tallisman. This isn't hard to believe, since this was a part of the new world that migrated in the late 1700's, and it's what Joseph Smith's parents and grandparents believed in. Having visions wasn't that uncommon back then, and while my friend hired someone with a divining rod to find water on his land, some people still believe in things that could be defined as magic or not, but glass-looking is clearly magic IMO.I guess you can call it "magic" when Jesus walked on water, or fed the multitude with just a few loaves of bread and fish. I suppose you can even call it magic when He healed the sick or raised the dead. To someone looking from the outside, it would certainly look like magic.
If it can be proven historically as a fact than it is a fact. Some say Joseph Smith was not convicted of glass-looking, but just charged. In either case, the fact that he was hired to hunt for buried treasure before translating the golden plates, would mean that God and Joseph Smith were on the same page regarding seer stones.Was Moses using magic when he used the staff to change the Nile to blood or part the Sea?
I suppose it can appear that way. Afterall, the priests of Pharoah used magic to duplicate some of the things Moses did with the staff.
You know, we can have a long, fun discussion about "facts" that have changed over the years. My point is, where do the facts come from and how reliable are they as facts.
I really don't understand those terms you're using very well. But, if you don't mind, I also have trouble understanding how God can be three beings yet only one being. If you can make that clear to me, then maybe I'll try to study those terms and come up with something for you about what label I think we fit in... maybe we don't fit in any of them.
Jesus is God in man... that's what the bible teaches. If God were to come to earth, he could send an angel I guess, but if he came to earth then he would still be God. JMHO I guess, but I believe Jesus Christ was God and there is only one God. As I've said before, my beliefs are non-standard Christian, so I only speak for myself, as it is honestly what I've concluded.
-
I'm trying to understand you. How can one religion encompass so many things, including who God is? The point I was making is that the LDS church defines the official first vision as two personages. I really don't care what anyone wants to call themselves of what they choose to believe, as it's not a contest. But, in defining the LDS faith as monothestic, would be to deny what Joseph Smith, the Mormon prophet of God, preached. This isn't semantics IMO, but while I admittedly don't believe what you believe, you do have a right to believe whatever it is you choose, but I just see this as a "one size fits all" definition to the core of what I assumed the LDS faith was. "Labels" are different than basic fundamental theology. Jews don't accept the New Testament, so God is defined by the Old Testament. Who God is should be the foundation for any religion isn't it? Are you telling me the LDS faith can be both monotheistic and henothestic at the same time? Isn't this a contradiction to what the Mormon prophet of God in Joseph Smith taught God was/is?Here's a thought: perhaps your (and others) insistance that we label ourselves "monotheistic, henothesitic" whatever is not from the Church leaders. We teach doctrine according to our beliefs of truth. How others choose to label those beliefs is up to them. Our Church leaders (as far as I know) do not place such labels on our doctrines.
-
Just as an FYI, the Jewish scholar Hillel claimed during his lifetime (70 BC - 10 BC) that "what is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn."
Just that you're again attacking me for stating a fact... I just thought you might be interested, but attack away if it makes you feel better.
-
Just an FYI ...in 1784 Emanuel Swedenborg wrote a book called “Heaven and Hell and its Wonders.” In it, Swedenborg claimed there were three different levels of heaven. The highest level was called “The Celestial Kingdom,” and the inhabitants of the three heaves corresponded to the sun, the moon, and the stars.
-
I find it interesting Thews, that you came to a thread started by a non-LDS, and started telling said non-LDS that he incorrectly understands LDS....but in other threads, you say you don't understand, even though you've been raised LDS.
Then please tell me how my logic is flawed. How can the LDS church teach the first vision of Joseph Smith as two separate beings, and how LDS people can become Gods as anything but henothestic? Please tell me so I can understand, as this is just the foundation for the basic LDS theology.
Fundamential Christian theology is monothestic (Jesus is God) and Mormon theology is henothestic (God the father and Jesus Christ are separate). Would you agree?
-
OK. then why do you get so mad when questions are asked about Mormon history and what Joseph Smith taught? Racisim is wrong, would you agree? "White and Delightsome" vs. the cursed "Dark and Loathsome" is racist. Polygamy/polyandry is also wrong. Marring girls 14 and 15 is wrong. This is just Mormon history, but when it's brought up you attack me for bringing it up. I see how hard it is for you to bucketize right vs. wrong, or how God's will was right at one time and wrong now, but if I, or others have questions I believe it's the questions that threaten you.It's not that you offend, it's that you claim not to believe what he taught because you "don't understand it." Well, that makes perfect sense to me. It's very difficult to believe something you don't understand.
In my case, I understand it, and I believe it.
I'm not saying anything someone believes is "wrong". What I am saying is I don't believe it, or rather I do not believe Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and Mormonism is based on Joseph Smith being a prophet, and Joseph Smith believed in magic. Joseph Smith used his seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon. While you may claim the seer stone isn't magic, would you conclude the peepstones used by other witnesses (specifically David Witmore) were magic?You point at me and say I am wrong and believe in magic and lies, yet you claim you don't understand it. I think if you really understood it you might feel very differently about it.
I rely on factual information to decide what I believe. If you believe something different, that's up to you... neither one of is wrong.The problem is, you rely on 3 fallible sources:
1) Youself
2) Man's understandings (science)
3) Non-LDS interpreation of LDS doctrine
As long as you rely on those 3 sources you will never understand.
You claim Mormonism is based on montheism, and I disagree. The first version of the Book of Mormon may have been, but this is the official version as published by LDS.orgSaul knew he was right, and he fought with all his might. He came to understand the truth by a vision. He didn't fundamentally change; he was still the same person. But, after his vision he fought on the side of what he then knew to be true, and became Paul.
There are millions of Sauls in the world today, such as yourself. They are valiant and fighting for the cause of what they believe to be true.
Only God can deliver a conviction of the truth. Your 3 sources can't. This forum can't.
God has outlines the method for any man to come to an understanding of the truth. It is not in any of the 3 ways you are seeking it. It can only happen one way.
Joseph Smith - The First Vision
If you disagree with this, the I would contend you disagree with the LDS church's published account of what Joseph Smith, the LDS prophet of God said. Joseph Smith is the same person who claimed the first vision and translated the Book of Mormon. How can someone agree with one and not the other? Mormonism is clearly henotheism, which also includes men becomming Gods. Can you please explain how you believe Mormonism is monotheistic?On a spring day in 1820 14-year-old Joseph Smith sought solitude in a grove of trees and prayed to know which church was true. God the Father and Jesus Christ, "two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description," appeared and spoke with him.1
Wondering which of the many churches to join, Joseph had followed the counsel in the Bible's book of James: "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God." The Lord told Joseph "that all the religious denominations were believing in incorrect doctrines" and that he was to await further instructions from on high.2 "In a state of calmness and peace indescribable," Joseph left that sacred grove knowing the reality of our Father in Heaven and His resurrected Son, Jesus Christ.3
Joseph Smith's first vision stands today as the greatest event in world history since the birth, ministry, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. After centuries of darkness, the Lord opened the heavens to reveal His word and restore His Church through His chosen prophet.
-
Then there's really nothing that can convince that the Book of Mormon is not true. Would you agree? Why then, for argumentative purposes, would one assume the "what if" goes both ways?To answer your question, though, my answer is absolutely not.
The way I understand it, evil men stole the pages. I wonder why God would allow this in the first place?God told us that the reason those lost manuscript pages were stolen in the first place was so that they could be edited and, when compared to the re-translation of them, be found to disagree. So, why would I be surprised if they were found and they proved to be different?
I still don't get why God allowed the pages to be stolen if it was his word he was attempting to reveal.There is great wisdom, even evidence that Joseph Smith was a prophet, that he did not attempt to re-translate those same pages.
I don't believe so.Even still, what about all the pages that weren't lost? Do they teach Christ?
Again I'll have to answer no, I do not believe they do.Do they teach a man to do good and follow the word of God?
I don't understand why you hesitate to believe something that teaches that Christ is the only way, just as the Bible teaches?
Because it's not the bible and I don't believe God make mistakes. If the Book of Mormon is "The most perfect book ever written," then it shouldn't require changing as times change, as the bible defines the real word of God will never change.
Can I ask you this... which is more important in LDS theolog, the Book of Mormon or the bible? You can answer it's a tie, or both, but according to Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon is more perfect than the bible. Agree/disagree?
-
There is not one piece of actual evidence to substantiate one story in the Book of Mormon as historically accurate... not one and that's a fact. If you claim opinion is "evidence" I'll disagree. If you disagree with the claim that real historical evidence exists, please link me to it.Not sure what you mean by artifacts. There is evidence in support of BoM claims, just not conclusive evidence.
I'll disagree. American Indians are not descended from Isreal and that's also a fact.It depends on what you think the conclusions are. And it also depends on what you think the BoM actually claims in the first place. Every discussion on DNA I've had involves the critic being off on one or the other.
LM
-
I agree, but the question was related to LDS theology.Doesn't the whole assigning of positions belong to the LORD, regardless of theology? Heaven vs. Hell or 3 heavenly kingdoms vs. outer darkness...the judging is still God's. No?
I see the Mormon faith changing and going away from its roots. Some may disagree, but saying LDS theology is anything but henotheism is for all intent and purposed wrong IMO. By "wrong" what I mean is that's not what the religion dictates, which is a Godhead where God the father is a higher order than Jesus Christ. This is what the LDS prophet that was Joseph Smith taught, so to call oneself LDS but also monotheist is really claiming to be two different things that are in fact different.I've had LDS tell me their church is monotheistic and trinitarian (but with a looser definition), others say they are henotheist, and still others openly say they are indeed polytheistic. You're probably right that most would fall in the henotheistic camp, though my guess is that official church organs would not embrace the term.
I disagree. Mormonism embraces Joseph Smith as a prophet of God, and Joseph Smith taught that God and Jesus were separate beings. That by definition is henotheistic. This is my observation, but there are a lot of Mormons that believe Joseph Smith was a messenger of sorts, and God chose him to reveal this new doctrine, but the doctrine stands by itself and is not associated with Joseph Smith as a prophet of God. This not only doesn't make sense, it doesn't change the theology of plural Gods per the Mormon doctrine. Either it's all true or none of it's true, but to say you're LDS and fail to associate belief with Joseph Smith and claim to be a monotheist would remove you from being LDS IMO, but it still doesn't change the LDS henotheist foundation in its doctrine.There are LDS, including scholars, who embrace the term henotheist. My outsider opinion is that the term is appropriate. On the other hand, if we remove that obscure option, and must pigeon-hole LDS theology as either monotheistic or polytheistic, strong arguments could be offered either way.
Anyone disagree with me?
-
I don't get the whole concept of baptism for the dead, but in your analogy, what about the truly wicked who never had a chance to hear the restored gospel? I find the whole "truly wicked" concept a judgement, which belongs to the Lord.1. What had I heard about LDS soteriology? (Beliefs about salvation)
I had heard that LDSs believe in three heavens, that only married LDSs get into the highest heaven, that all sincere religious people get into the 2nd heaven, and that those that were not very righteous or god-fearing, but who had not been truly wicked would be assigned the 3rd heaven. Only the truly evil persons, like Hitler would be damned to the outer darkness.
How has my understanding changed? I’ve come to understand the importance for LDSs of temple work on behalf of the dead, so that many who might not be LDSs in this life, still might embrace the restored gospel in the afterlife–though many would suggest that only those who did not have a good opportunity to embrace LDSism in this life would be afforded such an opportunity. Furthermore, it is not the only truly wicked who go to the outer darkness, but those who had a testimony and knowledge of the truth, but abandoned it, or even opposed it.
This is not true according to the doctrine of Joseph Smith. LDS theology in henotheism. Joseph Smith's visions saw two spearate entities, so saying they are one in LDS theology is wrong. Agree/disagree?2. What had I heard about LDS beliefs about the nature of God?
I had heard that LDSs are polytheist–that they believe that God was once a man, and that LDS men are trying to become gods. Also, that God has a physical body, and lives on a planet near KOBOL. That God is limited and changing in nature.
How has my understanding changed? I’ve come to understand that LDSs consider themselves Trinitarians and monotheists.
I fail to see how one could believe this and consider themselves a monotheist, especially considering Joseph Smith said this:They believe that God is three in one, but that these three are not only distinct personalities, but distinct beings. Furthermore, while LDSs may believe there are other gods, they only worship the God of the Bible, and further believe that while they may become gods, they will always worship the God of the Bible for all eternity. Finally, they do not believe God has changed, because they argue that both God and humanity are immortal. Thus, even if God was once a man, he always was, is, and always will be.
and this..."God is in the still small voice. In all these affidavits, indictments, it is all of the devil--all corruption. Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on the top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet . . . " (History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 408-409).
"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted Man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens...I say, if you were to see him to-day, you would see him like a man in form -- like yourselves, in all the person, image, and very form as a man....it is necessary that we should understand the character and being of God, and how he came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity, I will refute that idea, and will take away and do away the veil, so that you may see....and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did."
(Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 3).
For the record that is what Joseph Smith said.3. What had I heard about the LDS restored gospel?
I had heard that Joseph Smith claimed that all Christian churches, preachers and professors were apostate, and an abomination to God, and that only the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the true Christian church today.
"Doctrines were corrupted, authority lost, and a false order of religion took the place of the gospel of Jesus Christ, just as it had been the case in former dispensations, and the people were left in spiritual darkness." (President Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, p.266). "For hundreds of years the world was wrapped in a veil of spiritual darkness, until there was not one fundamental truth belonging to the place of salvation ...Joseph Smith declared that in the year 1820 the Lord revealed to him that all the 'Christian' churches were in error, teaching for commandments the doctrines of men" (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3, p.282).
[There is] "no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith. If Joseph Smith was verily a prophet, and if he told the truth...no man can reject that testimony without incurring the most dreadful consequences, for he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (Joseph Fielding Smith , Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p.190).
"no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith...every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are" (Brigham Young , Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p.289).
I don't understand what you mean. If all the Mormon prophets were truly prophets and spoke to God, then BY had the most to say about this and there really is no denying his stance on Christianity. For the record, the term "Anti" is used a lot. Any opinion that points things out that seem against the church (even the enclosed quotes which are just factual quotes) are deemed "Anti". If it's not "Pro" it's "Anti".How has my understanding changed. I now understand that Joseph Smith, and modern LDSs, were most enraged by what they saw/see as the elevation of creeds and Greek theological definitions over the plain truths of Scripture. It is this insistence on flawed interpretation–especially the use of such against LDS distinctives that Smith and the Church considered abominable. Many progressives now consider Christians, especially evangelical Christians, to simply be wrong, and in need of greater truth (as was Apollos, in the New Testament). Some LDSs are still wary of the level of goodness in evangelicalism, especially in light of the many evangelical anti-LDS organizations and initiatives.
Just to clarify, "Anti" means "aganist". If one is against polygamy/polyandry, racism and the use of magic, are they "Anti"? I fail to understand the logic is how something can be good at one time, and bad in another? To me, polygamy is fundamentally wrong and in God's eyes it wrong and always has been. This goes for racism too, but to express these opinions make me "Anti"... is that justified?4. What had I heard about LDS views of authority?
I add this question, because my answer is, "Not much." I only knew that LDSs had two priesthoods, the Aaronic and Melchezidek (sp?) orders, and that the latter was for more mature members.
What have I learned? That for the members who have wrestled with the intellectual appeal of LDS teachings, this issue is quite often the crux of their decision to follow the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The teaching is that after the apostles, the church fell into apostasy, and never really came out of it until the Latter Day truths were revealed to Joseph Smith, and the true gospel was restored. As such, only the LDS have the ultimate authority from God to represent Christ and carry out his work. While there are some significant differences, this teaching is not as strange as it first sounds to evangelical ears, because Roman Catholics also teach the apostolic succession, and claim that only the Roman church has the ultimate spiritual authority.
Conclusion: As an outsider, not sufficiently versed in LDS Scriptures, I’m sure I still explain LDS ideas with a good deal of clumsiness and imprecision. However, I’ve probably garnered a better understanding than I might have had I read the totality of anti-cult or specifically anti-LDS material that is out there.
I don't mean to badger you, but LDS theology is henotheistic and that's what the doctrine of Joseph Smith taught. To water it down to accept part, but not all is sort of choosing which parts make sense. To call Mormon theology monotheist in nature would be to completely change the definition of who the God head was per Joseph Smith himself. I apologize in advance if I offended anyone.
-
I believe the bible is true and I don't question it. The historical evidence shows the storis in it are accurate. Painting a supposed path back to Noah is a reach. The point I'm making is that we know, through DNA evidence, that Amrican Indians are not descended from Isreal. That is a fact, but you are claiming some other scenario negates it. Do you deny this is a fact?The specific DNA that is referenced is mitochondria or based on the female linage. Since we do not have any known pure Hebrew DNA prior to 600 BC – from which Lehi branched; it is my thought and belief that such efforts are at best inconclusive. Since the Hebrew culture is patriarchal, it is very likely that mitochondria DNA was polluted during the Babylonian captivity after 600BC.
But you seemed to have missed my point – That is that the Bible claims that all peoples of the world are descended from both Noah and Adam and therefore that Hebrew DNA is no more than 20 generations from all peoples of the world. This is Biblical fact which would divert mitochondria of Native Americans more than Book of Mormon fact connecting Lehi. There are possibilities within the Book of Mormon that would allow for the introduction of other DNA other than Lehi’s; Abraham was less than 10 generations from Noah and Noah was 10 generations from Adam. If DNA proves that there is a greater gap than 20 generations to a common ancestor within 4 thousand years of the Hebrew people - that disproves the Bible. The DNA claim is that there is not a common ancestor within 20,000 years. How do you reconcile that with the Bible?
So now I ask you – Do you believe the Bible and if you do; how can you believe that the DNA of Native Americans separates them from Hebrew peoples by 20,000 years or more?
The Traveler
-
Abraham was less than 10 generations from Noah and Noah was 10 generations from Adam. If DNA proves that there is a greater gap than 20 generations to a common ancestor within 4 thousand years of the Hebrew people - that disproves the Bible. The DNA claim is that there is not a common ancestor within 20,000 years. How do you reconcile that with the Bible?
The Traveler
This is specific to Native Americans, which the Book of Mormon claims were descended from Isreal. We know this isn't true, and I don't see how claiming a gap of 20 generations correlates to this fact in any way, but is a rationalization to somehow make two wrongs equalling a right. Do you agree that Native Americans are not descended from Isreal?
-
I dunno... I hear a lot of blanket statements that claim the critic's evidence is bogus, but it's very conclusive to me. I'm still trying to figure out how the opinion that DNA evidence would prove the bible is flawed?I think the point of the OP is that acheological evidence is irrelevant when we are talking about conversion. Convincing and converting.....two totally different processes.
Then you've found what works for you... that's awesome.I can't tell you about the lost plates....But I can tell you how the Spirit has taught be about ideas that were true and ideas that were false. I can share with you how God has led me down roads that brought unseen blessings without explanations or reasonings that would satisfy my intellect.
This is the foundation for testimoney being the proof IMO. Again, if it works for you then good, but it doesn't counter the factually based arguments.The problem is that I can"t show you. I can't give you the knowledge I have or illustrate to you how it eclipses every other worldly voice. The power of this communication is between me and God.
People stay in these intellectual battles because its spiritually safe. It doesn't require faith or, heaven forbid, humility.
Faith isn't based 100% on prayer. I've heard it said many times that someone shoudl pray for answers to factually based questions... I don't understand why prayer is required to conclude evidence is either true or not. The bible instructs us to test our faith, so I don't see how the facts can be dismissed if they don't fit what the person wants them to. How many times in your life have you heard "I know the church is true..."? How does one really "know" is my point, as we can't "know" but rather believe. As long as it all makes sense then it should make sense to you. I'm happy you've found what works for you.
-
my biggest regret is selling my 79 Firebird since i was going into the service.
the real dumb thing was i used to give my father so much crap for doing the same exact thing with his 1960 ford fairlane 500.
I would love to have something to tinker with but my living situation wont allow it.
The cool thing about Trans Am's is they made so many of them. I bought my 79 TA about 4 years ago for $2300. The guy had it on ebay and it bid up to $2600 and they buyer did pay, so he relisted for $2300 Buy-it-now. Zero rust gold with a tan interior and only 78K miles. The interior is thrashed, but the parts are cheap. I'm going to put a red interior in it (it's a T-Top car), and a 73 nose and hood. I also figured out how to convert a functional 74 GTO scoop to fit the 455 Olds Rocket engine (was a 403 originally). This car has a 2.47 posi and I'll bet it would go 150 MPH easy... but won't even come close to chirping the tires.
Good liuck finding your Firebird someday... they're a very good choice to restore, because parts are everywhere and cross for 11 years.
-
Oh absolutely. Whenever I encounter critics of this church who advance DNA and archaeology arguments against us, I ask them a question: "Let's say tomorrow, you turn on the TV and discover that non-mormon archaeologists have discovered Zarahemla, the sword of Laban, evidence of the BoM battles, and Lehi's grave (complete with DNA linking him to various indiginous people in the Guatemala area). Would you bend your knee, profess Christ as your savior and Joseph Smith as prophet, and be baptised?
About a third of them refuse to answer, a third say yes, and a third say absolutely not and would still remain as passionately critical.
LM
I hear this a lot... what if? The archaeology "arguments" are based on zero (not one) actual artifact to validate one story in the Book of Mormon. The DNA arguments are very conclusive. Polygamy/polyandry and racism are placed into buckets that somehow were OK then, but not OK now. Magic is a part of Mormonism, as is translated doctrine from the book of breathings ...these are all facts.
Let me ask you the same type of question... outside of your testimoney, if the lost pages were found and proved the stories differed, would this be enough to convince you that Joseph Smith was not a prophet of God?
-
why not? joseph was an important part of all this but he won't save us. if she has a testimony of christ and the saving ordinances joseph helped to restore what does it matter if she doesn't feel a connection to him? not trying to dismiss joseph but seriously, in the end what does he have to do with being saved?
i don't feel like my testamony is founded on or even closely tied to joseph.
I have a hard time understanding this logic. IMO, either Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, a righteous man and the Book of Mormon is true, or he was not and the Book of Mormon is false. Would you agree?
Celestial Kingdom
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
How can factual history be "Anti"?