Posted on 08/29/2007 6:59:08 PM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
Will this thread not die?!
All these religions with multiplicative proclivities, and all the human founders lacing their foundations with their own hopes, fears, prejudices, and vices?
The Reformation revived and refined some major heresies; it is of no surprise to find out that the splitters and quitters of the Reformation generated splitters and quitters of their own, with far different beliefs and emphases. Look at the variations of the extremely numerous great grandchildren of the Campbellites, for instance, ranging from braided armpit hair to raging Bible basher.
sigh ... grin ... chuckle ... harumph ... I will never be able to agree with your special interpretations of the scriptures, taken out of context in so many places while ignoring texts of the passages in Greek (for instance) which can help you to understand more accurately. Have a nice weekend ... grin, sigh, chuckle, chortle, LOL
I don’t see this as a justification of LDS faith.
Right, there is no arguing that he had the Holy Ghost, none whatsoever. But why would Stephen even mention seeing they Father and the Son if they were both one in substance, and why would he, having the Holy Ghost within him, then look up into heaven to see the Father and the Son, if he already had all three within him?
And, just so you know, that isn't the justification of the LDS faith. Joseph has a similar experience, looked up into heaven and saw the Father and the Son. His words, speaking of the incident are similar to the faith of Paul when he testified before King Agrippa.
Joseph:
JS-H 1: 25 So it was with me. I had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that light I saw two personages, and they did in reality speak to me; and though I was hated and persecuted for saying that I had seen a vision, yet it was true; and while they were persecuting me, reviling me, and speaking all manner of evil against me falsely for so saying, I was led to say in my heart: Why persecute me for telling the truth? I have actually seen a vision; and who am I that I can withstand God, or why does the world think to make me deny what I have actually seen? For I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it, neither dared I do it; at least I knew that by so doing I would offend God, and come under condemnation.
Is that LDS scripture? and is it before the Nephi vision was his story, after Mormoni was his final story, or inspite of those other stories?
Why should this even be a relevant question, considering you believe God the Father and Jesus are the same? Jesus rose from the dead, showed his wounds to his apostles, ate honeycomb and fish in front of them, ascended into heaven in the same body, and angels testifies that He would return in like manner as he ascended. Why the question? Where/why did Jesus/God the Father (trinity belief) discard his body, and where in the scripture does it say he did? The ressurection is a fundamental teaching of Christianity? Why all of the sudden does Jesus not have a body? Where does this teaching come from, I've never understood it. Would someone please point that out? This is a sincere question.
Sorry, dude.
Quoting LDS text isn’t going to cut it in this debate. The Christians are going to say that it isn’t one of the 72 books of Scripture. And it isn’t.
Justifying LDS faith with LDS scripture, is like, well, looking at an advertisement for Budweiser and concluding that they manufacture real beer.
Perhaps it takes a demonically possessed mind to make this flip of the issue as you post “Why all of the sudden does Jesus not have a body? Where does this teaching come from ...” In your sadly misled mind, you fabricate this specious question to try and deflect scrutiny from the heresy at the heart of Mormonism. It is most revealing of you and your ilk to try and raise such a specious notion when not one opposer to Mormonism has ever said such a foolish thing. You are a liar and the truth is not in you. May Christ have mercy upon you for trying to fabricate lies about Him and His gospel.
Actually, the "unchristianing" (if that's a word) of Masonry is an 18th century and later device. You will find little or no reference to anti-Masonry prior to that time. It's mostly been an evangelical crusade against it beginning in the 1800's. Prior to that time, most Church dogma didn't conflict with it. Many many Christians participated. In fact, many Bishops of the Church of England have been Freemasons.
A truer post was never typed! It fits right in with my (now back again) tagline.
We are all resurrected - those of us that are human.
When Jesus Ascended into Heaven, He was no longer human, but Divine - a part of the trinitarian Godhead.
Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.
Which would indicate that He was fully Divine and the human portion shed.
I know I’m using Wikipedia a lot, but here’s a good treatise on the last 400 years on the subject of The Freemasony ban by Rome.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholicism_and_Freemasonry#Catholic_Ban.2C_Historically
Lol, nice one! Why would there be a commute? (still chuckling btw)
Salt Lake or the leaders of the LDS Church will not rule during the Millennium, the Lord Jesus Christ will. Back to the Isaiah reference: "Out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem." Our belief is that these are two locations. Neither will be Salt Lake, it has never been claimed to be such, even in all of LDS scriptures.
The earth is the Lord's footstool and we are all in His palm, all nations, all peoples, all geographic locations. (yes, even the Muslims...Gen. 21:18)
Cheers
Can I just tell you how nice it is to have a conversation about such things without the name calling that most often transpires here by some. Thank you for at least seeing the logic in our side, if nothing else! I respectfully will disagree with you on this topic, but let me just say it continues to be a pleasure!!
Sorry, my fault, I'm playing 3 day old catch up.
"multiplicative proclivities"
Interesting. According to the logic of some on this board, if Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin didn’t believe in the trinity, they weren’t Christian.
I wish I could have a great weekend, I'm working straight through, away from my family. But I at least I will thank you for the thought.
Thanks for bringing this up again, you asked about it a week ago, and I never responded due to our little squabbling and my lack of online time.
This is a single printing error from which every single further reference uses, even though every critic cites a variety of sources that repeat the Nephi claim. The key point to understand is that there is really only one source that claims Nephi; the other sources which mention Nephi are merely citing this one source, thus perpetuating the error.
These facts have not been hidden; they are readily available in the History of the Church:
In the original publication of the history in the Times and Seasons (newspaper) at Nauvoo, this name appears as “Nephi,” and the Millennial Star perpetuated the error in its republication of the History. That it is an error is evident, and it is so noted in the manuscripts to which access has been had in the preparation of this work.
The claim that the messenger was “Nephi” derives from only one source: the Manuscript History of the Church
This document was then reprinted in the Times and Seasons:
He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Nephi. That God has a work for me to do, and that my name should be had for good and er that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people. He said there was a book deposited written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang.
It should be noted that Joseph had turned the editorial duties of the Times and Seasons over to John Taylor because of other demands on his time. It is therefore unlikely that Joseph saw this published version prior to its publication.
In England, the Church’s Millennial Star printed the same article, perpetuating the error.
This idea was repeated further in the same volume:
Again, when we read the history of our beloved brother, Joseph Smith, and of the glorious ministry and message of the angel Nephi, which has finally opened a new dispensation to man, and commenced a revolution in the moral, civil, and religious government of the world...
The Millennial Star and Times and Seasons accounts then served as the source for Lucy Mack Smith’s book (note that this information was inserted by editors and was not originally provided by the Prophet’s mother):
He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Nephi...[citing] Times and Seasons, vol. iii., p. 729. Supp. to Mil. Star, vol. xiv., p. 4.
And, the Pearl of Great Price, published in England and not yet canonized, drew on the Millennial Star’s versions, citing “Times & Seasons, Vol. iii, p. 726, &c.” (p. 36).
He called me by name and said unto me, that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Nephi.
Finally, Thomas Bullock’s journal refers to the Times and Seasons as his source for the story.
Thus, a single error in the Manuscript History had a ripple effect through several published accounts of the vision. These accounts are not independent ‘proof’ that Joseph was changing the story; they all depend on a single error.
Joseph spoke of Moroni as the messenger quite frequently. Tanners and others have jumped onto the perpetuation error theory (without revealing that fact) to say otherwise, but that doesn't change his story.
Cheers
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.