Robert Rost

The Holy Ghost or God's lack of judgement against Bin Laden and Al-Bagdadi. Both of them killed non-Muslims, which if you consider Christianity to be true, that makes Islam a false religion. So why would God allow pagans or infidels to kill Christians on September 11th with no action taken against their tribe, UNLESS what they are killing for is true. If God said that He will fight our battles for us then failure to earthquake them out of existence for killing for a false religion would make His word invalid, or validate Muslim beliefs and killing for that belief. Now here is my take personally, I used to be LDS until a baptist question me about Brigham Young's statements about men on the moon. Upon asking the Sugar House branch president about this, he threatened me with abduction. His exact words "We'll haul you in". Seems to me that the person he really should threaten is the baptist female who was getting me to reaffirm my belief system. He did not, which makes me question the concept that all ministers in the LDS faith are called of God. I am an honorable discharged veteran of the military so I can say that I don't think he was threatening the right person. And given that freedom of religion is guaranteed I have a right to question doctrine and validate it. If you consider that people in the Old Testament were killed for willfully following a false prophet, I not only have a right to reaffirm and validate a prophet's authenticity, I have a moral obligation which if I fail to fulfill would cost the lives of my family. Essentially what you guys are doing is undermining people's obligation to authenticate Smith to the point it could cost them their lives. And worst of all you mislead your own families. You are traitors to your own families in getting them to undermine God's Word. But so do the Baptists and Methodists, as they teach doctrines which are in complete contradiction with the Bible. So, you are no worse or no better than they.

Well then why do so many Catholics, Methodists, and Baptists oppose LDS doctrine as heresy and label it as non-Christian. Seems to me if LDS doctrine and beliefs are scripturally supported there wouldn't be ANY opposition. The baptized Christians who oppose it far out number the 11 or 12 million LDS adherents.

It would appear that the Bible is contradicting itself. But then why would God make a statement in Corinthians which forbids single person visitations and then violate that time and time again.

It makes more sense than continually appearing to people in private while doctrine in Corinthians forbids anything less than 2 people to corroborate a Sacred event. There is no doctrine forbidding looking at a snake to be healed.

My problem is not the Divine manifesting to man. It's manifesting to man in opposition to Corinthians, ie "two or three witnesses". And also the Divine manifesting Himself to individuals as a burning in the bosom to authenticate events like Divine Appearance to just one person in the woods with no second witness. And yet God said in the Bible He is not the author of confusion.

So essentially what you are reasoning here is two wrongs make a right. If something violates scriptural authority like Stephen being the only witness of what he saw, and Smith too. If it only happens once then the witness is invalid. If two people individually claim to see ON THEIR OWN, with no second witness then it is valid. Or could this be the reason why Osama Bin Laden and Abu Bakr Al-Bagdadi have gone unpunished by God, if they are in fact fighting for a valid religion, but from our perspective have killed thousands of people in the name of a false religion, but yet have not endured any chastisement from the Almighty.

However the next question would be is if Smith's claim is not supported by Corinthians since only Smith was present at the Sacred Grove, then why is everybody receiving a burning in the bosom from God to confirm things which violate scriptural authority like appearances to a single person in the woods. It's one thing to accept things on faith, giving everyone a burning in the bosom tends to put them at odds with scripture. Why would God give people a supernatural witness like the burning of the bosom, or why did God not arrange a second witness to be present with Joseph when Jesus and God appeared in the woods? Seems to me it would have been an easy thing for God to have arranged a second witness to confirm Joseph testimony about Jesus appearing in the Sacred Grove.

I am saying there is no second witness present when Jesus and God appeared to Smith in the woods of New York, therefore if Corinthians says that sacred things are established by a witness of at least two or three people then Smith's claim to have seen Jesus and God by only himself is not supported by scriptural authority in Corinthians, which undermines not only the Book of Mormon, but also tends to paint the Christian religion in a bad light.

Corinthians...Hmm. I thought it was D and C or something. Forgot it was in the New Testament.

That's why I was thinking as well, I like the whole Jim Jones, David Koresh approach to faith. Throw logic and caution completely out the window. Because obviously Koresh and Jones have brought many people to Christ.

Well if Jesus can appear in private to one person, then why send the missionaries out in groups of two in order to affirm doctrine which teaches that the Lord's doctrine is establish by a witness of at least two people. Seems to me if any one person can claim to have seen Jesus there is no need to send people out in groups of two, if only one person is needed to claim to have seen Jesus.

Matthew 24 says ""Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come." The word day is used in singular form, so do we assume that Jesus meant to say "days" plural. If he appeared to Joseph Smith, Prophet Snow, and also to the Jehovah's Witnesses, that the use of the plural "days" that the Lord will come would be more accurate."

Could that be why Abu Bakr Al-Bagdadi is still alive after killing so many people. He claims that the Bible is false, and only the first five books of the Bible are true in addition to the Kuran. It seems to me if God needed Bagdadi dead for killing to support false doctrine, which he has done from a Christian perspective that holds only the Bible to be true, that the man would already be dead, since God said that He will fight our battles for us. God could inspire the US to his location which has not been done which seems to validate Bagdadi's theology.

I would interpret it from the perspective that it came well before the Bible's indication that when Jesus returns in person that according to the Bible that "all eyes will see Him" and that when He returns He will appear as the sun rises in the east with glory as He decimates the forces of Armageddon and sets foot upon the mount of Olives and that the mount will cleave into a valley, which would appear to indicate that appearances outside of the Second Advent and the destruction of the forces of Armageddon are false, but then again Jesus did appear to the Apostles after His resurrection, so does God reserve the right to appear to people in private despite indications that everyone will see Him when He returns.

Good point about Jesus appearing to the Apostles after His death and resurrection.