Posted on 05/04/2007 5:46:36 AM PDT by Saundra Duffy
Yes, I’m sure you do feel the same way, and that’s why you send out missionaries.
I agree about the fruits. I think we can also test the spirits by whether or not what they say is consistent with the Bible. And I think spiritual discernment and our intellect can also be used.
I’m sure it will more than offset due to all the Mitt Controversy. Especially when the Trojan horse opens in the WH.
:-) Sorry, couldn't’t resist. ;-)
BTW, you mentioned the 150 k number of hits on exmormon.com... DId you know that lds.org gets 10 million hits a day? That is old data though, so I wonder what all this hullabaloo on threads like this one have caused it to jump?
True, they didn't just stop going to the temple, but they were pretty busy setting up local churches (in people's homes or wherever) so they probably didn't get there all that often. And when they did, they spoke of the risen Savior whenever possible.
nope
FC, If you tried such a thing in offfice, you would be impeached and run out on a rail. The electorate and the constitutional courts would have no part of it, and your stint in the WH would be short!
I think it is amusing that fastcoyote won’t vote for Romney because he is LDS and SaundraDuffy thinks he can do no wrong because he is LDS. What ever happened to judging candidates on the issues? The title of this thread is correct. Religous bigotry is alive and well in America. How sad!!
True, they didn't just stop going to the temple, but they were pretty busy setting up local churches (in people's homes or wherever) so they probably didn't get there all that often. And when they did, they spoke of the risen Savior whenever possible.
And this, ME, is sounds precisely like our temple worship today, almost word for word. Thanks.
What points of Christian doctrine are extra-Biblical?
Maybe I need to brush up on my early church history, but it’s my understanding that the church was dealing with schisms, and in order to preserve and protect the teachings of the apostles and the Bible, they spelled them out clearly in writing so as to counter any errant teachings.
Here is the Nicene Creed:
“I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.
Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.
And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.
And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.”
What is there in the Nicene Creed that is extra-Biblical?
I am also wondering, why do Mormons feel the Bible in and of itself is insufficient in revealing the truth about God and salvation? Thanks for considering my questions.
Oh, I forgot to add the most important one... God changing his mind. We can go there if you wish...
How about if we go here instead, to the liar Joseph Smith who said he could translate Egyptian hieroglyphics:
************************************
From all that we can learn, Thomas Stuart Ferguson was a dedicated believer in the authenticity of the Book of Mormon at the time he founded the New World Archaeology Foundation. He really believed that archaeology would prove the Book of Mormon. In a letter dated April 23, 1952, Mr. Ferguson said the “the archeological data now available is entirely inadequate” for testing the Book of Mormon. He predicted, however, that the “next ten years of excavations in Mexico and Guatemala should enable us to make the archeological tests.” For a number of years he was very excited about the progress of the work and seemed certain that the Book of Mormon would be vindicated soon. In his book, One Fold And One Shepherd, p. 263, he stated: “The important thing now is to continue the digging at an accelerated pace in order to find more inscriptions dating to Book-of-Mormon times. Eventually we should find decipherable inscriptions... referring to some unique person, place or event in the Book of Mormon.” In 1962 Mr. Ferguson said that “Powerful evidences sustaining the book are accumulating.”
EVIDENCE NOT FOUND
Although many important archaeological discoveries were made, the evidence he had desired to find to support the Book of Mormon did not turn up. In response to a letter Hal Hougey wrote in 1972 which reminded him that he had predicted in 1961 that Book of Mormon cities would be found within 10 years, Mr. Ferguson sadly wrote: “Ten years have passed... I sincerely anticipated that Book-of-Mormon cities would be positively identified within 10 years - and time has proved me wrong in my anticipation.” (Letter dated June 5, 1972)
At first it had all seemed so simple; since the Book of Mormon told when the Nephites were in Mesoamerica, all one had to do was find archaeological sites that dated to the period and the Book of Mormon would be established by the evidence. The fact that archaeological research failed to provide the confirmation which Mr. Ferguson expected to find must have weighed very heavily on his mind. The most serious blow to Ferguson’s faith, however, came just after Joseph Smith’s Egyptian Papyri were rediscovered in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. This collection, which had been lost for many years, contained the very papyrus from which Joseph Smith “translated” the Book of Abraham. The Book of Abraham is published in the Pearl of Great Price, one of the four standard works of the Mormon Church.
After Mr. Ferguson obtained photographs of the papyrus fragments, he consulted Professors Lutz and Lesko of the University of California.
[Letter to Prof. Lesko from Thomas Stuart Ferguson]
Both these Egyptologists agreed that the papyrus Joseph Smith claimed was the Book of Abraham was in reality the Book of Breathings, an Egyptian funerary text made for a man by the name of Hor (Horus). Ferguson learned that this papyrus had nothing at all to do with the patriarch Abraham or his religion. It was in its entirety a pagan text filled with the names of Egyptian gods and goddesses.
Thomas Stuart Ferguson was shaken to the core by this discovery. When the church’s noted apologist, Dr. Hugh Nibley, began defending the Book of Abraham, Ferguson wrote a letter to another member of the church in which he stated:
“Nibley’s articles on the Book of Abraham aren’t worth a tinker - first, because he is not impartial, being the commissioned and paid defender of the faith. Second, because he could not, he dared not, he did not, face the true issue: ‘Could Joseph Smith translate Egyptian?’... By study of the GRAMMAR [Joseph Smith’s Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar], the recovered papyrus, and the illustrations, it is perfectly obvious that we now have the oringinal [sic] manuscript material used by Jos. Smith in working up the Book of Abraham. Prof. Klaus Baer of Univ. of Chicago, Prof. Lutz of U.C. (Berkeley), Prof. Lesko (U.C. Berkeley) and Egyptologist Dee Jay Nelson, all agree that the original manuscript Egyptian text translates into the Breathing Permit of Hor (Egyptian God).... The work of the two UC professors was done at my request and is unpublished. All 4 agree with each other, and without having conferred or collaborated. (My UC men did not, and still do not, know that there is any relationship of the manuscript material to the Mormon Church, Joseph Smith, Book of Abraham - or whatever....
“Joseph Smith announced, in print (History of the Church, Vol. II, page 236), that ‘one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt...’ Since 4 scholars, who have established that they can read Egyptian, say that the manuscripts deal with neither Abraham nor Joseph - and since the 4 reputable men tell us exactly what the manuscripts do say - I must conclude that Joseph Smith had not the remotest skill in things Egyptian-hieroglyphics. To my surprise, one of the highest officials in the Mormon Church agreed with that conclusion when I made that very statement to him an Dec. 4, 1970 - privately in one-to-one [c]onversation....
“The attempts, including Nibley’s, to explain away and dodge the trap into which Joseph Smith fell when he had the audacity to translate the Chandler texts, and keep the original Egyptian texts around, are absurd, in my view....
“My views are not for publication or spreading abroad. I am like you - maintaining membership because of the many fine things the Church offers. But facts speak for themselves. I offered the data available to my Stake Pres. recently and he walked away without it - saying he didn’t want to read it. They can hardly execommunicate [sic] us when they won’t look at the evidence.
************************************
I don’t use the term liar lightly, but Joseph Smith fits the bill.
"attainable to EVERYBODY who follows Christ as best as they know how". Did you leave something out of this phrase?
If not,what is the need for the baptism and other ordinances done by mormons for the dead? Is it not true that if one were not to take part in these ordinances while living they MUST accept them in the afterlife in order to enter the CK, or Heaven"?
It has been stated many times by apologists that this acceptance is a "choice" given to the dead, but the caveat "the spirit cannot enter the celestial kingdom unless they make the correct 'choice' and accept those ordinances" is not included in those statements.
As stryker would say, "Sheesh"
A religion founded by a liar and fabricator is not from God. But there is one who delights in lies and murder, who is always eager to guide someone in heresies. I find it most disturbing that a leader of the LDS could say he was maintaining his membership for the works of the faithful when he knows the entire enterprise was founded by a liar and deceiver of the grossest order. Such dedication may seem admirable, but it leads a multitude of souls away from Grace and into eternal loss.
You are speaking to one who has been banned.
Current info about LDS.org
http://traffic.alexa.com/graph?o=l&c=1&f=555555&u=lds.org&u=&u=&u=&u=&r=6m&y=15&z=1&h=300&w=610
It indeed is a very active site. You can see by the spikes weekly that many of the hits are by Mormons preparing talks and lessons each Sunday.
What a great tool for the Church. I wish it had been so easy to access this kind of inspriational material when I was LDS.
There was a hugh spike on the first week in April, perhaps to view conference.
A. God does not change.So, a “True” church will be receiving God’s will somehow, the traditional way of receiving god’s will is through a prophet. Why is this a problem for you?
B. God has revealed his will to men
C. God will continue to reveal his will to men
Good question. If the beliefs of lds gods are not different, then why are there so many of them?
...the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is a church, so there is a central authority for that church...
If there's a supposed "central authority" in the LDS church, then why is there no "Central Authority" within the "council of gods." Why is there no buck stops here god? Why is there no ultimate god? You cannot have "central authority" unless those folks who derive their authority know where that ultimate authority comes from? (You can't just endlessly climb the divine bureaucratic ladder; you eventually have to arrive at a destination--an original source of authority).
Saundra Duffy may well have been a Christian when she joined with the Mormonism advocates. The deceptive poster is trying to imply that instance of a Christian in Mormonism makes you not telling the truth'. Would a comment that Mormonism will not lead one to salvation though some Mormons are Christians mean the one making the comment is 'not telling the truth'? Even though you made nothing close to the assertion the poster tries to pin upon you, one exception to a generalization doesn't false the generalization, unless the generalization is a total exclusionary leg of a syllogism (highlighted by an 'all' or 'none' or 'every').
The poster tried desperately to restate your comment so it would fit this special category of generalization, just the way Satan did with Eve in the Garden. Does this methodology cause you to wonder for whom this unwitting poster works? It causes me to wonder and that's why I don't address the poster directly. I have pinged you Saundra because this is the htread you started and you have been mentioned in this post due to your shared testimony of how/when you became an adherent to Mormonism.
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.