Hard Questions Regarding The Church.

[Dr T]

That is a very interesting thought. I need to do some study of it before I walk away with this belief but from what you that verse sounds like (and I realize that it is OUT OF CONTEXT) it looks like God decieves him and then kills him. That needs some looking into.

Dr. T

[Jason]

If you think Ezekiel was good, check these out:

"O LORD, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived; thou art stronger than I, and hast prevailed: I am in derision daily, every one mocketh me." (Jeremiah 20:7)

"Then said I, Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people and Jerusalem, saying, Ye shall have peace; whereas the sword reacheth unto the soul." (Jeremiah 4:10)

"Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil against thee." (2 Chronicles 18:22)

which is also found here:

"Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee." (1 Kings 22:23)

Enjoy.

[Serg]

If you think Ezekiel was good, check these out:

"O LORD, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived; thou art stronger than I, and hast prevailed: I am in derision daily, every one mocketh me." (Jeremiah 20:7)

"Then said I, Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people and Jerusalem, saying, Ye shall have peace; whereas the sword reacheth unto the soul." (Jeremiah 4:10)

"Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil against thee." (2 Chronicles 18:22)

which is also found here:

"Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee." (1 Kings 22:23)

Enjoy.

Yup, also the reasons for which i dont believe in most of our Church i wont put here in this forum, but yes, too much confusing and alerting stuff

[prisonchaplain]

<div class='quotemain'>

"And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel." (Ezekiel 14:9)

Yes, very confusing. However, I believe that the point it is putting across is not that the Lord Himself decieved the prophet but allowed him to be subjected to deception; in which case, if the prophet allowed himself to be decieved, he would be worthy of destruction. This is the only context in which I can make sense of it. I do know that the translations vary with the different languages they are in. For example, this same passage may be an entirely different expression in the German version of the KJV bible.

But that's just me.

I checked the NIV, but it still says "I the Lord enticed..." So, my understanding is that the prophet is false to start with, so the LORD gives him a prophecy that will destroy him.

[Maureen]

"And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel." (Ezekiel 14:9)

Here's some information regarding Ezekial 14:9 from the NET Bible at bible.org:

"'As for the prophet, if he is enticed to speak a prophetic word, I, the Lord, will entice7 that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand against him and destroy him from among my people Israel..."" (Ezekiel 14:9, NET Bible)

7 tnThe Hebrew verbal form is a perfect and is often translated as present perfect, "I have enticed." In this case the Lord states that he himself enticed the prophet to cooperate with the idolaters. Such enticement to sin would seem to be a violation of God's moral character, but sometimes he does use such deception and enticement to sin as a form of punishment against those who have blatantly violated his moral will (see, e.g., 2 Sam 24). If one follows this line of interpretation in Ezek 14:9, one would have to assume that the prophet had already turned from God in his heart. However, the context gives no indication of this. Therefore, it is better to take the perfect as indicating certitude and to translate it with the future tense, "I will entice." In this case the Lord announces that he will judge the prophet appropriately. If a prophet allows himself to be influenced by idolaters, then the Lord will use deception as a form of punishment against that deceived prophet. A comparison with the preceding oracles also favors this view. In both 14:4, 7 the perfect of certitude is used for emphasis (see "I will answer"). For a fuller discussion of this text, see Robert B. Chisholm, Jr., "Does God Deceive?" BSac 155 (1998):23-25.

M.

[StrawberryFields]

Yup, also the reasons for which i dont believe in most of our Church i wont put here in this forum, but yes, too much confusing and alerting stuff

Serg,

You don't believe in MOST of our church?

[Serg]

<div class='quotemain'>

Yup, also the reasons for which i dont believe in most of our Church i wont put here in this forum, but yes, too much confusing and alerting stuff

Serg,

You don't believe in MOST of our church?

i am terribly sorry to admit so, but is as Smith himself said "truth, diamond truth". ;(

[Dr T]

Hey Serg,

Don't go indepth about it but what are the sorts of things that you see as untrue?

Thanks

[Serg]

Hey Serg,

Don't go indepth about it but what are the sorts of things that you see as untrue?

Thanks

Thanks for asking, and dont worry, I wont slip it too much as to make them hide this one also, lol.

1) THE LIFE OF jOSEPH sMITH

2) The development of theology between 1830-1860

3) Finally the development of politics in the Church

[Dr T]

Serg,

Thanks for the reply. (I have no idea about two of those topics but thank you just the same).

Dr. T

[miztrniceguy]

Thanks for asking, and dont worry, I wont slip it too much as to make them hide this one also, lol.

cuz he dont know the handshake

[Serg]

Thanks for asking, and dont worry, I wont slip it too much as to make them hide this one also, lol.

cuz he dont know the handshake

LOL!!!!

Dr.T:

the 2) reffers to the mix of contradictory and false and dumb theories that with time became Doctrine, and also that which did not(thanks God), including Heber C.Kimball's, Young's, pratt's, etc..

the 3) reffers to the politics9actions, rules, "doctrines", changing concepts, etc... that with the time just makes it even more difficult to members(like me) to hold on to 'this Truth". Including the politics ogf the church leaders, homosexuality, proslitism, etc..

[Dr T]

Hey miztrniceguy,

Does it have something to do with a left-handed handshake, a pinky twist and an olive?

Serg,

Sounds like you have really been considering those important topics. They sound awfully big!

Dr. T

[miztrniceguy]

Hey miztrniceguy,

Does it have something to do with a left-handed handshake, a pinky twist and an olive?

Serg,

Sounds like you have really been considering those important topics. They sound awfully big!

Dr. T

i'm not saying....those who know...know...lol

wont even admit to involvement of a squirrel...flying or otherwise

[Dr T]

That was funny. Can I buy the rights to knowledge for $1?

[Jason]

cuz he dont know the handshake

I know it. And not only that, but I know what it meant before it was adopted by the Church.

[miztrniceguy]

That was funny. Can I buy the rights to knowledge for $1?

sure....email your $1 to ... [email protected]

[Dr T]

Jason,

$1.50?

[Jason]

Jason,

$1.50?

Have you ever seen "Conspiracy Theory" with Mel Gibson?

[Outshined]

Sweet movie, with some memorable scenes.

[Dr T]

One of my favorite movies. I don't remember/get the reference though...

[Jason]

One of my favorite movies. I don't remember/get the reference though...

When Julia Roberts goes into Mel's apartment. He gives her a "secret" handshake.

[Dr T]

OK. I thought you were referring to the $1.50

[stormy]

...snip for brevity...

There are so many things that Joseph Smith taught, that were supposed to be "eternal and unchanging", however the church has changed a number of things/doctorines. This completely baffles me. If this was Gods one and only true church, why have things been changed? Wouldn't God have done things right in the beginning, he is perfect right? Wouldn't make mistakes right?

The temple ceremonies have changed, the curse of Cain has changed, the whole book of Abraham has been proven to be false.

I don't get it. Please help me. I've prayed and prayed and prayed, and nothing.......

Are we to assume that the examples you cite above are examples of those things you mention that are supposed to be "eternal and unchanging?" I find none of these things you mention to be "hard questions" and I must agree with someone here that this post is certainly suspect at best, however, for entertainment and the other readers I will respond.

The Temple Ceremonies. One of the favorite points of attack by the Antis. Why? Because they know the LDS will NOT go into detail in their efforts to show the Anti false, therefore, most false information put out is not shown in its corrected form. You never having received your endowments do not know from first hand personal experience what changes have been made and to what extent. You do not know if significance or meaning has changed and therefore must rely on the anti's for your information since your Bishop or any other member will not discuss these things with you.

For obvious reasons I will not go into specifics regarding the temple ceremonies, however, does change in presentation change the significance and meaning of the ceremonies? I could reinvent the wheel but I won't bother, as my time is limited. In reference to changes in the temple ceremonies I recommend the following article titled "Can Temple Ceremonies Change," by Michael R. Ash. http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/Can_...nies_Change.pdf

In the Anti's quest to prove the church false they attempt to prove the church racist based on this "curse of Cain," misleading others into believing this to be an LDS creation. Whether done in ignorance or intentional lies I do not know. It's probably a combination of both.

The curse of cain theory was not original, nor invented by the LDS. This was around much longer than the LDS faith and was widely believed by Christians worldwide. Does the change in this belief make the Baptists, Methodists, Evangelicals, Catholics, etc false as well? Or is it possibly a man made justification for slavery, discrimination, etc created by man that carried on through out generations by tradition? Here is a wonderful website dedicated to the Black members of the LDS church and it has an incredible detailed history of blacks in the LDS church as well as that of other religions. It's a must read for anyone truly interested. www.blacklds.org

Here is an interesting exert from the site:

Historical Ignorance, or Race-baiting?

Now let us look at McKeever and Johnson's stumbling attempt to pass off centuries of Christian belief in a "curse" as being a uniquely Mormon invention. They ask, "If the Mormon God has removed the curse that was once on the black race, why has he not also removed the mark?"22 Again, let me give McKeever and Johnson a quick spin around the widely available literature on the origins of this unfortunate concept:

This interpretation of Noah's curse was no southern invention; indeed, it had been in circulation long before the discovery of America. Even so, it proved especially useful to white masters of the South because they had been put on the defensive by the powerful emancipationist movement.23

The story of Noah's Curse was so ingrained into the orthodox Protestant mind that it was sometimes invoked far from the pulpit. Speaking before the Mississippi Democratic State Convention in 1859, none other than Jefferson Davis defended chattel slavery and the foreign slave trade by alluding to the "importation of the race of Ham" as a fulfillment of its destiny to be "servant of servants."24

Once again, the reader is left to decide whether McKeever and Johnson are completely ignorant of the history of race theory, anthropology, and the centuries-old Christian use of the Bible to justify slavery or if they are simply race-baiting. One is truly forced to ponder this as they selectively use quotes and remove portions that may reflect positively on Mormons. They turn to such sources as little-known "Mormon writers" instead of using authoritative sources that the LDS recognize as accurately representing their beliefs. They relentlessly refuse to deal with modern Church practice and teachings that are well attested to by living leaders, preferring instead to use dated and out-of-context quotes that obviously clash with our modern social sensibilities.

Thus, McKeever and Johnson's attempt to use Brigham Young's racist-sounding but unfortunately typical nineteenth-century verbiage as an indictment against the modern Church brings up the question of their intellectual integrity. We have learned from sad experience that when anti-Mormon writers use ellipses, it is most likely not because the information is irrelevant but because there is something which must be removed to keep the picture uniformly bleak and, well, titillating. Three examples of McKeever and Johnson's less than forthright methodology will suffice. The missing portions are reinstated in italics for the reader in the first example:

You may inquire of the intelligent of the world whether they can tell why the aborigines of this country are dark, loathsome, ignorant, and sunken into the depths of degradation; and they cannot tell. I can tell you in a few words: They are the seed of Joseph, and belong to the household of God; and he will afflict them in this world, and save every one of them hereafter, even though they previously go into hell. When the Lord has a people, he makes covenants with them and gives unto them promises: then, if they transgress his law, change his ordinances, and break the covenants he has made with them, he will put a mark upon them, as in the case of the Lamanites and other portions of the house of Israel; but by-and-by they will become a white and delightsome people.25

Why is this missing sentence so important that it had to be removed by McKeever and Johnson? This was said in an era in which there was active debate in the scientific and Christian community as to whether all races came from a common ancestor, an argument that was ultimately settled by Darwinism. This sentence leaps out as a declaration that Native Americans are not just descended from Adam and Eve--they are from the favored seed of Joseph.

The second example of the intellectual dishonesty of this book is demonstrated by the next variation of their "find the quote" shell game as they leave out a portion of a sermon that again stands out favorably from the Christian practice of the day. McKeever and Johnson give the following portion of one of Brigham's fiery sermons condemning politicians. They offer the reader no background from which they can understand the rhetoric from the leader of a persecuted group watching their security threatened one more time when they are put in the middle of pro-slavery supporters and abolitionists:

Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.26

Here is the portion of the sermon that McKeever and Johnson neglect to show the reader, however:

If the Government of the United States, in Congress assembled, had the right to pass an anti-polygamy bill, they had also the right to pass a law that slaves should not be abused as they have been; they had also a right to make a law that negroes should be used like human beings, and not worse than dumb brutes. For their abuse of that race, the whites will be cursed, unless they repent.27

Compare this to the views of the founder of American evangelicalism, George Whitefield, who "urged kinder treatment of slaves, but noted that cruelty can have the positive effect of heightening 'the sense of their natural misery,' thereby increasing receptivity to the Christian message."28 Or the stories of "Christian slaveholders, including clergymen, 'brutalizing their slaves' which 'abound in the narratives of former slaves.'"29

A third egregious example of McKeever and Johnson's persistence in misrepresentation is a quote from Joseph Smith. They only tell the reader of this portion: "Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species and put them on a national equalization."30 Yet, Joseph Smith had preceded this remark by saying:

They came into the world slaves, mentally and physically. Change their situation with the whites, and they would be like them. They have souls, and are subjects of salvation. Go into Cincinnati or any city, and find an educated negro, who rides in his carriage, and you will see a man who has risen by the powers of his own mind to his exalted state of respectability. The slaves in Washington are more refined than many in high places, and the black boys will take the shine off many of those they brush and wait on.31

If McKeever and Johnson are seeking to truly inform and educate the reader concerning Mormonism, why would they not want to disclose this part of Joseph's thinking? In fact, why would they not want to elaborate on Joseph's revolutionary solution for abolishing slavery? Instead of commenting on the revulsion of Mormon leaders towards the widely accepted standard of abuse and cruelty, they choose only to make known the rather common thinking of the day that demanded races remain separate.

http://blacklds.org/mormon/priesthood.html

As for the "whole Book of Abraham thing being proven false" I anxiously await your factual evidence of this, for to my knowledge this is not the case. Though a strong circumstantial case can be made - there is no factual supporting evidence.

When making posts such as yours it is in your best interest, and the interest of the readers for you to cite your reasoning for these claims beginning with where you get the idea that these are supposed to be "eternal and unchanging" and moving on from there.

[Outshined]

<div class='quotemain'>

One of my favorite movies. I don't remember/get the reference though...

When Julia Roberts goes into Mel's apartment. He gives her a "secret" handshake.

One of the coolest moments is when he sees that the black helicopters are real...