| Author | Message | ||
     Ft_bstrd |
Two very accurate statements. Jeremy, I contend your belief that Revelation 22:18-19 applies to the entire Bible, and hold it strictly to to the Book of Revelation. Otherwise any editing or translation of the Book from it's original written language is adding or taking away. Your New English Version of the Bible says "anyone", my King James, which is a much earlier text says "any man shall add unto these things..." YOU may contend that it applies ONLY to Revelation. Maybe so. That said, if the long term outcome and final story as written in the Mormon or Jehovah's Witness book differs from Revelation, is that not enough to meet the test outlined in v. 18-19? Additional verses NOT from Revelation share a similar edict: What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. Deut. 12:32 Every word of God [is] pure: he [is] a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Proverbs 30:5-6 Translation is always interpretive. If you speak, or have even attempted to learn another language you know this: It is impossible to translate anything without changing the words, how then are we to not add or take away from the original words of John? How is it even possible? Will you hold to the spirit of the law in one thing, yet embrace the letter of the law in another, and turn completely away from understanding? Exact text from King James Edition is this: 18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if a man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. If one is translating translations, errors could creep in. That said, there are few translations that are not sourced from the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic writings or, if not available, the earliest source writings possible. The most used translation, the NIV, sought to as accurately as possible convey the original writings in modern english. Some international translations are first translated into english and then into native tongue. Others sought to go back to the source writings and then translate directly into the native tongue in order to avoid a "double translation". That said, aside from small variations, the translations are still conveying the main core principles. At no point in time does the ending of the story come out different. It's a popular belief that this statement was in reference to the entire Bible. Was John the Revelator actually writing in his compiled copies of the works (a complete Bible excepting Revelations) preceding his prophecies? If so your argument is valid. If he was writing of these things in a personal epistle to be published to the seven churches which were in Asia... well then it's an entirely different matter. It would then be a warning to any who handled or read his message to deliver it as it was written. That should hold the same today of John's message, don't change it or you will be cursed. I believe the statement was intended both for Revelation AND for the remainder of the other writings. Considering the great efforts Jewish transcribers went through in order to guarantee accuracy in translation of the Mosaic books, John's statement in Revelation is largely redundant. If you believe revelation stopped with John then you believe in a changeable God. I don't understand your point. Please elaborate. Many believe that in a time long before fossil fuel powered ships, airplanes and satellite transmissions that God appeared to only one group of people and his message was shared only with them. If they were the only people in the world good enough to receive His gospel, why did they crucify Him? Jesus was crucified as was prophesied He would be. His death was required as a replacement. Prior to this point, the Jewish people were required to make various sacrifices in order to atone (make restitution for) sins. The sacrificial animal had to be perfect and without blemish. Jesus was sacrificed as a perfect and sinless substitution for all mankind for all time. Do you believe God is not a God of revelation? Do you perhaps believe God is not a God of miracles? If He is not, then he is a changeable God, and is not God at all. Perhaps you believe He lacked the power, or foresight, to share His gospel with people in other parts of the world? Maybe you believe he lacks the power to provide a way for us to learn of His interactions with other people, excuse, other children of God? I believe that God is a God of miracles. COULD God have visited "other saints"? Sure. Did he? No, at least not as was chronicled on any golden plates. The popular contention that the Book of Mormon adds to the Bible, or takes away from it is completely incorrect. It is another witness, another testimony. A record from another people. It does not argue with the Bible, it doesn't seek to supplant the words of the Apostles. It simply provides more proof of others' faith in the God that gave us all life. It provides more proof to us as believers in a Savior, there is nothing there to take away from Christianity, only to make it stronger. The main problem is that every book of the bible has corroborating statements and evidence in other books of the bible. This was one of the guiding principles in the debate during the canonization of the bible. This is why certain books, the Apocrypha, were eliminated from inclusion in the 66 books contained in the bible. There simply were statements contained within that were not corroborated in ANY other book. Were the statements contained within the book of Mormon remotely true, there would be corroborating evidence of these "other saints" throughout the bible. There simply isn't any evidence other than the twisting of a phrase or two. | ||
| Union_man |
Mtjm2 I really am not trying to make this about politics. REALLY! As I said before, I just wonder how one can put Mormonism in the same group as all the other "Christian" denominations. Yes, there is a lot that is similar between them but the differences seem vast and at the very core of belief. Polytheism vs. Monotheism, just to start. OK...the video is a bit simplistic, but as of now, no one has tried to dispute its claims. BTW... What’s with the underwear? | ||
| Slaughter |
Going commando is a pagan act? | ||
| Mtjm2 |
Well U , as some one posted earlier . Why your sudden interest in religion ? As a card carrien libtard , why do you choose this time to start a thread AGAINST a religion . Peace unto you my brother . | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
As a Christian, I don't really care that Romney is Mormon. Mormonism doesn't expressly have Marxism as it's core principal like black liberation theology does. As such, Romney doesn't pose as immediate a threat as our current president. I'll vote for Romney if these is no other option to Obama. I don't even care if he has magic underwear. | ||
| Aesquire |
Union Man, I really don't know all that much about the Latter Day Saints faith. I skimmed the book, saw the play ( Hill Cumorah, really great show ) and have been to the local origin sites. So, I actually have no idea if one prophet taught about the space gods. Still, it's a pretty obvious propaganda attack, as anyone who is cynical and used to madison avenue can tell. Sometimes it's not the words...but the context and emphasis. The use of the term "Mormon Jesus" in high rotation alone tells you something. ( mostly that the producer of the cartoon has a negative agenda. ) Like when a "reporter" mutters "Jesus" when a candidate speaks... you know he's a mouthpiece for others, and not even close to impartial. The Latter Day Saints have sacred underwear. It is a tradition that is more easily concealed than, say, the specific style beard of some faiths. ( Mohammed called for a beard, so that a Muslim would not be mistaken for a Roman, but neatly trimmed, so as not to be mistaken for a Jew. Other examples abound. ) In fact, I think that the sacred underwear is simply one style that was in use when J. Smith had his visions, and those styles are available from costumers specializing in Cowboy Action stuff. ( not advertised as sacred ) Not very different than 14th century underwear, but not much like the later codpiece type. ( when the jacket/overshirt styles got shorter, the tights got too revealing, so the codpiece covered...shall we say, the little things that polite society didn't want to see. Naturally, stuffing the codpiece became so common that it was simply a depiction of ego, or perhaps insecurity ) My understanding is that Mormons, in basic, believe in the Bible, but add historical details based on a later prophets revelation. Feel free to not believe that Jesus taught on this continent after Easter and the Resurrection. Feel free to believe he did. No skin off my nose. Heck, feel free to believe in polygamy. A good friend of mine believes the Mormons owe him some Horses, claiming that Smith had borrowed them from his family, then let them die in harness while he "drunkenly slept under a tree on a hot summer day" Or perhaps "had Holy Revelation". Your choice. For far more entertaining reading, http://www.amazon.com/Star-Rover-Great-Reincarnati on-Novel/dp/0911842314 A Jack London novel that has a very good section on the deadly persecution of Mormons, though that is not the books main point. ( violent. Not for immature readers. Profoundly well written. ) | ||
| Union_man |
OK, here is why I am interested in Mormonism now. Honestly! Rick Perry brought it up. I saw something on the news about it. So, I Googled Mormonism. That is the beginning, and the end of it. Period. Sorry I am soooo late to learn something. As I have said, I usually don't pay much attention to this subject. I just thought that a diverse group of people, who happen to share a common hobby, would shed some light on the subject. The strangest part is, those of you that claim to be the most devout are rudest, meanest of all. WWJD indeed. BTW... Harry Reid is a Mormon too. I realize that both Democrats and Republicans have Mormons in their ranks, and all claim to be Christians. | ||
| Buellriderx |
"The strangest part is, those of you that claim to be the most devout are rudest, meanest of all." Ain't that the truth. Our church is similiar to the 7th day adventists. But we don't drive, work, cook, clean, shop or anything like that from friday sundown to saturday sundown. That's our Sabbath. Our pastor comes from a family of pastors. I don't think it's right but who am I? So my sister made a mistake and slept with a guy before marraige. When he found out she was kicked out of the church within two days. And there's many cases like this. Through all this he'll listen to no one and he claims to be a devout christian. | ||
| Reindog |
Union has already explained himself and his curiosity is valid even though it was initially fueled in the background by contemporary politics. That is OK. We have to have these discussions now because Zero is going to paint Romney as the AntiChrist solely because he is Morman. I find this thread and its diverse opinions interesting, so thanks, Union. | ||
| Moxnix |
Well, I for one do not claim to be most devout. More of a recovering pharisee. And a failure at evangelism. The question to myself is, do I have a responsibility to turn people away from cults? It's a yes or no question. I answer it yes. I've a bald spot. Sometimes I wear a kippah, or a kufi, or a pakol, which hold no mystical powers that I know of. Nor do they make me a Jew or a Muslim. They are just old souvenirs that cover a spot on my rude, mean, head. Usually I wear baseball caps. They hold no powers either, from my experience. The Manson Family is said to have been a cult. Manson served time at McNeil Island Federal Penn. He was in the Seadrunar drug weaning program, started by Scientology. Manson was later associated with a Scientology offshoot called "The Process" in California. Then it appears he started his own cult. The rest is history. Temple garments, the Mormon required underwear which is worn under men's and women's underwear, is an abbreviated cotton union suit with special symbols, oddly enough matching the square and compass of the masonic groups, and the same organization to which LDS founder Joseph Smith pinched his "secret information." No biggy, and I always enjoy seeing the Angel Moroni blowing his horn from Temple steeple tops. Sure, I'm a self-appointed conspiracy theorist in regards to politics, economics, society, culture and media, among other things. Add in cults. My perspective simply invites people to examine our own assumptions about how the world works...or should work. So if you disagree with me, you may be annoyed. In real life I'm mostly a Live and Let Live person. My inclination is to not go with the herd. Be grateful when someone is challenging your perspectives...or not. --Asking Mitt if he wears the special underwear and what it means to him seems entirely reasonable in this time of "transparency." I'd ask Obama about his blatant socialist philosophy were I a credentialed newsie instead of a simple forum troll. (Message edited by moxnix on January 14, 2012) | ||
| Littlebuggles |
And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold, they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. John 10:16 If Jeremy said to a dude, "Dude, Buell's rock!" And I was there, so I said, "Hell yeah they do!" I would be neither adding to, nor taking away from what he said. Mine would be another voice stating the absolute fact that Buells are indeed, pretty cool bikes. I wouldn't have been changing the message, only adding another affirmation to it. This is what the mormon scriptures do. If I instead told the dude he just told Buells were cool to, that he was a loon. Then I would be taking away from his message by denigrating the sender of the message. If I simply said instead that Buells didn't rock; I would again be taking away from the message. Ahh, but what if I instead said, Buells don't rock, they rule. What then? The spirit of the message hasn't really changed, although the words that relayed it were slightly different. I'm not trying to belittle by going to this simplified explanation, but checking facts as it were, at the base level. And of course trying to put the message on a level we all can hopefully share. Another voice, another witness, another person's experience that affirms the original givers message does not take away from the message. It supports it, it gives it strength. 2 Corinthians 13:1 [This is the third time I am coming to you.] In the mouth of two, or three witnesses shall every word be established. Matthew 18:6 (speaking of another's trespass against a man, read verse five if you want to understand where six is coming from) But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or thee witnesses every word may be established. Deut 17:6 & 19:5 both establish as well that multiple witnesses are required to prove an accusation against another man. So if multiple witnesses support a claim of negative behavior, do they not also support a claim or righteousness - the good word of God and His Son? Interesting conversation. If we don't fit your prescribed rules of worship, so be it. We believe in a God who is our Father, we believe in His Son, Jesus Christ as our Savior, and we believe in the Holy Ghost. If that's not your definition of Christian that's fine. I will go on trying to live right, and put forth good fruit so to speak. I'm not always a perfect example of a Mormon but I try to live right, and I think that's where it's at. I'm very comfortable with my understanding of the majority of the church's doctrines though there are things I don't understand, or know little about. We believe the Bible to be the word of God, (as far as it's translated correctly), and we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. Additional bullet points: Polygamy is not a practice of the Church, but of some of the "splinter groups" calling themselves Mormons. We do not believe in "magic underwear" (but frankly, my underwear is none of your business. Nor is your underwear any of mine. That sort of thing just doesn't enter into polite conversation...) Harry Reid is a liberal retard, my opinion on this only. I noticed you are using bold now ft, is this shouting, or just to make a point more obvious? I'd just like to understand your use of the bold function really. I consider you a friend Jeremy, though we've only chatted online, I would hope we are keeping our conversation ...ummm ...Christian  | ||
| Littlebuggles |
Union, "The strangest part is, those of you that claim to be the most devout are rudest, meanest of all." I make no claim towards devoutness. Was I being rude? Because that was not my intention. My desire is only to point out that a stupid cartoon mocking a religion is just that. if I was rude I apologize, I only want to educate people when they misunderstand so much about the religion I belong to. I'm a fairly normal guy, and the Mormon religion is not nearly as freaky as many would like to believe. Check my posts here back to when I joined the board in 2002 and you'll see that I'm pretty normal, kinda cocky sometimes, and generally intend to be helpful. I don't try to be someone online that I'm not in real life. Mox "Asking Mitt if he wears the special underwear and what it means to him seems entirely reasonable in this time of "transparency." I'd ask Obama about his blatant socialist philosophy were I a credentialed newsie instead of a simple forum troll." I suppose if there was an accusation that a potential presidential candidate wore women's underwear we would probably ask. If you ask Mitt if he wears "Magic Underwear", press pass or no press pass, he will probably tell you "No". See my previous post for more vague clarification. Personally, I wear boxers, not that it's any of your business, just thought I'd share since it's been put out there...  | ||
| Moxnix |
William Miller was a farmer from upstate New York who was a veteran of the War of 1812. He started telling people in 1831 that the Biblical prophecies described in Revelation had yet to transpire. And if that wasn't enough, he revealed that they were about to. Basically, Miller single handedly revived the "End Is Near" mania. Lots of other religious figures began making similar apocalyptic claims. Miller drew a large following, and in 1840, he finally announced a specific range of dates for the second coming of Jesus Christ. He said it would occur sometime between March 21, 1843 and March 21, 1844. When March 22, 1844 arrived without any perceptible return of Christ, it was kind of a problem for Miller. Thousands of followers had given away their possessions in anticipation of the big day. Not good. But then one of Miller's followers realized that his calculations had been off by one year, because he neglected to count the BC to AD rollover. So he revised the date to October 22 and tried again. In October, of course, the same danged thing happened. Except this time, there weren't any arithmetic errors to blame. Upwards of 100,000 Millerites had expected to finally meet God Jr. Many of them dressed in white robes and climbed up on roofs and hilltops. But the chosen night came and went. The milestone would come to be known as the Great Disappointment of 1844. According to one believer: "The world made merry over the old Prophet's predicament. The taunts and jeers of the 'scoffers' were well-nigh unbearable." Nevertheless, Miller hung tough. The following month, he expressed his never-say-die attitude in a letter: Although I have been twice disappointed, I am not yet cast down or discouraged ... My hope in the coming of Christ is as strong as ever. I have done only what after years of sober consideration I felt a solemn duty to do ... I have fixed my mind upon another time, and here I mean to stand until God gives me more light. And that is Today, TODAY, and TODAY, until He comes, and I see HIM for whom my soul yearns. William Miller finally did see "HIM" when he died on December 20, 1849. Almost overnight, the remnants of his church splintered over doctrinal differences. This fragmentation ultimately gave rise to a variety of denominations, including the Jehovah Witnesses and the Seventh-Day Adventists. In the 20th century, an offshoot of the Seventh-Day Adventists updated Miller's prophecy by claiming a Biblical ETA of April 22, 1959. This group, calling itself the Davidian Seventh-day Adventists, broke into two pieces in the resulting schism. One product of this fission decided to call themselves the Branch Davidians. | ||
| Moxnix |
There's two ways to look at Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon Church. On the one hand you can view him as a fraud -- a monomaniacal polygamist, an opportunist who shamelessly exploited his religious followers, who was murdered by an angry mob, infuriated by all his activities. On the other hand, you could be a Mormon. In which case, he's the greatest man who ever lived. Your call. One morning in 1820, fourteen-year-old Joseph Smith, Jr. had a problem: he needed to know which religion was right. So he went into the woods and prayed for guidance. Then Jesus and His Father appeared and gave Smith some unbelievable news: Every church on earth was offensive to the Lord. All of them had ignored His teachings and commandments... or something like that. Therefore, Smith should join none of them. Smith was instructed to institute a new religion, restoring God's teachings. It would be the one true church. Smith told no one about the vision, and nothing happened for three years. Then he received another visitation, this time from an angel named Moroni. Sort of like the holographic schematics of the Death Star shown to the Rebel pilots during their briefing, Moroni showed Smith a cavity hidden inside a mountain, conveniently located just outside his hometown. In the cave was a room with wooden furnishings, with a bunch of gold tablets stacked up on the table. Then the angel told him not to go near the site until he received specific orders to do so. So Smith never told anybody about that vision either. Another four years passed, and then he finally got the go-ahead to grab the gold tablets. He also picked up two magical rocks which were made famous in the Old Testament: the Urim and Thummim. With those stones -- and a lucky brown rock he found at the bottom of a well -- he set out to transcribe the mysterious markings on the plates. The resulting divine scripture was the account of the lost tribe of Israel, which had sailed from Canaan across the seas to North America around 2250 B.C. They were met by an exotic land, full of elephants and horses and other things. Anyway, these transplanted Hebrews established a vast civilization and were even visited by Jesus, who established a ministry there. This work, a 275,000-word tome entitled The Book of Mormon, provided the foundation for the LDS faith. After the book was translated, the angel came and repossessed the gold plates, which is why they haven't been exhibited in a museum someplace. The church grew rapidly. And why not? It contained the perfect American theology. For one thing, it proved that the doctrine of Manifest Destiny was divinely-inspired. America was the chosen land. And, of course, it was represented as the church to supplant all others, the One True Faith. So it was the new and improved Christian religion. Best of all, its prophet was a U.S. citizen, embodying the entrepreneurial spirit that made this country great. He wasn't content to be the Prometheus who brought the world the one true way. He had to claim credit and ownership. The first edition of The Book of Mormon bore the following on its title page: BY JOSEPH SMITH, JUNIOR, AUTHOR AND PROPRIETOR. Of course, he wasn't just the day manager. Smith adopted the official title of Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, claiming he literally spoke for God. Just like the Pope, except he was a U.S. citizen. According to the church, God even endorsed the cornerstone of American society, despite its controversial status around the world. That being the centuries-old institution of involuntary servitude. As Joseph Smith, God's mouthpiece, wrote in April 1836: The fact is inconvertible, that the first mention we have of slavery, is found in the Holy Bible, pronounced by a man who was perfect in his generation, and walked with God. And so far from that prediction being averse from the mind of God, it remains as a lasting monument to the decree of Jehovah, to the shame and confusion of all who have cried out against the South, in consequence of their holding the sons of Ham in servitude! "And he said, Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant." . . . The curse is not yet taken off from the sons of Canaan . . . those who are determined to pursue a course, which shows an opposition, and a feverish restlessness against the designs of the Lord, will learn when perhaps too late, for their own good, that God can do His own work, without the aid of those who are not directed by His Counsel. The Scripture stands for itself; and I believe that these men were better qualified to teach the will of God, than all the Abolitionists in the world. As prophet, Smith yielded an incessant stream of revelations and divine judgments. God told the Mormons that a man could enter Heaven only by way of plural marriage (aka polygamy). Smith himself had at least 28 wives. But the government hounded them over this, and they were forced to deny it. God also told them to pool all their money and form a Mormon bank. It failed shortly thereafter. Years after William Miller started predicting that Jesus would be back Real Soon Now, Smith revealed a similar prophecy in February 1835. Except that Smith's was not exactly what you would call specific. When Joseph nagged God about the timing of Christ's return, the Creator answered with clear annoyance: I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following: Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble Me no more on this matter. I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face. I believe the coming of the son of Man will not be any sooner than that time. Surprisingly, God appeared to be uncertain whether Joseph would live to be 85. You would think that if anyone could predict when somebody is going to die, it would be the Almighty. Of course, in the end God was correct to hedge His bet. It all ended nine years later in an Illinois jail. Before he surrendered to custody in June 1844, Smith made a little speech to his Mormon brethren: "I am going like a lamb to the slaughter; but I am calm as a summer's morning; I have a conscience void of offense towards God, and towards all men. I shall die innocent, and it shall be said of me -- he was murdered in cold blood." Or at least, that's what the Mormons say. It seems pretty unlikely, when you consider Smith's long track record of interstate flight from prosecution (not to mention evading his creditors). And besides, if he was genuinely acquiescing to his impending martyrdom, then why did he bring the gun? When the angry mob showed up, the lamb whipped out a pistol and shot three guys, killing two of them. But the crowd was too big and he ran out of bullets. Smith ran to the second-story window and looked out -- more armed vigilantes were outside. Smith climbed out on the windowsill. He may or may not have given a Masonic distress signal: "Is there no help for the widow's son?" Evidently not. Then Smith either jumped or fell, breaking his shoulder. One of the mob stabbed him several times with a bayonet, then dragged Smith against a well. That's when the mob shot him to pieces. After Smith's death, the Mormons split in half. His wife and son created the Reorganized LDS church (RLDS), and Brigham Young led the remnants of the original group westward to the Utah Territory. Young blamed the Masons for Smith's murder, and forbade any Mormons from joining the Freemasons. The Masons reciprocated in kind. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
noticed you are using bold now ft, is this shouting, or just to make a point more obvious? I'd just like to understand your use of the bold function really. I consider you a friend Jeremy, though we've only chatted online, I would hope we are keeping our conversation ...ummm ...Christian The use of bold was for distinction of my responses vs. your responses. No shouting intended. I too consider you a friend. Please don't take my theological challenges as a personal attack. We will disagree on many points of biblical doctrine. Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. (Matt 7:15) I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. (Acts 20:29-30) But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands." Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist. (Matt 17:12-13) No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known. (John 1:18) "Believe in God, believe in Jesus, and believe in Joseph his prophet, and Brigham his successor, and you shall be saved." "No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the Celestial Kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith." 6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. John 14:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. (Gal 1:6-8, KJV) | ||
| Littlebuggles |
Mox, similar to the video that started this thread there is truth mixed with a lot of false information in you long dissertation. It's funny that Revelation receives no smirking from you in your first quote, try this on for size: Noah built a magical boat, that somehow held several or more of ALL creatures known to man,and some we suppose we don't know of, or have gone extinct, while the entire earth was flooded and all mankind, excepting one family drowned. And the earth is now populated by the descendants of that one family. How is it okay that one family could populate an entire world. is all that extra water really just the frozen end caps and glaciers of the world? And yet we will not believe the events as they were written by a person who founded a new religion? Believe in miracles or don't. Believe that God lives, or don't. Accept the side of the story from those who embrace it, or from those who mock it because it doesn't jive with their beliefs. You decide. We will all certainly know the truth of it once we are dead, that much is a sure thing. Ft, I'm not familiar with the quote "No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the Celestial Kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith." It's certainly not part of our canonized scripture. It also isn't a popular, or common belief that Joseph Smith has to sign off on all people receiving a welcome to heaven. John 14:6 is the absolute truth. I wasn't saying don't use bold, I just wanted to understand your use of it since there was so much of it. I'm enjoying this discussion, theological discussion is interesting and I never get to exercise my brain this way at work. The more foolish accusations tend to frustrate me though. Again to Moxnix, Joseph Smith didn't smuggle a gun into the Carthage jail, and if anyone else besides the captive leaders of the church were shot it was done by the friendly fire of others in the crowd. There are so many false statements it's hard to know where to start in any intelligent argument against them. I can only say go to mormon.org, or lds.org for a look at the teachings of the church, and our side of the story as to where it all came from. There is some kind of vague association with Joseph and the Free Masons I think but I'm completely unaware of what it was. That is a point I'd like to learn more about, since I had several discussions with men who were Free Mason's when I lived in Iowa many years ago. I think I'm about used up on this subject. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
"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). | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Joseph Smith: "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. 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, pp. 408-9). | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Joseph Smith will receive the keys of the resurrection. "If we ask who will stand at the head of the resurrection in this last dispensation, the answer is - Joseph Smith, Junior, the Prophet of God. He is the man who will be resurrected and receive the keys of the resurrection, and he will seal this authority upon others, and they will hunt up their friends and resurrect them" (Brigham Young, Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 116). | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Jesus' death, burial and resurrection made it possible for mankind to be resurrected, but "men will be punished for their own sins" (Article of Faith #2 by Joseph Smith). Through the atonement of Christ "all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel" (Article of Faith #3 by Joseph Smith). "There is no salvation outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 670). "Baptism - is for the remission of sins - (and) is the gate to the celestial kingdom of heaven" (Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 70). There is "no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith - No man can eject that testimony without accepting most dreadful consequences, for he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1, p. 188). | ||
| Gschuette |
They want your money so it sure looks like Christianity to me. | ||
| Hootowl |
Giving to a church is voluntary. If you like what they're doing with the money, feel free to give. If you don't, don't. The government on the other hand... | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
They want your money so it sure looks like Christianity to me. I guess that means that Marxism and Eco-Progressivism are Christianity as well. | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
I guess that means that Marxism and Eco-Progressivism are Christianity as well. Same coin, just flipped over. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
oh no, you did not just evoke Marx into this.... He was no friend of religion - indeed he thought it was the 'opiate of the masses' the actual quote is a little harsher It is the 'necessary narcotic to subdue the multitude' He didn't like the competition. If anyone were to be making a 'citizen - comrade' cower - it was to be the collective, and under Lenin - the Soviet. Stalin believed the church was 'useful idiots' and actually relaxed religious restrictions in the war... because it meant he knew were the dissents were gathering. He further taxed the services, and of course made them pay licensing fees to conduct their services, and occupy the buildings (many churches were destroyed for the sake of it, and replaced by Post Modern Soviet State monoliths) Marx is assuredly not A Christian - and I am surprised that the Orthodox Church in America is not more in opposition of the puppet trying to invoke his name again out of DC. (if you think you have Religious freedom in the US, you are fooling yourself - the PPACA just imposed a similar tax upon religions and indeed makes preferential exclusions to some, ) It flies in the face of separation of church and state, religious freedom, and of course, taxation without representation. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
My point regarding was Marx was that Marxist want your money. Marxist want your money = Christians want your money Marx was assuredly NOT a friend of religion. | ||
| Reepicheep |
Not trying to pick a fight Grumpy... but there is no comparison. When I don't agree with the spending agenda of my Church, and choose not to give... nothing happens. If I were to do the same with my taxes, they send men with guns. I don't see how you can equate them. | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
It was a flip response, wasn't being serious really, just forgot to add the  smiley.  | ||
| Union_man |
While Googleing around I found this... This may be a bit off topic, but it is kind of a similar question. Maybe we can discuss this in a nicer way. Can a person that is Jewish believe in Jesus as his savior, and still be a Jew? I am guessing no. They would be a Christian...right?  | ||
| Moxnix |
Careful, or Grumps will start quoting scripture from his Haynes manual.  |
