Posts by Colofornian

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Was Harry Reid beat up by mobsters? (answer:yes)

    03/29/2015 7:39:38 PM PDT · 38 of 105
    Colofornian to Kevin in California; All

    Next we may see him with his other eye blackened...announcing he isn’t retiring, after all...when asked how he got the other black eye, he will mention how he tripped while family home teaching for the mormon church and his eye struck the corner of a book of mormon...of course people will know that the acronym for the book of Mormon is BOM and the acronym in reverse is MOB ...and they will.read between the lines there

  • Card game based on Salem witches developed in Provo [Project Creator BYU grad]

    03/29/2015 5:24:20 PM PDT · 1 of 3
    Colofornian
  • Mary 'Mother of God'=Church 'Mother of Holy Spirit?'(Are we not god-bearers-'theotokos'-too?[Vanity]

    03/28/2015 11:46:03 AM PDT · 22 of 22
    Colofornian to RobbyS; All
    Without Mary, the person who gave him flesh, Jesus is a messenger from heaven.

    You could point to a LOT of people and say, "Without XYZ..."

    You could say, "Without Moses..."

    Yet we see Moses had disobeyed God by striking the rock when he was told to speak the word to the rock to bring forth water; and because of that, he was told he would not see the promised land.

    IoW, yes God used him: But Moses, ultimately, wasn't "indispensable" for how God would finally usher His people into the promised land. For every servant, ensuing servants exist when previous ones fall by the wayside.

    God already knew Mary would acquiese, so it's not like I believe He had "plan B." However, were it not for Mary, it's not like God's hands would have been tied. He could have accomplished it thru another virgin; I simply believe, with His sovereign omniscience, He would have sent angels to that other person.

    My point is whenever men and conclude that a certain servant, or a certain reformer, or a certain denominational leader, or a certain pope-servant, etc. is "indispensable," then they wind up glorying in that servant vs. the God who selected, equipped, empowered, worked in & thru that person.

    Plain and simple, it's idolatry. And people need to repent. It's like having a spiritual gift and trusting in the gift itself vs. the God who gave it. Paul said no servant-leader is to whom we rally around (1 Cor. 1:10-17)

    The whole thrust of your argument is what bothers me, which is to minimize the doctrine of the Incarnation.

    Well, a key purpose, actually is to show that the Church has actually minimized the doctrine of the Holy Spirit-as-Indweller/River of Life, etc. of the flesh-and-blood church.

    We wonderfully -- as we should -- celebrate Christmas, Good Friday, Easter. But we greatly play down Pentecost. (And, no, I'm not a Pentecostal or even what others might call a charismatic).

    We talk about Jesus as if He's gone, when Paul references Christ as one who lives in us (Col. 1:7; Gal. 2:20). Jesus Himself promised to be with us until the end of the age (Matt. 28:20).

    And we tend to treat the Holy Spirit's divine Presence as if He was "lesser" in glory, etc. than the Son of God's.

    May the Church repent of this.

  • Mary 'Mother of God'=Church 'Mother of Holy Spirit?'(Are we not god-bearers-'theotokos'-too?[Vanity]

    03/28/2015 7:28:27 AM PDT · 19 of 22
    Colofornian to dartuser

    You obviously didn’t even read the article

  • Mary 'Mother of God'=Church 'Mother of Holy Spirit?'(Are we not god-bearers-'theotokos'-too?[Vanity]

    03/27/2015 9:40:30 PM PDT · 12 of 22
    Colofornian to vladimir998
    My SECOND SENTENCE in the thread mentions Mary and “Thus” indicates the second sentence’s content is directly related to the content of the first. So don’t now tell me some nonsense like “You didn’t come out talkin’ ‘bout Mary;” Seriously, why are making things up?

    You said in post #9: The problem with your analogy is that it is no analogy at all. We are not talking about “tri” aspects of Mary for there are none.

    My analogy wasn't primarily a response in post #7 to Mary. So why did you make it that? Why would you even expect that, given what you wrote in post #7?

    In post 7, this was the order of what you talked about:
    a. "it" (Holy Spirit)
    b. comparison to a gestated child (also internal)
    c. Mary as mother
    d. Jesus as (preborn/born) child
    e. Holy Spirit (& whether He's been) carried by a woman
    f. the womb (also internal)

    So, in your 48 words in post #7, you essentially address these six subjects -- all of which (except c.) focus on the internal: a child in gestation, a child's preborn place of residency (womb), a child to be born & is born, the one being carried by a woman, and two references to the indweller (Holy Spirit). In contrast to that, only ONE reference to Mary.

    So then because you didn't recognize that my analogy was geared to that Indweller, you suddenly thought I should have responded to your single Mary reference & would have ignored most of what you said!

    Come on now. If somebody's 83.4% of their mere 48-word 3 sentences zero in on the child, the internal dimension, the Indweller, & then you complain how the analogy doesn't fit the "Mom" -- your 16.6% of the subject matter -- & then when that's all pointed out to you, you fall back on, "Whaddya mean I didn't talk about Mary? She's right there in the second sentence?" As if a single reference would trump 2 references to the Indweller, a gestated child, a baby being carried, a baby's place of residency (womb), & Jesus as preborn/born child?

    And I have to spend all this time explaining to you what you somehow have seemingly forgotten (or choose to ignore) what you wrote? Are you kidding me?

    Between these statements ... along with how you think you can reference the Holy Spirit as an "it" and then, when called on that, just slide right on by with an "oh, what does that matter? type of comment in post #9: "What it convinces you of is meaningless. My point still stands." essentially sizes up your weasel approach to conversations.

  • Mary 'Mother of God'=Church 'Mother of Holy Spirit?'(Are we not god-bearers-'theotokos'-too?[Vanity]

    03/27/2015 8:01:40 PM PDT · 10 of 22
    Colofornian to vladimir998
    What it convinces you of is meaningless

    Whether the Holy Spirit is impersonal or Personal is meaningless?

    That you could be that ignorant of the Bible and presume to then try to convey much of worth from it is meaningless?

    The problem with your analogy is that it is no analogy at all. We are not talking about “tri” aspects of Mary for there are none.

    Sorry, stay focused if you're going to enter a conversation addressing a specific target: Review post #7 of yours: "Mary" was not where you entered the conversation; instead, the child was: Or do I have to remind you?

    ...it doesn’t physically gestate within us as a child. -- and then you added -- also focusing on the Holy Spirit and the internal womb: "The Holy Spirit has never been PHYSICALLY carried by a woman in her womb...

    So the greater focus of my response to you was to use an analogy addressing where you entered the conversation -- and that was to zero on who was being enfleshed.

    Flowing water, vapor and ice are all water...

    Yes, as the Holy Spirit, the Father, and the Son are all divine...

    And NONE of that has anything to do with Mary’s motherhood.

    Again, stay focused upon where you initially entered the convo. You didn't come out talkin' 'bout Mary; you addressed the "gestated child," one being "carried," and the residency of a child (womb).

    Your analogy fails again, because vapor is still matter, not Spirit. Vapor molecules are still MOLECULES. That’s physical matter. Spirit is not matter.

    It wasn't meant to be a molecule-for-molecule perfect analogy! (You would be the type to take issue with Jesus parables or hyperboles, and would get wrapped up in lecturing Jesus that a camel just wouldn't be able to physically trudge molecule-for-molecule thru the eye of a needle!)

    Not His physical body. His mystical body, yes.

    (Except His mystical body is made up of physical people. So I guess given what you've said in the post, I have to remind you that this "mystical body" is stretch with billions & billions & billions of molecules!)

  • Mary 'Mother of God'=Church 'Mother of Holy Spirit?'(Are we not god-bearers-'theotokos'-too?[Vanity]

    03/27/2015 6:50:43 PM PDT · 8 of 22
    Colofornian to vladimir998
    Yes, but it doesn’t physically...

    #1...The Holy Spirit is not an impersonal "it"...and your reductionism to that level basically convinces me you don't even know Him!!!

    #2...In the article itself, I reference this phrase of Jesus: "Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit" (John 3:6)

    How can your "physical" comment blunder past such a basic spiritual distinction Jesus makes? IoW, why would you even expect that who is Spirit would automatically generate some physical manifestation?

    It's as if we were talking about the tri-unity components of water: Flowing water, vapor, and ice. All is water. But ice isn't vapor. And flowing water isn't (usually) ice.

    You might zero in upon all the manifestations of ice. I might highlight how the same things apply to vapor.

    But if you then said, "But vapor doesn't CONCRETELY PHYSICALLY..." XYZ, I'd say, "Duh! It's vapor! Nothing 'concrete' about vapor!"

    The Holy Spirit has never been PHYSICALLY carried by a woman in her womb since the Spirit has no physicality.

    Okay, God's choice of Mary's womb was unique. We won't see a 6-foot-tall Jesus-like miracle replicated in any womb.

    But guess what? The body of Christ has expanded:

    Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. (1 Cor. 12:27)

    Once who was localized in the Middle East, is now universalized. Once who was singular, is now plural. "Christ in you, the hope of glory," Jesus told the Colossians (1:27)

    Jesus isn't simply in heaven. He is omnipresent. He promised to be with His followers "even unto the end of the age." (Matt. 28:20)

    So the new (spiritual) "womb" -- is the Church. The Holy Spirit flows from her (John 7:38-39).

  • Mary 'Mother of God'=Church 'Mother of Holy Spirit?'(Are we not god-bearers-'theotokos'-too?[Vanity]

    03/27/2015 4:28:43 PM PDT · 6 of 22
    Colofornian to The_Reader_David
    ... the word “Theotokos”, does not indicate one who bore God in the sense of carrying Him (though that is true of Mary, who is also titled “More Spacious than the Heavens” because she carried the uncontainable God within her womb)...

    Yes. We embody the Holy Spirit; likewise, Jesus was enfleshed within Mary.

    However, the word “Theotokos”, does not indicate one who bore God in the sense of carrying Him (though that is true of Mary, who is also titled “More Spacious than the Heavens” because she carried the uncontainable God within her womb), but one who bore God in the sense of giving birth to Him. The best, albeit cumbersome, Englishing of “Theotokos” would be “Birth-Giver of God”, which is why we Orthodox Christians tend to just keep the Greek word as the proper title of the Blessed Virgin Mary, rather then Englishing it as either “Mother of God” or “Birth-Giver of God.”

    Yes. We not only embody the Holy Spirit, but also BEAR His fruit (Galatians 5:22).

    We not only BEAR His fruit, but Himself:

    38 Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow FROM within them.” 39 By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified. (John 7)

    This Spirit remains NOT simply contained, but flows FROM us!

  • Mary 'Mother of God'=Church 'Mother of Holy Spirit?'(Are we not god-bearers-'theotokos'-too?[Vanity]

    03/27/2015 3:51:10 PM PDT · 5 of 22
    Colofornian to Campion
    God became man: one divine person, with two natures, one human, one divine.

    Yes.

    Not God became co-located with man...

    (And here we thought Jesus' address for 33 years was "Planet Earth")

    Spirits don't have mothers. You have to have a human nature to have a mother.

    You're kinda missing the point. Here's what I wrote in the article:

    Just as Mary simply relented in order to enflesh Jesus, we, too as His Body simply acquiese to "embody" the Holy Spirit...We, too, are a collective theotokos.

    Mary was a god-bearer; so is Jesus' Bride, the Church. See: John 14:16-17; 1 Cor. 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 3:16; Eze. 36:26-27; 37:14

    You're kind of missing the whole point of "Theotokos". It was to point out the utter mystery at the heart of the faith: God became man.

    Right. The ultimate Mystery.

    But the Holy Spirit is no less divine...so you're not "getting the point": That is Utter Mystery 2.0 (the Sequel)

    And that is:

    How can The Divine One -- the Spirit -- inhabit mere men? And no, not men He "really liked"...but men redeemed by the blood of the Lamb.

    I mean it's wonder enough how the Son of God from eternity became man. (I think C.S. Lewis once compared that to a man becoming a frog to save the frogs of the earth)

    With Jesus, He didn't need to assume a body "of sin."

    With the Holy Spirit, as He transforms us (2 Cor. 3:18), He is at times "grieved" by us or "quenched" by us. Yet He remains inhabited in us; embodying us.

    And, yes, not just "any" body does the Holy Spirit inhabit, but the pluralized, universalized "Body of Christ"
    27 Now YOU ARE THE BODY OF CHRIST, and each one of you is a part of it. (1 Cor. 12)

    Mystery 2.0

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/27/2015 2:09:17 PM PDT · 869 of 898
    Colofornian to All; Resettozero
  • Mary 'Mother of God'=Church 'Mother of Holy Spirit?'(Are we not god-bearers-'theotokos'-too?[Vanity]

    03/27/2015 2:04:10 PM PDT · 1 of 22
    Colofornian
  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/27/2015 12:53:16 PM PDT · 862 of 898
    Colofornian to rwa265; af_vet_1981; Resettozero; CynicalBear; All
    What really bothers me is that no attempt is made to address our concerns. We are insulted, told that we are dancing the same dance, moving the goalposts, extrapolating, blaspheming, not answering their questions, etc. It’s as if they have been taught that when they cannot refute a statement, that the best response is to do anything rather than give a direct response to the specific statement.

    I tried to engage you on this topic ... post #656 ... but was ignored.

    But I do see the 3 of you talking circles around each other.

    Here's my historical/Biblical take on this matter...I'll even quote a Catholic to kick things off:

    "In the fourth century a bishop of Constantinople named Nestorious...wanted to call Mary only 'Mother of Christ'; he feared that the title 'Mother of God' would confuse the divine and human aspects of Jesus. The church in the East rose up to reject Nestorius' view. To deny that Mary was the mother of God was to deny either that Jesus is God or that Mary was truly his mother. A general council of bishops at Ephesus in 431 A.D. declared, 'If anyone does not confess that God is truly Emmanuel, and that on this account the holy virgin is the mother of God (for according to the flesh she gave birth to the Word of God become flesh by birth), let him be anathema (condemned)." (Alan Schreck, Catholic and Christian, pp. 175 - 176)

    "Nestorious, patriarch of Constantinople, championed the term 'Mother of Christ,' while Cyril of Alexandria favored 'Mother of God. The Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431) decided in favor of Cyril." (Geisler & MacKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, p. 299)

    So...resettozero...a key historical part of all this was to fend off the Nestorian heresy...and to rightly NOT divide Jesus as to being only human, or being only divine...but that He is both human and divine...in, fact, eternally so.

    I'm a Protestant. I've notice how Protestants, especially NOT having carefully reviewed church history, tend to "knee jerk" response to the phrase "Mother of God" primarily (IMO) because we know God the Father and God the Holy Spirit had no mother, and the Son of God, none from eternity past.

    The historical church has pointed to the Greek word Theotokos as the original descriptive phrase -- "Mother of God":

    "Harold O.J. Brown comments concerning theotokos: 'The term, which means 'God-bearing one' (not precisely 'Mother of God,' as it is frequently translated), originally was descriptive of the man Jesus, born of Mary' (Heresies: The Image of Christ, p. 172). Theotokos, therefore, was designed to say more about Jesus than to glorify Mary." (Geisler & MacKenzie, ibid)

    IoW, Christmas is really more about Christ...than any characters in the Nativity. And Who is glorified by Who we focus upon in things like Christmas is really one of the points I was making (especially toward the end) of my post #656 which...btw... was ignored by all the Catholics on this thread.

    So while church fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries referenced Mary as the "Mother of God," a more precise meaning of the Greek word has ALWAYS been "God-bearing one" (which may be a difference of no account, but probably at least sounds less provocative to the average Protestant).

    And the main point of Post #656 is that guess, what?

    We as the church across the board are "god bearing ones!"

    For the Holy Spirit indwells us as his flesh-and-blood temple. Yet does that make us the "mother of the Holy Spirit?"

    But is this post -- and #656 -- really meant to play down our role (or Mary's role)? I don't think so ... for to be "god bearers" is something of great honor. Of great privilege. Of great esteem.

    And yet it's overwhelmingly humbling.

    So, yes, Mary is the "god-bearing one" (Theotokos). Why argue that historical reality? 'Cause really it's frankly a settled point.

    Let's instead discuss if Mary is overglorified by that reality by some segments of those who call Jesus their Lord.

    'Cause, let's face it: We, too, are a collective theotokos. Roman Catholics, I challenge you to your face: Is the Holy Spirit any LESS divine than our Lord Jesus Christ who indwelled Mary?

    And, yes I understand "why" when a Catholic book says "The springtime month of May is popularly devoted to Mary" due to it being the month of "Mothers Day" (Greg Dues, Catholic Customs & Traditions, p. 128).

    But the rest of the overemphasize upon Mary is frankly bizarre:
    * "Just as Sunday had always been devoted to Jesus Christ, Saturday eventually became Mary's Day. This tradition was promoted in Carolingian times by Alcuin (d. 804). A votive Mass in Mary's honor has commonly been offered on Saturday throughout modern times." (ibid)
    * "The month of October is dedicated to Mary under the theme of the rosary because of the feast of Our Lady of the Rosary on October 7." (Dues, p. 129)
    * And even with the history of the rosary, Dues mentions how "by the early 12th century, Hail Marys were substituted for the Our Fathers..." (p. 128)

    5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, NO ONE can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. (John 3)

    My take is that whenever one giving birth is emphasized to the total exclusion of a rebirth -- recognizing that Mary herself was "born of the spirit" (lest not being able to enter our Lord's kingdom) -- imbalance sets in.

    IF we are speaking ONLY about Mary, and not her son, then her rebirth is of vital emphasis! Seems clear from Scripture to me, that she confessed being a sinner (Luke 1:46), and she offered a sacrifice for her sinful condition (Luke 2:22). So her rebirth in our Lord is a great celebration!

    Otherwise, we, too, as "god-bearers" (of the Holy Spirit) --
    --were we to stress His indwelling
    to the expense of failing to recognize the necessity of our own rebirth
    -- would likewise be as what's deemed imbalanced re: the Roman Catholic approach to Mary.

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/27/2015 11:09:55 AM PDT · 858 of 898
    Colofornian to StormPrepper; DungeonMaster; All
    You don't say. Well, did you know that we are brothers and sisters of Jesus too as well as Lucifer?

    DungeonMaster, ALL: The WORST part of this is actually how Mormonism reduces Jesus.

    Lds reference Jesus a fair amount as "elder brother." Yet in their mind, Satan is "Elder Brother," too!

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/27/2015 11:04:23 AM PDT · 857 of 898
    Colofornian to StormPrepper; Syncro; DungeonMaster; All
    There was no beginning. The mixture of Greek culture into Christianity in the first century turned Christianity into a pagan acceptable religion. Appealing to Greek audiences. This is where you get the concept of "Personal Savior" but still maintain the mythos of "uncreated", "unseeable", "unknowable", "everywhere and no where", "unreachable", etc...And the notion that angels are like winged fairies floating around heaven.

    Based upon StormPrepper & his Mormnism's "scripture" Doctrine & Covenants 93:29,33...it says spirits and intelligences are as eternal as God is:
    29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be. 33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal... (LDS "scripture" Doctrine & Covenants 93:29,33)

    So while StormPrepper accuses early Christianity of having embraced "Greek culture" and that "there was no beginning" ... even his "scripture" references some "beginning."

    Beyond that...

    Per the Mormon narrative, we all supposedly started off as "goo" somewhere...a "spirit" (D&C 93:29,33)...You are just as "eternal" (as in eternal past) as God & Jesus...you haven't "lived" any less than them (past-wise)

    THEN (Chapter II) you were spirit-born to a man who became God & one of his goddess wives...near "Kolob"...wherever that is...
    Oh, and Lucifer -- Satan -- was your "elder spirit bro"
    THEN (Chapter III) you were sent here...essentially "alien" status...to inhabit a body...

    THEN (Chapter IV) either...
    ...(a) you become a temple Mormon so you can eternally progress to become a future god (run your world; create your own spirit kids; receive worship & prayer & glory from them as a "god")...
    ...or (b) be a nontemple Mormon or a "good" Christian & go to the "middle" celestial glory where you can't live with Heavenly Father forever (not sure how that could EVER be defined as "heaven" by Mormons)...
    ...or (c) be Necro-baptized by proxy in a spirit world where you & everybody goes (even the best Mormons go there, too, for a while)

    And if the above wasn't enough, if you look under the "Spirit" entry in LDS church-published Bible Dictionary, 1979 (p. 776) -- in back of Holy Bible, you'll find this worse than winged fairies entry:

    "That is, ALL forms of living things--man, beast and vegetation--existed as individual spirits, before any form of life existed upon the earth. The spirit is in the likeness of the physical body, as demonstrated in Gen. 2:5; 1 Ne. 11:11; Ether 3:15-16; D&C 77:2; 129; Moses 3:4-7. Furthermore, all spirit is matter, but is more refined and pure than mortal element (D&C 131:7)."

    So. If you take the infinite regression teaching of the Mormon church -- infinitely regressing, we ALL have supposedly "existed" in some form -- [again, see @ Doctrine & Covenant 93:29,33 above...this teaches WE are as eternal (past) as God/Jesus, etc. -- & that spirits & intelligences & elements ALWAYS existed!!!
    ...and couple it with this above eternal regression teaching...that vegetation & beasts were co-existent alongside us as fellow "spirits" once upon a time...and that we all have ALWAYS existed... Sometimes esoteric macabre teachings that you think are so FAR out there...are actually mainstream Mormonism!

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/26/2015 2:36:44 PM PDT · 816 of 898
    Colofornian to DungeonMaster

    :)

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/26/2015 2:32:27 PM PDT · 814 of 898
    Colofornian to StormPrepper; Elsie; All
    Have you ever read "Jesus The Christ" by Talmage?

    Here was a 2008 thread with some Talmage quotes:
    LDS Leaders Define Their Concept of JESUS CHRIST [OPEN]

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/26/2015 12:57:13 PM PDT · 780 of 898
    Colofornian to StormPrepper; DungeonMaster; All
    There is only one [G]od.

    There's several Lds "scriptures" and hundreds of Lds general authorities saying "gods" exist in the plural.

    And, no we're not talking about false usurping gods like the god of this world (Satan).

    And, no we're not talking about the "mortal" gods (Ps. 82:6-7) who die after defending the unjust/wicked (Ps. 82:2) while oppressing the poor, the weak, the needy (Ps. 82:3-4)

    We are talking about what these Lds general authorities are talking about:

    Supposedly TRUE multiple gods...
    ...who RIGHTLY receive glorification & worship.

    So, StormPrepper, are you...
    (a) Throwing all these Lds leaders & "scriptures" under the bus that reference multiple TRUE gods?
    (b) Or is this PR stunt to sound orthodox?

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/26/2015 12:28:17 PM PDT · 777 of 898
    Colofornian to StormPrepper; SZonian; ejonesie22; Elsie; All

    One more 'Rolling Laughter' Note Re: Mormonism's Historic 'Journal of Discourses' & the way many Mormons treat it as a closet boogie man

    As I mentioned last post: "To hear tell StormPrepper, why it's nothing more than chicken scratches made by some Mormon bumpkins ... and it's all how ya wanna "interpret" those chicken scratches:"

    (That's in response to StormPrepper's comment on the JoD):

    The JoD was written in short-hand from talks and sermons by someone that heard the prophet. It was later sent off to be transcribed by someone that wasn't there. So, JoD is actually the interpretation of the short-hand by someone who never heard the prophet. A symbol in short-hand could mean what ever the interpreter thinks it means. The JoD is not considered scripture. The end result are not the words of the prophet but the words of the interpreter. Wow, you sure spent a lot of effort on that mole hill to mountain build up too...

    So...allow me to repeat a few graphs from my last post to set up a classic FREEPER quote:

    ...the Lds Church publishes MASSIVE footnoted curricula, annual priesthood and relief society devotionals, books, pamphlets, digital articles, multiple magazine publications, and if you gathered up all of them published over these past 45 years, you would have literally tens of thousands of footnotes/excerpts of them citing Lds leaders -- as quoted in the Journal of Discourses.

    You see, the Lds church has no trouble rifling thru the JoD to cull extracts/quotes to feed their internal publishing machine. They know faithful Mormons generally don't see beyond who made the comment, anyway. But when it comes to the public, the Lds church is aware of hundreds to thousands of extremely contradictory and embarrassing teachings in the JoD.

    So, inwardly, they vociferously cite it; outwardly, they need plausible deniability about "official" sanction. (Can you say religious hypocrisy exercised by the ranks of Lds general authorities?)

    Relevant commentary on Mormon JoD shyness, as expressed by fellow FREEPER Ejonesie22 many years ago:

    Official sites are sites supported by LDS officials unless said official sites are consider unofficial by said officials. At that point such sites are unofficial unless officially referenced for official purposes by officials who can do so officially. This should not be misconstrued as an indication that official sites can be unofficially recognized as official nor should it be implied that unofficial sites cannot contain official information, but are not officially allowed to be offical despite their official contents due the their unofficialness. Official sites will be official and recognized as official by officials of the LDS unless there is an official reason to mark them as unofficial either temporally or permanently, which would make the official content officially unofficial. This is also not to imply that recognized sites, often used here by haters cannot contain official information, it just means that content, despite its official status, is no longer official and should be consider unofficial despite the same information being official on an official site else where. Even then the officialness my be amended due to the use of the unofficial information which may determine the officialness of anything be it official or unofficial depending on how and where it is used officially or unofficially. I hope this clear things up for the lurkers out there. As I said the haters tend to make things complicated and confusing when it is all crystal clear...


    Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2573705/posts Post #24
  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/26/2015 12:12:54 PM PDT · 776 of 898
    Colofornian to StormPrepper; SZonian; All

    Re: Mormonism's Historic 'Journal of Discourses'

    To hear tell StormPrepper, why it's nothing more than chicken scratches made by some Mormon bumpkins ... and it's all how ya wanna "interpret" those chicken scratches:

    The JoD was written in short-hand from talks and sermons by someone that heard the prophet. It was later sent off to be transcribed by someone that wasn't there. So, JoD is actually the interpretation of the short-hand by someone who never heard the prophet. A symbol in short-hand could mean what ever the interpreter thinks it means. The JoD is not considered scripture. The end result are not the words of the prophet but the words of the interpreter. Wow, you sure spent a lot of effort on that mole hill to mountain build up too...

    Well, after the Journal of Discourses was published, what have Mormonism's top leaders said about these messages from Mormonism's "General Authorities?"

    (1) Who authorized Watt to record the Journal of Discourses? (Brigham Young)
    (2) According to Lds.org, who solicited the Mormon faithful to purchase the Journal of Discourses via subscription basis? (That's right: Brigham Young):
    ...Watt proposed to Brigham Young the idea of publishing these materials on a subscription basis. Such a plan would make the materials available to more Saints and allow Watt to earn a living with his work. President Brigham Young supported the plan, a letter from the First Presidency was included in the first volume encouraging Church members to cooperate in the “purchase and sale” of the journal.
    Source: Lds.org

    (3) Who ranks highest in the Mormon church to carry out what he assigns? (The "prophet")

    (4) What did Lds "apostle" Franklin D. Richards in the JoD preface of vol. 2 reference the JoD as?

    The Second Volume of the Journal of Discources needs no recommendation to make it interesting to every Saint who loves to drink of the streams that flow from the fountain of Eternal Truth.

    (5) What did this First Presidency official reference the JoD as?

    The Journal of Discourses deservedly ranks as one of the standard works of the Church, and every rightminded Saint will certainly welcome with joy every Number as it comes forth from the press..." (President George Q. Cannon, JoD, preface, Vol. 8)

    Tell us, StormPrepper: Was Lds President George Q. Cannon lying here? Deceived? Or what?

    (6) What about Lds leaders within our lifetime? What have Lds leaders said about the JoD?

    Well, on March 21, 1963, the Deseret News -- owned by the Mormon Church -- ran an ad from Lds church leadership about the JoD. The ad read:

    Every Latter-day Saint should take this opportunity of owning the written words of remarkable teachings from the LDS pulpit. To the clear and vigorous exposition of Latter-day Saint doctrine is added the unmistakable authority of divine inspiration."

    What more can we get from Lds leaders re: the JoD? Here church leaders were sqawking that the JoD is...
    ..."from the LDS pulpit..."
    ...exposes "Latter-day Saint doctrine" clearly & vigorously...
    ...presented with "divine inspiration...authority" -- and there's no mistake ("unmistakable" about that)

    So, e'en tho many grassroots Mormons -- and public-relations' minded Lds General Authorities -- will indicate these "Lds leaders" are mistaken re: their assessments of the JoD, note that...

    ...Three months after that ad appeared in the Deseret News, the assistant manager of the DesNews, Axel J. Andresen, wrote a letter about the JoD to a Mr. H.C. Combes dated June 12, 1963. In a few excerpts from that letter, Mr. Andresen said:

    "...the 26 volumes of the 'JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES, '...If anyone tells you that the sermons found therein are not recognized by the Church, they know not what they are talking about. I am sure that the individual is not anyone in authority -- certainly not among the General Authorities...May we also assure you that Deseret Book Company, being the only Church-owned book store, would not distribute literature on the Church, particularly anything as important as the Discourses of the Presidents and Apostles of the Church, without the approval of the Church..."

    Furthermore, the Lds Church publishes MASSIVE footnoted curricula, annual priesthood and relief society devotionals, books, pamphlets, digital articles, multiple magazine publications, and if you gathered up all of them published over these past 45 years, you would have literally tens of thousands of footnotes/excerpts of them citing Lds leaders -- as quoted in the Journal of Discourses.

    You see, the Lds church has no trouble rifling thru the JoD to cull extracts/quotes to feed their internal publishing machine. They know faithful Mormons generally don't see beyond who made the comment, anyway. But when it comes to the public, the Lds church is aware of hundreds to thousands of extremely contradictory and embarrassing teachings in the JoD. So, inwardly, they vociferously cite it; outwardly, they need plausible deniability about "official" sanction.

    (Can you say religious hypocrisy exercised by the ranks of Lds general authorities?)

    ALL: When you read this, and when you see Stormprepper's response to the JoD, it prompts me to ask SP: What have you got to be ashamed about re the JoD? Why are your previous Prophets and apostles' sermon messages to be hidden under a rock? Don't you want to trumpet your "Living Prophets?" (I thought that's your claim to being a "distinctive" church?)

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/25/2015 9:59:12 PM PDT · 710 of 898
    Colofornian to StormPrepper
    The abridgement of the Book of Mormon contained everything the Lord wanted it to contain.

    Who says? (Chapter & verse of a specific standard work, please -- even a Mormon one)

    And the prophet Joseph Smith was promised that eventually, in the due time of the Lord, the sealed portion of the plates would be made available to us.

    I have to admit re: this one that as I washed my air right after I posted #620 & #626, I thought to myself: "OK, how might StormPrepper respond to these posts?"

    And I guessed a very similar response...that you would indeed appeal to the future...some day...Some Latter day...not this "latter" day, mind you, but some LATER "latter" day...as in...eventually.

    And I had to smile widely at that point. Why? Well, I think you can see this one coming based upon my last graph:

    Because here you claim to be part of a movement that's already almost 200 years into the so-called "Latter-days"...
    ...your very identity is locked up as representing the "Latter days..."
    ...and yet, NOW you're telling us something similar to...

    "Oh. I guess the Book of Mormon isn't fully 'Latter-day' enough."

    "Eventually" (you promise)...
    "In due time" (you assure)...
    ...we'll be Latter-day Saints 2.0...
    ...who will "restore" the Latter-day Saints 1.0...
    ...with a newer "fulness of the everlasting gospel").

    Ya know, when you have to render the olde "everlasting" version as in need of a revelational upgrade, it does tend to cast doubt upon having the authentic one to begin with!

    If this was all scripted for a movie, the perfect title might be: Latter-day Saints: The Post-Latter-day Sequel!

    Gotta break the news to you, StormPrepper: It's kinda hard to chronologically move past "Latter-dayism" into "Post-Latter-dayism" without literally shaking heaven & earth!

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/25/2015 9:40:18 PM PDT · 709 of 898
    Colofornian to StormPrepper
    Cite all of 3 Nephi?? You didn't even cite whole versus. That's called selective editing.

    Sure I did. In post #341, I quoted ALL of 3 Nephi 19:26 -- or doesn't this Mormon know his Book of Mormon?

    You claim to be responding to post #532, when I quoted 10 WHOLE verses from 3 Nephi 19 (verses 17-26); I guess we'll have to assume that you "jumped the gun" on your response to spread less-than-accurate gossip about me...not very becoming for a public Mormon ethical display, IMA.

    Furthermore, you bash me for not citing ALL of 3 Nephi 19, yet on this post I'm responding to you ONLY cited verses 6 and 7...and the post #532 that I'm responding to of yours -- post #370 -- only cited 3 Nephi 6-8, 22.

    So, we see you selectively edited prior to and after v. 22. (So that doesn't fit your defs of either "cherry-picking" or avoiding passages that "hurts your cause").

    So, tell us, StormPrepper: Which is worse: Before this post, I cited 30% of 3 Nephi 19; You? 11%.

    And, BTW, THAT's what truly hilarious here! Here we have me the Evangelical citing 11 whole verses of the Book of Mormon in two posts...and you the Mormon doing what comes across as cartwheels to avoid citing 10 of those BoM verses.

    Utter irony! (But that's OK, StormPrepper...the last half of 3 Nephi 19 isn't a "boogie man" that's going to bite you...but it will cause you to question the theological integrity of your leaders who have instructed you while ignoring those passages)

    3 Nephi shows that these people had great faith in Jesus. It also shows that He had great love and mercy for them. I suspect it was because they were simple people and Jesus had just taught them how to pray. They didn't get it right the first time, or maybe for the their level of understanding it was good enough at that time. Over time I'm sure they figured it out.

    Oh, that figures. Jesus saw they were praying to the "wrong" god...and, Him, knowing it would be recorded forever in the "sacred" plates & eventual Book of Mormon, wanted to go on eternal record sanctioning them praying to the wrong god! No wonder He reinforced it by commending them for it in 3 Nephi 19:25:

    24 And it came to pass that when Jesus had thus prayed unto the Father, he came unto his disciples, and behold, they did still continue, without ceasing, to pray unto him; and they did not multiply many words, for it was given unto them what they should pray, and they were filled with desire.
    25 And it came to pass thatJesus blessed them as they did pray unto him; and his countenance did smile upon them, and the light of his countenance did shine upon them, and behold they were as white as the countenance and also the garments of Jesus; and behold the whiteness thereof did exceed all the whiteness, yea, even there could be nothing upon earth so white as the whiteness thereof.

    (Yup...nothing like a "spiritual parent" figure doling out reinforcement for negative behavior that these days -- according to your post #333 -- gets people kicked out of God's very eternal presence)

    Whatever the semantics are of calling upon Jesus when He's standing right in front of you is called...

    (Well, on the one hand that's a little bit what I thought when we were discussing Stephen and Acts 7:59...I mean here ya got a man being stoned to death...and in perhaps the last utterance of his life...his spirit is leaving his body and calling upon Jesus when Jesus is -- any second now -- standing right in front of him...But, no, you would seemingly have NONE of it...So apparently you give the Nephite disciples kudos of linking praying/calling upon Jesus in His presence in supposed around 34 A.D. 3 Nephi 19:18...and for "praying unto Him" referenced five times in that chapter...but a few years later in Stephen's case, that was somehow a "no no"...such consistency...Wow!)

    Secondly, so before (post #333) you were so convinced that this was a clearly enunciated absolute law, but now you seem to indicate something along the lines of ,'Well, some 'semantical' differences are allowed for figuring what is -- or isn't 'prayer.'"

    Listen, FIVE times these disciples' communication in 3 Nephi 19 is labeled "prayer." The Nephite "prophet" here could have EASILY substituted the word "pray" with conversed, told, asked, addressed, communicated, expressed...and any HUNDREDS of words. But, nope. He chose "pray."

    If this is some sudden Mormon-centric semantical "beef" with that word -- as if it's somehow "different" when Jesus is with the prayerer -- then, hey, take it up with Nephite or Joseph Smith who made it all up. (May I suggest you stop taking it out on me for simply pointing out all of these inconsistencies?).

    Wrestle with the text. Wrestle with the "prophet." (Not me)

    There is no contradiction. These people where talking directly to Jesus, who is also part of the God head, so Nephi described their talking directly with deity as a "prayer".

    OK, suddenly you come to the end of your post...and it almost seems to me like -- just perhaps -- you realized how utterly weak these lame arguments are that you submitted in this post...so for the FIRST time...you try a DIFFERENT tact:

    Jesus is part of the Godhead. Any prayers to him is a prayer to the Godhead. So they are praying to the Father.

    OK...of EVERYTHING you've uttered on this thread, I have to be honest with you:

    This comment ALONE makes you look like THE most inconsistent apologist I've seen in a while...because you can't even agree with yourself here!

    Above, you just got done writing about these Nephite disciples:

    "I suspect it was because they were simple people and Jesus had just taught them how to pray. They didn't get it right the first time, or maybe for the their level of understanding it was good enough at that time."

    So FIRST you say they "didn't get it right"; Now "talking directly with a deity" apparently IS (right).

    Which is it? Not right? Right? (Could you conference yourself & send us a "final" answer?)

    Beyond that, Man! When a Mormon suddenly wants to get a wee bit "trinitarian" on you, well, hey, there's always that "fallback" retreat position of citing the Godhead! (Non-LDS: When Mormonism has to explain Biblical and Book of Mormon trinitarianism, the "Godhead" becomes a convenient pseudo-trinitarianism!)

    But worse than that, sorry, it's not like we began discussing this topic in a generic topical manner. It was based upon an initial claim of yours in post #333 (below). You didn't add any "Godhead" or "Trinitarian" caveats to your statement below. It was a very black-and-white statement:

    The laws of God are not arbitrary. Prayers are to God the Father in the name of Jesus only. So says Jesus Christ, whom will condemn you and cast you out at the last day for praying to anyone but His and our Father in Heaven.

    So now I guess you gotta amend your statement to read: "Prayers are to God the Father OR to Jesus if he is acting as 'the godhead'...only."

    I suspect a few weasel words runnin' round these threads...the clue was this seeming VERY late qualification you seemed to toss into this thread:

    I do know that to defy the instructions of Jesus without repentance is to invite damnation.

    Wow! Very slippery. (Kinda like nailing green jello to a tree!)

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/25/2015 4:42:47 PM PDT · 657 of 898
    Colofornian to Colofornian; All
    Typo correction: A "1" is missing where bold-faced:

    1. The Holy Spirit is God incarnate within the flesh-and-blood temple of His people (see John 14:16-17

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/25/2015 4:40:57 PM PDT · 656 of 898
    Colofornian to Vermont Lt; Resettozero; af_vet_1981; rwa265; HossB86; NeoCaveman; CynicalBear; All
    I think it's a logic thing. Jesus is God incarnate. Mary is Jesus mother. Ergo, Mary is the Mother of God. [VermontLt]

    Pinging others because of similar mentions...especially af_vet_1981, rwa265, NeoCaveman:

    OK, my concern isn't actually so much Roman Catholic's specific label here of "Mother of God" -- as much as how it's used to appeal in a repetitious, indirect way that I believe tends to detract from approaching our Father directly thru His Son, and ultimately dilutes Jesus' glory.

    So based upon what you say here, VermontLt, let's think this thru -- as you say -- "logically" ... by analogy.

    You said:

    Jesus is God incarnate.
    Mary is Jesus mother.
    Ergo, Mary is the Mother of God.

    Let's apply this "logic" to the Holy Spirit, first taking into account two Biblical considerations:

    1. The Holy Spirit is God incarnate within the flesh-and-blood temple of His people (see John 4:16-17; 1 Cor. 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 3:16; Eze. 36:26-27; 37:14).
    2. Mary did not initiate being chosen by God, nor did she need to do anything (Luke 1:26-37) other than submit to bring our Lord into fleshly fruition (see her specific response in Luke 1:38: 38 “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.”)

    So, my extended analogy is:

    a. The Holy Spirit is God incarnate within His Church [caveat: No single ONE of us constitutes that corporate temple]
    b. Just as Mary simply relented in order to enflesh Jesus, we, too as His Body simply acquiese to "embody" the Holy Spirit
    c. Then are we to "logically" conclude: Ergo, the Church is the Mother of the Holy Spirit!??? (Uh...this is where we tend to let us mere servants and sons get in the way of the Divine One)

    16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. (John 14)
    * 7 But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. (John 16)

    Tell me: According to these two passages, Who is the One honored, venerated, lauded for being receivers of the Holy Spirit? The Church at-large? Or Jesus as Intercessor (John 14:16) and Sender (John 16:7) along with the Father as Giver (John 14:16)?

    We as the Church are not to...
    ...assume any credit or glory for any Divine Presence or Divine Activity within and through our lives...
    ...As our Lord said: "So you also, when you have done everything you were told to do, should say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty.’” (Luke 17:10)
    ...I would say Mary's reaction in Luke 1:38 embodies this same humble servanthood

    Mary is no more responsible or laudable or intercessory-worthy for embodying our Lord than the ensuing generational, worldwide Lord's Church as having embodied the Holy Spirit.

    IoW, when we have prayer needs, by all means, enlist many mere fellow pilgrim-intercessors; the danger is when such enlistment borders on usurpation by ignoring the Ultimate Intercessor:

    14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has ascended into heaven, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. 15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin. 16 Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need. (Hebrews 4)

    fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. (Hebrews 12:2)

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/25/2015 3:45:58 PM PDT · 638 of 898
    Colofornian to Vermont Lt; HossB86; All
    But, I don’t tell my catholic relatives their prayers are wasted. (My term, not yours.). In the end, we will know. Then it’s too late.

    When Jesus commented on "vain repetition" prayers (Matt. 6:7), his comment was aimed at a very general group ("heathen")...not a specific religious group like the Pharisees.

    Yet in the context in which he spoke Matt 6:7, He wasn't directing it immediately as something "in-your-face" to the heathen;
    so it wasn't so much a "descriptive" focus...
    as much as a contrast "prescriptive" directive: Don't pray as they do; instead, pray this way.

    I think we can learn from that on this subject.

    Instead of saying in an accusatory approach, "Your prayers are wasted" in a direct, descriptive way; we could say, "Ya know, Jesus prescribed some ways of praying...namely something similar to The Lord's Prayer...and He also prescribed as a way of contrast how vain repetitions in prayer reflected more heathenism than it did godly prayer. How do you think those who call upon the Name of Christ could move further away from heathenism by engaging in distinctive prayer patterns?"

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/25/2015 3:29:57 PM PDT · 633 of 898
    Colofornian to Legatus; Resettozero; All
    There are people right here in the RF who deny the divinity of Our Lord, nevermind the mormons. There are arians and nestorians still running around today, their Christological errors must be refuted.

    I simply don't tend to find JWs (modern-day Arians) or openly id'd process theologians (Barth thought them a form a Nestorianism) around on FR.

    Now some do link Oneness Pentecostals to embracing a form a Nestorianism, so I suppose you may be able to be able to build a case for others to post more threads on them.

    My experience with this group (I hate to stereotype them all...so a caveat here that I'm not pidgeon-holing them all):
    * Their focus is often more on the Holy Spirit than Christ (or His divinity);
    * They're highly worship-oriented; and would rather experience the Divinity and the resulting joy & emotions that come with/from that, than to enter into once-removed digital discussions that tend to lean on the "intellectual" side...this isn't to say they are "anti-intellectual," but they invest their energies based upon "guidance" or "impulse" or "intuition" -- or however that's to be framed.

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/25/2015 2:33:55 PM PDT · 626 of 898
    Colofornian to StormPrepper; daniel1212; Resettozero; Elsie; All
    Who knows what you're missing out on: Col 4: 16 And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.
    Paul gives instructions to read the epistle of Laodicea. But, you don't have it. Obviously it was important. God wanted everyone to read it. So it wasn't God that didn't put it in the Bible, that was man's choice. Perhaps it contained doctrine on not baptizing babies... who knows...but one thing is for certain, God wanted us to read it.

    So, supposedly prophetic words are...
    ...recorded at great difficulty on golden plates,
    ...survive the centuries of gold-diggers,
    ...with a ghost guy named Moroni given a special mantle to lead a lad named Smith to find,
    ...who is supposedly somehow handed a urium & thummim device we don't see operated by Mormon "prophets" today -- even tho it's rumored to be in the special underground vault maintained by the Mormon church...
    ...and this "revelation" is meticulously recorded by Martin Harris.

    But...

    ...since Harris took the manuscript home...
    ...and it's been since alleged that his wife hid it or lost it...
    ...we just don't have it...
    ...only an alleged "abridgement" Smith hastily edited...
    ...leaving out aplenty as "Book of Mormon" editor/slasher.

    Obviously it must have been important! The Mormon god wanted everyone to read it. So it wasn't the Mormon god that didn't put it in the Book of Mormon; that was man's choice. That included Joseph Smith's choice to FAIL to double back & reconsult his sources...
    ...whether it was...
    ...a gold plate...
    ...a urim & thummim...
    ...and a hat...

    (I mean what kind of a god is this who falters at the hands of Mrs. Martin Harris???)

    Likewise, perhaps...
    ...the large plates of Nephi
    ...& the unabridged version of Ether
    ...& all those buried plates buried in the ground that the "prophet" Mormon didn't touch...
    ...contained doctrine on not teaching age 8 as the golden age of accountability ... who knows...but one thing is for certain, the Mormon god wanted us to read it.

    References above: See:

    * The large plates of Nephi [reduced to an abridgement: 3 Nephi 5:8-17; Words of Mormon 1]
    * The supposed "numerous plates" buried in a hill that the "prophet" Mormon didn't touch (Mormon 1:3-4)
    * The unabridged version of Ether (Ether 1:1-5; Moroni 1:1)

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/25/2015 2:07:35 PM PDT · 620 of 898
    Colofornian to StormPrepper; Resettozero; All
    The Prophecy of Ahijah (2 Chr. 9:29) didn't make it in...but Song of Solomon did... what's wrong with this picture? There's a long list of writings from true prophets they threw out in favor of Song of Solomon. I wish we had the Prophecy of Ahijah.

    So what? There's a long list of other regarded "prophets" by Book of Mormon characters who weren't (fully) inclusive about their fave-cited "prophets" either!

    * The large plates of Nephi [reduced to an abridgement: 3 Nephi 5:8-17; Words of Mormon 1]
    * The supposed "numerous plates" buried in a hill that the "prophet" Mormon didn't touch (Mormon 1:3-4)
    * The unabridged version of Ether (Ether 1:1-5; Moroni 1:1)
    * Zenock? (1 Nephi 19:10; Alma 34:7; Helaman 8:20; 3 Nephi 10:15-16)
    * Neum? (1 Nephi 19:10)
    * Zenos? (1 Nephi 19:10-17; Jacob 5:1; 6:1; Alma 33:3ff; Alma 34:7; Helaman 8:19; 15:11; 3 Nephi 10:15-16)
    * Isaiah (70% of his stuff that was excluded from 2 Nephi)
    * Malachi (50% of his stuff that was excluded from 3 Nephi)

    I think I know the answer, but I'll ask it anyway: Why the selective targeting of those you regard as Scriptural kingpins? I mean, how convenient it is for you to let all of these Book of Mormon "prophets" off the hook of the same charges you level at others!!!

    Please tell us: Where's your scrutiny to be leveled across the board (aimed equally to the Book of Mormon)?

    **************

    I need to give a sample explanation here so that others understand what's involved:

    If the Mormon "prophets" knew that some of these sacred books of old would be at risk of becoming "lost"..."discarded"...etc. & hence need to be set apart for a future "restoration" via gold-plate face-in-the-hat methodology
    (not sure what good a gold plate is when a hat works just as well :) ) ...
    ...well, surely that would include ALL of the book of Isaiah...
    ...and ALL of the book of Malachi!

    (NOTE to NON-Mormons: You may not realize that one Book of Mormon book, before Joseph Smith really got rolling, cited 19 chapters directly ... King James word-for-King James word ... and the next Nephi chapter did the same thing with two chapters from the book of Malachi)

    The prophet Isaiah lived 740-681 B.C. -- his death date perhaps being less than 100 years before the alleged dates of when 2 Nephi was supposedly written (588-570 B.C.)

    It could very well be that Isaiah was highly regarded but that his work was yet to be fully recognized as an addition to sacred Scripture around the time of 588-570 B.C.

    So perhaps Isaiah's work was at risk of being lost. Why did the 2 Nephi choose to throw out 47 chapters of Isaiah -- and only include 19 chapters word for word?

    Why did the 3 Nephi only include two word-for-word chapters of the book of Malachi? Why did they toss out the rest?

    It's very easy for Stormprepper to toss out these accusations, but then fail to aim similar questions at his own acknowledged sacred texts.

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/25/2015 1:13:31 PM PDT · 601 of 898
    Colofornian to Elsie; StormPrepper; All
    It could have appeared in the JST; couldn't it??

    Exactly!

    Why Smith supposedly was putting back into place stuff removed from the Bible in his JST version...even adding & changing over 100 words in the book of Revelation...a big "no-no"

    18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the 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 any 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.
    (Rev. 22:18-19)

    Surely, if Smith was willing to put heaven on the line in his messing with the Book of Revelation, he could have "restored" all those books the Mormons feebly allege the Christians took out of the Scriptures!

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/25/2015 1:02:40 PM PDT · 592 of 898
    Colofornian to StormPrepper
    This is how God does it when He wants to give us a volume of scripture. He instructs a prophet, the prophet completes the task and passes it along to us. Deciding on scripture without a prophet is unthinkable...I mean, doing something like that and you could spend the next 2000 years trying to decide if you should baptize babies or not...oh wait...

    Ohhh. You mean God wouldn't have us...
    ...deciding for generations...
    ...how many wives we might marry...
    ...that it would be "all clear" from the get-go...
    ...I see...
    ...Or that...
    ...God wouldn't have us...
    ...Refusing the priesthood to a certain skin color...
    ...For almost 150 years...
    ...but then doing an abupt u-turn...
    ...that color -- being such a surfacy, irrelevant (not to mention openly racist) basis -- would be "all clear" from the get-go...
    ...Or that...
    ...God wouldn't have his "prophets"
    ...preach from the pulpit for over 20 years...
    ...that Adam is God...
    ...that, instead...
    ...he'd make it quite clear all along Adam's mere mortal status...
    ...Or that if God was once a man...
    ...God would have openly stated so...
    ...At least, I guess, if not in Bible 1.0...
    ...then, if you believe in Bible 2.0...
    ...and Bible 3.0...
    ...and Bible 4.0...
    ...it would have somehow at least gotten...
    ...a clear depiction...
    ...versus trying to decide for the next umpteen years...
    ...If God the Father has a birth certificate lying around the universe somewhere...
    ...And leading to debate...
    ...What's happened to all those other gods...
    ...who came before him...

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/25/2015 12:52:45 PM PDT · 582 of 898
    Colofornian to StormPrepper; All
    This is perfectly inline with what the prophet Amos declared: Amos 3: 7 Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets. This is how God does it when He wants to give us a volume of scripture. He instructs a prophet, the prophet completes the task and passes it along to us. Deciding on scripture without a prophet is unthinkable...

    (Oh, you mean like Brigham Young saying that he had never preached a sermon [even given review/editing] that wasn't as "good as Scripture" ... and yet Mormons are frankly are downright embarrassed over MUCH of what Young & MANY other past "prophets" and "apostles" have preached and publicly disseminated?)

    (You mean like Mormons who want to immediately honor the words of their "seers" as tantamount to direct revelation when they hear it at General Conferences...until...until...until... a group of their leaders get together...sometimes 40...62...74 years later...and declare as a man-made creed-like council that a certain statement was "scripture" after all...but 99.9% of what they said is somehow less than Scripture-level authoritative status?)

    (Ya mean like Mormon "Apostle" but never Mormon "Apostle" Lyman Sherman? ... Early Mormon Sherman died without ever knowing he was called to be an apostle ... Apparently, Unknown to the Amos 3:7 'prophet' Joseph Smith," the Mormon god "calls" Sherman through Lds leaders, yet none of them had a "clue" that Sherman is dying? I thought the way the Mormons interpret Amos 3:7 would "kick in," that the Mormon god doesn't do anything without cluing in his "prophet"? Well, there goes that theory out the mormon window!)

    (Ya mean like how Joseph Smith reports in the so-called Mormon D&C "scripture" that David W. Patten would go serve as a missionary. But then Patten dies in Missouri in Oct. 1838 without Patten ever having served such missionary status?)

    I can see it now, SP.

    Monson @ the next General Conference conveys to all that the Mormon god has called the "next" apostle. It's an "Amos 3:7 sure thing": But he dies, without EVER serving as an "apostle."

    Oh well, concludes Monson. It's baseball season. Surely prophets get at least 2 strikes before striking out: So, he cites Amos 3:7, and says of all the missionaries being sent out, the one the Lord has assured him to be one is David W. Falsity of Falls City. Well, alas. David, dies, too.

    But were this to happen, we at least know that this mishie's name would NEVER pop up in a future edition of the D&C. (That can't be said of the false prophesy linked forever to Patten's name!)

    ALL: In understanding Mormonism, what's "interesting" is that Mormonism always touts having a "living prophet" (where they often cite Amos 3:7) so that they can present-tense revelational guidance given to their "seers." This is supposed to be one of the things they can look at with pride at what "sets them apart" from Christianity...(Of course, they fail to recognize that Jesus Christ HIMSELF...per Hebrews 1:1-2...remains our 'Living Prophet'...a title He no longer has to delegate to somebody else)

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/25/2015 12:28:02 PM PDT · 560 of 898
    Colofornian to StormPrepper; All
    Colofornian likes to state the above until you point out that the "All Scripture" means all scripture. Even the scripture the so called "church fathers" decided they didn't like so they threw it out. For example: 1. book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14) 2. book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18) 3. book of the acts of Solomon (1 Kgs. 11:41) 4. book of Samuel the seer (1 Chr. 29:29) 5. book of Gad the seer (1 Chr. 29:29) 6. book of Nathan the prophet (1 Chr. 29:29; 2 Chr. 9:29) 7. prophecy of Ahijah (2 Chr. 9:29) 8. visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chr. 9:29; 12:15; 13:22) 9. book of Shemaiah (2 Chr. 12:15) 10. book of Jehu (2 Chr. 20:34) 11. sayings of the seers (2 Chr. 33:19) 12. an epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, earlier than our present 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9) 13. possibly an earlier epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:3) 14. an epistle to the Church at Laodicea (Col. 4:16) 15. and some prophecies of Enoch, known to Jude (Jude 1:14) 16. the manner of the kingdom, written by Samuel (1 Sam. 10:25) 17. the rest of the acts of Uzziah written by Isaiah (2 Chr. 26:22)

    If this was a trial, you would be ruled out of order for failing to establish a foundation:

    1. You failed to prove if ANY of these were EVER regarded as divinely authoritative.
    2. You failed to prove if ANY church father even had any of these books in their possession to "toss out."

    On top of that, Mormons overlook what Joseph Smith elected to "toss out" of the Book of Mormon...Smith gets a free pass on that, yet you seemingly think the worse of the early church fathers ... not even knowing what they had in their possession.

    If those "gold plates" were so, and if Smith's dictation of them were accurate, then we know what he gave to Martin Harris included a portion of 1 Nephi that was not only "lost" but DELIBERATELY never "redictated" by Smith. (What? Did that hat he duck his head into become misplaced?)

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/25/2015 11:46:18 AM PDT · 532 of 898
    Colofornian to StormPrepper; All
    Jesus Himself praying to the Father...

    (Yeah, I know it's Lenten season. I know some Catholics & even some mainline Protestants eat fish, but what does this have to do with the price of fish?)

    Of course, Jesus talked with His Father! (Are you somehow thinking someone may actually believe He didn't?)

    I see your cherry picking and selective editing skills are as good as ever.

    SP, at least your comments are good for laughs. :) [Yet another reason I enjoy talking with you]

    Did I cite all of 3 Nephi 19 in the BoM? (No).

    Did you? (No; you quoted vv. six to eight; 22; & then ignored...or, as you like to put it, "cherry picked" and "selectively edited out" the rest)

    (It's always funny to see somebody accuse another of something specific that they turn around & do in the same keyboard breath! :) )

    Allow me to remind you of the original context of this discussion: Your comment in #333: The laws of God are not arbitrary. Prayers are to God the Father in the name of Jesus ONLY. So says Jesus Christ, whom will condemn you and cast you out at the last day for praying to anyone but His and our Father in Heaven."

    Your point here is that WHO we pray to is a hardfast (nonarbitrary) "law" ... and the "only" target reinforces that ... and then condemnation for anybody departing from that absolute.

    Therefore, your citation of selective 3 Nephi 19 portions about praying to the Father are irrelevant.

    If I say, Preach to A but not B and we don't disagree about Preaching to A ... but only B ... it's irrelevant to discuss authoritative passages that undergird Preaching to A.

    If something is a Law, that law doesn't change.
    If something is an absolute, it's not an absolute if exceptions are allowed.

    So the issue has never been, "Let's find what the most prominent pattern might be in the Scriptures and agree upon that!" No, the issue is, you claimed something was a spiritual law, an absolute; you claimed "only" status; and you claimed that person would be "condemned" based upon deviating upon that.

    Therefore, all anybody has to do is find exceptions...precedents...which disrupt a legalistic notion of a 100 percent "law" reinforced and dismantles your claim to "only" status.

    And here it is...

    3 Nephi 19:17 to 26

    17 And it came to pass that when they had all knelt down upon the earth, he commanded his disciples that they should pray.
    18 And behold, they began to pray; and they did pray unto Jesus, calling him their Lord and their God.
    19 And it came to pass that Jesus departed out of the midst of them, and went a little way off from them and bowed himself to the earth, and he said:
    20 Father, I thank thee that thou hast given the Holy Ghost unto these whom I have chosen; and it is because of their belief in me that I have chosen them out of the world.
    21 Father, I pray thee that thou wilt give the Holy Ghost unto all them that shall believe in their words.
    22 Father, thou hast given them the Holy Ghost because they believe in me; and thou seest that they believe in me because thou hearest them, and they pray unto me; and they pray unto me because I am with them.
    23 And now Father, I pray unto thee for them, and also for all those who shall believe on their words, that they may believe in me, that I may be in them as thou, Father, art in me, that we may be one.
    24 And it came to pass that when Jesus had thus prayed unto the Father, he came unto his disciples, and behold, they did still continue, without ceasing, to pray unto him; and they did not multiply many words, for it was given unto them what they should pray, and they were filled with desire.
    25 And it came to pass that Jesus blessed them as they did pray unto him; and his countenance did smile upon them, and the light of his countenance did shine upon them, and behold they were as white as the countenance and also the garments of Jesus; and behold the whiteness thereof did exceed all the whiteness, yea, even there could be nothing upon earth so white as the whiteness thereof.
    26 And Jesus said unto them: Pray on; nevertheless they did not cease to pray.

    So, what can we conclude from 3 Nephi 19 verses above & your comments?

    #1 While you object to the word "call" in Acts 7:59 being linked to direct prayer to Jesus, here in 3 Nephi 19:18 we have the same English word..."call" being linked with direct prayer to Jesus: and they did pray unto Jesus, calling him their Lord and their God. So "calling" directly to Jesus in 3 nephi 19:18 IS prayer but calling directly to Jesus in Acts 7:59 isn't?

    Tell us: Which are we to believe? The Book of Mormon? Or you?

    #2 How many times did the "Nephite disciples" either pray DIRECTLY to Jesus or are referenced as praying DIRECTLY to Jesus? (Answer: Five times: V. 18, v. 22, v. 22 again, v. 24, v. 25) And the v. 24 reference was no microwave prayer: his disciples, and behold, they did still continue, without ceasing, to pray unto him

    #3 The above shows your absolute claims are broken and cannot be maintained with ANY degree of intellectual honesty.

    #4 Finally, even the Mormon jesus directly contradicts your claim in post #333: Your claim? Prayers are to God the Father in the name of Jesus only. So says Jesus Christ, whom will condemn you and cast you out at the last day for praying to anyone but His and our Father in Heaven.

    Yet did the Mormon jesus even rebuke or warn these Nephites when they prayed DIRECTLY to him..."No, pray ONLY to the Father!" (NOPE!)

    In fact, JUST THE OPPOSITE!
    25 And it came to pass that Jesus blessed them as they did pray unto him; and his countenance did smile upon them, and the light of his countenance did shine upon them, and behold they were as white as the countenance and also the garments of Jesus; and behold the whiteness thereof did exceed all the whiteness, yea, even there could be nothing upon earth so white as the whiteness thereof.
    26 And Jesus said unto them: Pray on; nevertheless they did not cease to pray.

    ALL: This is what happens when grassroots Mormons are spoonfed "absolute laws" from their "living prophets" ... yet when faced with direct contradictions from their very own "sacred" standard works, we see evasive actions.

    Uhhhh...I guess we gotta narrowly define "prayer" by ejecting the "word" "calling"...(Oh...ya mean 3 Nephi 19:18 actually connects the two words? Uh, oh!)

    Uhhhh...Perhaps we should next parse a distinction 'tween a "formal" prayer and an "informal" prayer (Oh...ya mean our leaders never divide prayers into these two categories when they instruct others on it? Oh...ya mean, our leaders NEVER give the "a ok" to pray directly to Jesus even in "informal" prayers? Uh, oh!)

    What now? (We can't just let the text speak to us at such facevalue!)

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/25/2015 10:51:07 AM PDT · 510 of 898
    Colofornian to StormPrepper
    The real scripture: 59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. This is not a transcription, the writer wrote this down years after the event had occurred. I only know that Stephen was being stoned to death, I doubt if he could utter a formal prayer while people where beating him in the head with large rocks...He was calling to Jesus whom he could see. I explain more below.

    Are you claiming that if somebody whispers upon the name of Jesus, that might be prayer; but if someone openly & publicly & directly calls unto Jesus, well that's somehow clearly not prayer?

    (Your parsing is at least humorous...I love getting such prompted smiles)

    Perhaps the most literal translation of the word (in context) is: "a calling upon unto"
    Westcott & Hort GNT - Literal Translation: Acts 7

    The Greek word in question is: epikaleo per lexiconcordance.com

    The various contextual usages of this word is simply "call" as it's etymologically tied to the Greek word "kaleo" and it includes to "invoke" (as how the Name of Jesus was invoked/called upon in Acts 9:14) or to "appeal" ... as in Acts 25:21 and 28:19 where it is used to appeal to the highest governmental authority (Caesar).

    Prayer or "pray" is simply an overall umbrella word used in the Scriptures for ALL types of communication with God. In the Scriptures, we find various types of prayer...for example (not meant to be exhaustive):
    * Confession
    * Thanksgiving
    * Supplication
    * Intercessory (on behalf of others)
    * Blessing
    * Imprecatory (numerous psalms)

    Believe me, if I am a judge in a courtroom, I would eventually receive ALL of these (& other) types of communication from the parties involved...
    ...confessions of crimes,
    ...thanksgiving from victims that justice was served,
    ...intercessory pleas to be lenient on those to be sentenced,
    ...and just the opposite...others who rein down imprecatory condemnations upon the guilty, asking that I toss the book at 'em...

    And guess what? Appeals would be part of that process, too.

    And yes, if I was Lord Jesus, somebody calling me, appealing to me, etc. IS talking to me and IS expecting a response based upon authoritative Lordship!

    But, hey. A "C+" for "effort" on a legalistic attempt to narrowly define communication with the Lord Jesus!

  • Well looky here! New Yorker shamelessly scrubs racist ‘uppity’ term from Ted Cruz article

    03/25/2015 9:32:46 AM PDT · 13 of 30
    Colofornian to E. Pluribus Unum; All
    I imagine there's more than a few freepers who are younger & may not realize how in previous generations (baby boomers or older) someone might reference a more prominent minority as an "uppity xxxxxxxxxx" (fill in the blank). IoW, in their little mind, such a minority failed to be beholden to their supposed "assigned" socioethnic "placement" within society.

    If any conservative had applied this adjective to a minority, it'd be front page news for weeks & months.

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/24/2015 8:27:06 PM PDT · 358 of 898
    Colofornian to NoCmpromiz; StormPrepper; All
    But some people think they have some golden plates miraculously translated by someone with their head in their hat. Or was that ‘talking out of his hat’? I forget which...

    Hmm...that does ring a bell.

    (I think that's the same religion whereby those 'miraculously' unveiled golden plates were guided by a ghost named Moroni...for ONLY in that religion do you have the tenet that a resurrected man can advance to angel status...)

    That's the irony. That religion pits the Bible vs. its other standard works...reducing it to a council of men who decided which books would be included...all while its main standard work for which they are nicknamed has even by their own admission LOTS of books left out...others "abridged"...and which books to be included on the "golden plates" was apparently decided by just one man about sixteen hundred years ago...IF we are to believe what they say)

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/24/2015 7:30:31 PM PDT · 346 of 898
    Colofornian to StormPrepper; All
    Not all of the books chosen by the council of men in 382AD is about the Messiah.

    Chosen? 382AD?

    Not chosen...merely "received" it..."confirmed" that which the Holy Spirit already set apart, to the obvious discernment of early church fathers:

    The early church fathers (97-180) quoted from 28 of the 29 New Testament books.
    * In fact, EVERY New Testament book was referenced pre-150 except Philemon and 3 John.
    * The 170 A.D. Muratorian Canon had only excluded Hebrews, James, and 3 John.
    * Would it be possible to cull together the New Testament from what they wrote within 150-200 years from the time of Christ? (Answer? Yes...Well, yes, minus 11 verses)

    The Holy Spirit...
    ...inspired the Bible...
    ...canonized the Bible;
    ...what greater authority do you need?

    12 “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. ...15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.” (John 16)

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/24/2015 7:03:46 PM PDT · 343 of 898
    Colofornian to StormPrepper; Resettozero; All
    The Bible is a tool of learning. It doesn't contain everything we need, but it's useful.

    Wow! Don't overwhelm us with your description of God's Word!

    Hmmm...I wonder how many good textbooks this description fits?

    ALL: Unlike Stormprepper's open dissing of the Bible: 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
    (2 Tim. 3)

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/24/2015 6:52:29 PM PDT · 341 of 898
    Colofornian to StormPrepper; Seraphicaviary; All
    The laws of God are not arbitrary. Prayers are to God the Father in the name of Jesus only. So says Jesus Christ, whom will condemn you and cast you out at the last day for praying to anyone but His and our Father in Heaven.

    Are you telling us that Stephen -- because He prayed DIRECTLY to Jesus and not God the Father -- is to "condemned" & "casted out" at the "last day"???

    59 While they were stoning him, Stephen PRAYED, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” (Acts 7:59)

    Or, since you buy into the Book of Mormon, were those Mormonite Nephite disciples who prayed directly unto the Mormon jesus likewise condemned?

    They prayed to him in 3 Nephi 19:7...again in v. 18...again in v.24... Then they thought that wasn't enough direct prayer to Jesus. So "he came unto his disciples, and behold, they did still continue, without ceasing, to pray unto him." (3 Nephi 19:24)

    And what? The Mormon Jesus condemned them for praying directly unto him? (No!) "And it came to pass that Jesus blessed them as they did pray unto him" (3 Nephi 19:25)

    "And Jesus said unto them: Pray on; nevertheless they not cease to pray." (3 Nephi 19:26)

    So what? You arbitrarily dismiss Acts 7:59 and 3 Nephi 19 just so you can claim what your Mormon leaders claim to be the "absolute" laws of God?

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/24/2015 6:21:04 PM PDT · 330 of 898
    Colofornian to StormPrepper
    Do you worship the Bible? Please explain this...

    Is Jesus not referenced by John as being the (Living) Word?

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/24/2015 6:17:41 PM PDT · 328 of 898
    Colofornian to detch; All
    For you, I suppose, there are no limits, mr. rabble rouser.

    Mind-reading is NOT encouraged on these threads. I agree to the forum rules/limitations placed by FR on the Religion Forum.

    ...Mr. Rabble-rouser

    #1 (I guess that puts some of us in good company then, doesn't it?)

    * And they brought them to the magistrates, and said, “These men, being Jews, exceedingly trouble our city ; (Acts 16:20)

    * they dragged Jason and some other believers before the city officials, shouting:“These men who have caused trouble all over the world have now come here... 8 When they heard this, the crowd and the city officials were thrown into turmoil (Acts 17:7-8)

    #2 What? And no "rabble-rousing" from your quarters on this thread?

    For example, generically accusing others of being "self-righteous" and "materialistic holier-than-thou ones" isn't itself a form of rabble-rousing? (ALL: see Detch post #9)

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/24/2015 5:46:23 PM PDT · 318 of 898
    Colofornian to Seraphicaviary
    I believe the word you are looking for to describe such persons is “saints”.

    In the broad (Biblical) sense, yes. As Roman Catholicism narrowly defines them (where the church has to confer officially sanctioned sainthood), no.

    In the New Testament, a "saint" is a person identified by their holiness (note the close sound of even "holiness" and halios -- the underlying Greek word for "saint").

    It is used in a corporate plural sense almost 100% of the time (IoW, the focus is NOT on the individual person). A "saint" is a "holy one among holy ones"; to make it about individuals rips it out of its New Testament context.

    And the way it was used by Paul shows it was simply another interchangeable reference to "Christian." Examples of that:

    * 7 To ALL who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. (Romans 1:7) [Roman Catholicism might have you believe that not ALL in Christ who were in Rome when Paul wrote this were not called to be saints]

    * 15 Greet Philologus and Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas, and ALL the saints who are with them. (Romans 16:15) [Roman Catholicism might have you believe that an abundance of "special" saints were in this one household]

    * 21 Greet EVERY saint in Christ Jesus. (Phil 4:21) [This verse kind of shatters the Roman notion of "sainthood"]

    13 distributing to the needs of the saints (Romans 12:13)

    So...beyond THESE clarifications, my previous comment stands: It applies to many in Christ beyond Mary -- and who have yet to be conferred special "sainthood" status by the Romans.

    I would say Mary, knowing him more intimately than any other, would rank near the top.

    I HAD to chuckle very heartily at this statement.

    Why? You're telling me that Roman Catholics are suddenly prioritizing who has most intimate knowledge of the Divine One as "THE priority" to approach in interceding for them?

    Well, if THIS were truly so...
    ... do I even need to point out...
    ... that if we're praying to Heavenly Father as Jesus indicates to do (Mt. 6:6, 9; 26:53; John 14:12, 16; 16:26; most of John 17)...
    ...that's it's JESUS who "knows" the Father "more intimately than any other"
    -- and that if you were at all consistent in applying that notion equally across the board --
    -- you'd start, continue and end your prayers to the Father thru Jesus His Son, your personal Intercessor?

    Even here, Jesus had a sense of spiritually weaning His disciples...didn't Jesus say?

    In that day you will ask in My name, and I do not say to you that I shall pray the Father for you... (John 16:26)

    IoW...Jesus is teaching us ALL to be TRUE adopted children who approach their "Abba" Father DIRECTLY --
    ...And when I say "directly" as a child WILL approach their FATHER directly...
    And in John 16:26 Jesus is encouraging His disciples not to to slough off in only letting the Son pray on our behalf, but to approach Him directly...
    ...albeit NOT in any authority of our own, or of Mary, or of some "saint," but "in My name."

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/24/2015 5:02:07 PM PDT · 309 of 898
    Colofornian to Resettozero

    (Good that you agree, zero hero!) : )

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/24/2015 4:34:29 PM PDT · 301 of 898
    Colofornian to elhombrelibre
    (And I suppose it's "loving" for you to sarcastically cite a Bible verse -- with the sarcasm indicating that you are subtly accusing others of being UNloving...How is it that your personal bashing of so many on this thread escapes your alleged "anti-bashing" perspectives?...If you were at all consistent with your personal standards, you wouldn't be speaking negatively about others at all on this thread -- 'cause doing so constitutes "bashing"...Apparently you have an "It's 'ok' for me but not for thee demeanor")
  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/24/2015 4:29:35 PM PDT · 297 of 898
    Colofornian to elhombrelibre; All

    So doing a shotgun bashing by you of all/most/many posters of this thread, lambasting them as “bashers”, is sanctioned bashing? (But all other forms of critique are beyond your personal boundaries and are to be frowned upon?)

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/24/2015 4:25:19 PM PDT · 292 of 898
    Colofornian to detch; Religion Moderator; All
    These kind of attack postings should be removed or blocked... One religion going after another belongs somewhere else, not in Freerepublic.com

    Open calls for censorship is itself an attack upon religious freedom.

    Sorry, Detch, it is, after a FREE Republic!

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/24/2015 4:22:20 PM PDT · 289 of 898
    Colofornian to Seraphicaviary
    This alone is enough to know that the one who prays this is not treating Mary as a Divine Person. She does nothing on her own, but only in accord with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

    (Ya know, logically this can be said about every person in Christ alive in heaven...Mary therefore has no special "inroad" to the Divine One...With this statement, you therefore imply that's it's laudable for people to pinpoint thousands -- even hundreds of thousands -- of people -- and begin praying to them as well as they also do "nothing on" their "own, but only in accord with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit")

  • Utah governor signs 55 bills into law, brings back firing squad as method of execution

    03/24/2015 3:05:27 PM PDT · 12 of 29
    Colofornian to SeekAndFind; Elsie; Zakeet; All
    Backdrop:

    The firing squad was used in Utah in 2010:

    Execution By Firing Squad Will Be First In 14 Years [Mormon - Open]

    The firing squad in Utah as long been linked to the Mormon doctrine of blood atonement:
    Gardner's date with firing squad revives talk of Mormon blood atonement

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/24/2015 2:46:30 PM PDT · 216 of 898
    Colofornian to detch; MNDude; All
    (To the thread poster): ...a bunch of materialistic minded holier-than-thou Christians sit around asking for “things” instead of asking for God's help and mercy with their self-righteousness. Righteous you are not, sir. Self-righteousness, THAT you ARE in honey bucketfuls.

    (You said with apparent dripping self-"righteosity") :)

    I've always found it in interesting on the FR RF where somebody will place themselves on some high ground looking down upon others, finger-pointing, accusing, telling them they know what the standard is for being proven guilty of "self-righteousness," yet cannot help but fail -- according to their own expressed standard -- wind up flaunting their "righteousness" above others.

    (Care to explain how it is you've escaped the pitiful escalation of those who become entrapped in accusing others of "self-righteousness?"

    You see, I view such accusations as "spiritual STDs"...it's a "gift" that never knows any boundaries...it just keeps on "giving".

    Somebody vaunts righteous indignation upon another, accusing them of being "self-righteous." Then a third party weighs in, seeing that vaunted righteous finger-pointing aimed at another's alleged self-righteousness. Then a fourth party could join the discussion, not appreciating that the third-party was using his personal righteousness to "scold" the original scolder.

  • Christian Answers to Two Roman Catholic Questions on “Catholic Answers”

    03/24/2015 2:30:48 PM PDT · 45 of 99
    Colofornian to MNDude; All
    Nonetheless, he made sure they were placed at the end, where they still remain in the German Bible.

    First of all, where else do you suggest the book of Revelation go? (at the beginning?)

    And, tell me, which Bible fails to place Jude second from the last?

    And so what if Jude & Revelation are "last" in ANY Bible? (Are you implying then that the entire Christian church deems them as "bottom rung"?) Really? A ridiculous argument.

    Do you see how half of your argument here is utterly decimated?

    So, this argument of yours here says absolutely ZERO about Jude & Revelation.

    As for Hebrews, I already quoted Luther in my last post what his thoughts were on Hebrews. Anyway, so he transposed Peter's & John's epistles with Hebrews & James. So what?

    Luther loved parts of the Bible, and had an incredible contempt for other parts of the Bible. “James is an Epistle of straw”.

    This was Luther's conclusion in 1522, but was dropped thereafter in many republishing of his work thru the last 23 years of his life.

    Contempt? If you said a book had "many good sayings in them," would you describe that as contemptuous? (Well that was a counterbalanced Luther summary of the book of James)

    You see, this is the problem where you attempt to isolate a single quote Luther made before age 40 and attempt to construct an entire animus and worldview upon it!

  • Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

    03/24/2015 2:10:08 PM PDT · 198 of 898
    Colofornian to St_Thomas_Aquinas; RnMomof7; All
    Where is Sola Scriptura in the Bible?

    Alright, I know you're going in this direction because the very focus of the article is that the rosary isn't "Biblical"...but the key thing in exchanging claims here is not to pull the "technical" switch by steering clear of all words NOT officially listed in the Bible...

    ...Like Trinity, Bible, etc.

    Elsewise, we'd have to toss most of the words we have for Eucharist/Communion & the RC church would have to unload over HALF of these terms:

    Glossary of Roman Catholic Terms

    The Q REALLY is: Is this concept embraced within the Bible.

    For Sola Scriptura

    John 20:31:

    31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
    16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Tim. 3:16-17)
    Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. (2 Pet. 1:20)