JohnBirchSociety

Members
  • Posts

    424
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by JohnBirchSociety

  1. If your feelings contradict observable reality, I'd recommend you follow what is real, rather than feelings. We are given brains for a reason. To think. There should be a balance, faith doesn't trump reason, or visa versa, unless one component is 100% correct (irrefutable, rational, real).
  2. I know through faith and reason. I have faith that Jesus is the Son of GOD. Reason shows me that the Bible is the most historically accurate and substantiated writing in human history. It has proven to be utterly reliable in all respects, therefore, those items of a spiritual nature that it reports spring from verifiably real people and places. Faith and reason. I use the same for the Book of Mormon, with one difference at this point. As of yet, no artifact or writing from Mesoamerica substantiates any specific and unique claim in the Book of Mormon. That being said, the Book of Mormon contains such unique things that consistent with it being a translation of an ancient Hebriac text that I have reason to believe the physical nature of its' claims as well as the spiritual.
  3. The LDS Antagonists I've dealt with for the past 25+ years have been a lot better prepared than just ridiculing "feelings". And lately they have synthesized their argument to its' base point about the Book of Mormon. It goes like this: The Book of Mormon describes physical people, places and things in regards to the Mesoamerica era. Things like geography, peoples, culture, tools, warfare, etc. Those things are observable realities, not subject to "spiritual" confirmation or not. For instance, no matter how you "feel" about it, George Washington actually existed. Your feelings on the matter are of no importance to the determination of that reality. So, taking the physically demonstrable claims of the Book of Mormon and testing them against what we do physically, really know about Mesoamerica, we find that the claims of the Book of Mormon find no place in Mesoamerican history. In fact, no artifact or writing has ever been found to substantiate any specific and unique Book of Mormon claim about Mesoamerican history. Now, this being said, I find that their biggest problem is that no evidence to the contrary has been found. There is a huge lack of evidence in a positive sense. It is true that no artifact or writing has ever been found to substantiate the unique and specific claims of the Book of Mormon. However, we can say the same about many of the foundational claims of the Bible, yet we both, LDS and LDS Antagonists believe in it. So I think we need to grow up a bit in our viewing of the LDS Antagonist and realize that they do bring up valid questions. To be sure, there are just anti-mormon idiots who use falsehood, etc. But increasingly I've found them to be the ignorant minority, rather than the rule. Hope this helps?
  4. I think we've done very poorly in describing to the world that Jesus Christ is the ETERNAL GOD (as opposed to just be a "god"). In fact, I don't think I ever heard a General Conference talk that proclaimed it and it is absent from "Preach My Gospel" and the previous 6 Discussion methodology. Sad!
  5. But why stop with government sponsored health care? Is the most basic of human needs food? Shouldn't we, in the spirit of liberalism, have free food for all? That way we could control obesity (just ask the people who lived under Stalin about food control by government, they were not overweight, 'course, most of 'em starved to death), which is a major contributor to ill health. And what about the darn sun-light? It causes cancer. The government should do something about it! On and on. Where does it end? How can it rationally end? How can we call for "free" health-care and not "free" food, or housing, for all? And if all are getting it for "free" who's going to pay for it? Government has consistently shown itself the be the poorest of distribution mechanisms. The private sector is almost, without exception, better suited. No, what we need is not more "free" or more "universal" anything. We need less government intervention. We need less government "assistence" (when have they really ever assisted anyone?)... Or, as the phrase goes, "Less Government, More Individual Responsibility, and with GOD's help, A Better World".
  6. I can almost agree with you. Immunizations are probably the greatest hoax in regards to health in all of human history. And what is so very sad about the hoax is that the victims nearly 100% Children.
  7. The real crux of this problem began with the abandonment of sound money as demand by the United States Constitution. Absent a return to sound money (gold or silver coin or notes backed 1:1 by them, issued by the Treasury, no FEDERAL RESERVE), the problem will NEVER be resolved. There are laws of economics at play here. They are being violated. Now we are beginning to see the fruits of our folly. I blame my Great-grandparents (circa 1880-1930) for this mess. They are the ones who abandoned our Constitution. They are the ones who allowed the "secret combination" to murder and get gain. And now we are left to mop up their mess! Disgusting. Simply put, no sound money, and we are doomed, no matter who is President.
  8. Well, to start at the beginning, we might want to understand what money IS. Federal Reserve Notes are currency, but they are not money. It is very telling to note that our divinely inspired founders mandated sound money in the United States Constitution. Sad it is that we not only have abandoned that document, but we cannot even expound upon the nature of money. In effect, as a people, we are "barking up the wrong tree". Absent a return to constitutionally mandated REAL money, none of this mess we find ourselves in will be resolved, no matter how many Federal Reserve Notes we spend / print.
  9. Because, the Scriptures say GOD has always been as he is now. This is one of the few teachings in Scripture that is unambiguous.
  10. Good post. I've a question though: 1) The King Follett Discourse (in its' entirety) is not cannonized or viewed as binding doctrine. However, when parts of it are quoted in authorative manuals used to teach the official position of the Church, then can we safely say those portions are "doctrine"? 2) Though I would HUGELY LOVE to have the Church be "Sola Scriptura", it isn't. We have authoratative teaching manuals that are indeed "binding" in that they present the official position of the Church on many matters. Isn't it a bit of a cop-out to say, "It's not in the Canon?" Thanks!
  11. It greatly disturbs me and "so many people" because the Scriptures clearly, unambiguously declare that GOD has always been as he is now.
  12. I'm very interested, and part of it. Good post. I'm going to make a blunt prediction about it: To the degree the idea is successful or has a positive impact against the global Marxist conspiracy (yes, that's what we face); Mr. Beck will have great opposition. And, if there is REAL impact, he'll find himself of the air very, very quickly...
  13. Yes, it is an ordinance by invitation of the Prophet. It is part of having one's calling and election made sure.
  14. Thank you for the well-wishing, I've the same sentiment for you. It is distressing to think that I'm appearing to "pick-n-choose" doctrine. I'm not. Perhaps an overly-silly example would suffice? Suppose GOD said in scripture "There is one GOD" (no exceptions, no "loop-holes", completely unambiguous). Now suppose Prophet X came along and said "GOD has a GOD". I'd go with the "There is one GOD" and reject the "GOD has a GOD" premise. This is what I'm doing here. In essence, the total context of scripture is saying something clearly different than what some of the LDS leaders have taught. Thus, I'm left with no choice, I must go with the previous, clear, unambiguous scripture rather than more recent "revelations", regardless of how uncomfortable that position makes me. After all, I do believe that Joseph Smith, Jr., was / is a Prophet of GOD.
  15. Good question. I've not received confirmation, so I remain LDS (if only by name).
  16. And thank you. I don't mean to seem to be "picking and choosing" what I agree with. Rather, what I've done my whole adult life is compare what is taught by our leaders with previously established, clear, unambiguous scripture. In my opinion the only logical way to proceed is to grant the clear, unambiguous scripture that came first, primary consideration. In other words, if a more recent declaration contradicts previously revealed truth, I'll put my word behind the previously declared truth, rather than the more recent declaration (regardless of the source of that declaration). This is the only logical means to have any sense of foundational truth, or even a use for written scripture. I mean, if it can be changed in fundamental ways, then there are no fundamental truths. How can I be certain the teachings of today that are portrayed as "fundamental" won't be changed in a generation or two (as was the case with polygamy / people of color and the priesthood)? But I ramble. Thanks again for your input.
  17. Ah, context. Gotta love it. But first, an aside. I'm LDS, you're LDS. Let's not engage in "I know better than you know 'bout LDS doctrine". You very well may know a great deal more than me, and the opposite may be true. The only real means of determining that (which is not why I'm here, by the way), is through a demonstration of fact (scripture in this case). Yes, as the scriptures attest, we were present before the creation of our Earth in the "beginning". Taking the entire context of scripture we see that GOD created all things (besides himself), including time. I excuse Elder Maxwell for what he says because he is building upon what was taught before him by those he looked to as being infallible on such matters (Joseph Smith, Jr., in particular). That being said, I still stand upon the established scripture that existed before Joseph Smith was even born. That scripture (Biblical) has stood clear and unambiguous for thousands of years. It says exactly what I've paraphased here (to save time). GOD is the creator of all things, he is self-existent and eternal. He is the only eternal being. All else was created by him.
  18. No confusion at all. We LDS tend to portray ourselves as being in complete and perfect agreement with everything Joseph Smith, Jr., et. al., have declared as "revelations". This is not the case. Many LDS are silent on these issues, preferring to not cause a stir. Others leave the faith and become immersed in the foulness of "anti-mormon" rhetoric. Actually, I feel a bit blessed on this matter. I've no problem maintaining that Joseph Smith, Jr., was the Prophet of the Restoration, despite any errors in teaching he may have espoused. It doesn't trouble me at all. What is troubling is the inability or unwillingness of some LDS to consider the arguments against some of the things he taught (such as his teaching of the co-eternal nature of man). For me, revelation builds upon revelation. Where there is clear, unambiguous teaching, subsequent "revelation" cannot violate or attempt to change that teaching. Such is the case with the nature of the Eternal GOD, and man, his creation. There's no "wiggle-room" on this issue. It was established thousands of years before Joseph Smith was even born. GOD is eternal and self-existent. Everything else was created by him.
  19. Since GOD created time, he existed before time did (wow, that'll spin the brain a bit). Of course how can we express this correct notion using temporal language? Only poorly so, unfortunately. Nonetheless, GOD did create time. Therefore, he is not restrained by any logical arguments about time, such as the one you make. GOD has always know all things, simultaneously. He does not learn, knowing all things. He is perfect in all respects. He created all things. He has existed before even "time", because he created "time". Hope that helps?
  20. Thanks for your response. 1) I'm not greater than anyone. 2) Prophet's have been wrong on a multitude of issues. These things are even recorded in scripture. 3) New revelations must agree with the clear, unambiguous, revelations of the past, else we have no sure foundation to judge the validity of any revelation, past or present. A hypothetical to demonstrate the point: Christ was resurrected with a body of flesh and bone. This is attested to by the NT in a clear, unambiguous manner. Now suppose a modern prophet declared that a revelation changed this. That he wasn't resurrected in a physical body. The prophet, in this instance would be wrong. I think the scriptures clearly, unambiguously, declare that GOD is the creator of all things / beings, and that he has always existed as GOD. Therefore, even if the Prophet Joseph Smith says otherwise, I cannot accept that assertion as being valid. I hope I'm not being to obtuse on this matter. 4) I think we need to be very careful about approaching any idea of a closed cannon, on this you are absolutely correct! On the inverse, I think we need to see that it is illogical to even have a cannon if the fundamental, foundational truth claims in it can be changed from one generation to another. I'm not talking about adding things that were not previously known, but rather, changing that which was previously declared in a clear, unambiguous manner as being a foundational truth. If I cannot read the scriptures and see those things as foundationally / eternally true, without potential of complete change in the future by some claimed "revelation" then I cannot really have any faith in ANY previous claim as being foundational and true. 5) Stating fact is not insulting, whether from me or you. 6) The doctrine of "first cause" is not a trinitarian doctrine. I don't accept the premise of "ex nihilo" because, simply, GOD has always existed. Therefore that which was created came from him and not from nothing. 7) Again, stating fact is not insulting. Saying someone is wrong is not an insult. Attacking the character of an individual would be an insult. I've NEVER engaged in such sophomoric nonsense. These matters are to vitally important to be sidetracked with character assasinations.
  21. Thank you for taking the time to respond. First, outside of this discussion, I think we should avoid say, "This is going to take some serious pondering and prayer for you to understand". And I mean that whether it were to come from me or you. The reason for that is that you and I have NO IDEA how much the other has studied and prayed about the matter. You very well may have a better knowledge than I or visa versa. I think we need to just let the facts speak for themselves. Now back to our previously scheduled program... 1) GOD must have always existed because the scriptures say so. He is the Alpha and Omega. His without beginning or end. The scriptures say so. That's good enough for me. On top of what the scriptures say, it is a scientific proof that there is / must be a first cause beyond the boundaries of "time". Of course we are all limited in our ability to even describe such things given that our language is temporally constructive. 2) Since GOD is the "first cause" and he created us (not ex nihilo, because he existed already, thus "from nothing, something" does not apply in the ultimate sense), he existed prior to our existence, in fact prior to time, which he has created for man. We are ontologically different than he because we are a creation, he is not. 3) There cannot be an eternity of "past" in "time" looking back from this moment in "time". If that were the case, all things that could possibly have occurred in "time" would have already transpired because there would be an eternity of "time" for them to happen. THUS, "time" has a beginning. And, as the scriptures attest, it does, GOD created it. Again, we are limited in the description of these concepts by our temporally constructive language(s). 4) You ask for a scripture that says the following, "There was nothing but God, then God brought man into existence from nothing", here's one: "aIn the bbeginning was the Word, and the cWord was with God, and the dWord was eGod. 2 The same was in the abeginning with God. 3 All things were amade by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." (John 1:1-3) 5) I've never disagreed with the claim that when exalted we will have rights to all that GOD has.
  22. 1) You might wish to research the "Ye are gods" in the original tongue to see that "gods" in question are fundamentally different than "GOD". 2) If we are the Children of GOD in a "species" sense, rather than a general creative sense (he created us) then why do the scriptures speak of us "becoming" his sons (and daughters by extension)? If we are already in that status by the fact of us being the same "species" as GOD? 3) The Scriptures clearly state that GOD created man. In fact, the scriptures are so clear on it, that I'd fill this disscussion forums server with listing of them if needed.
  23. If I could encourage you to do one thing in this life, it would be to put away the "talks" and pick up our Bible, Book of Mormon, and D&C/PofGP, and see that GOD is eternal. See that GOD created time. See that GOD created man. See that GOD created all things / beings (other than GOD who is self-existent and without creator). I think many times we LDS get a bit backwards in our approach. We take our "talks" and transpose them upon Scripture (Standard Works). This leads us to incorrect conclusions... Just my two cents...
  24. Since GOD created time for man, he existed always, outside the bounds of time, which he created. Therefore, your argument has no merit. Alma 40:8 "Now whether there is more than one time appointed for men to rise it mattereth not; for all do not die at once, and this mattereth not; all is as one day with God, and time only is measured unto men." There must be a first cause. GOD is that cause. He is the only being that is self-existent. All other beings / things were created by him.
  25. Unfortunately for us, the totality of Scripture does not agree with Joseph Smith's assertion.