1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.I encourage everyone to Get a Book of Mormon, and Get a Bile, Read both Pray about Both, God will answer. That answer, as mine did, will contain a testimony of Jesus Christ, and thus you can know that it meets John's test of authenticity. Godzilla and I can't both be right here, and it is conceivable that we are both wrong! Don't thake the chance of "Guessing" wrong, ask God and be sure. Don't take my word for it, don't take his word for it, ask God.
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my eservants, it is the same.So, the question is "is it the same if a servant fulfills god' promises?"
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.You wrest the scriptures at your peril, it's not hat there aren't answers to the questions you are posing there are. The problem is two fold:
Joseph Smith's Changing
First Vision Accounts
Joseph Smith, the founding prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, claimed that as a 14-year-old boy he had a vision of God the Father and Jesus Christ. The official account of this first vision found in Mormon Scripture (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith — History, 1:14-20) was not recorded by Joseph Smith until 1838, 18 years after the supposed event. However, for years before this, Joseph, and his close associates did talk about his early visionary experiences. These earlier accounts contain significant variations from the official First Vision account. The links below present these accounts in chronological order.
I can attend mass at St. Peters any time IÂ’m there. Meeting the Pope, like the President is completely different.
God the father and Jesus Christ, you can tell a story differently to different audiences, in fact a story told the same way is usually made up, and rehearsed, not spontaneous, these stories were being told spontaneously, so some variation is to be expected. Variations however should not conflict, just vary in details as these stories do. Stories not told in a consistent manner are generally false, not true.
How disingenuous. Doors 1 and 3 were SmithÂ’s own accounts, under his supervision, not off the cuff stories. The stories completely conflict as to location and date specifically. So which account from SmithÂ’s own words should we believe? Might pay attention to this following post from MHGinTN
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1950542/posts?page=452#452
It wasn't Wrong, it was just to differing audiences. (and I have pointed this out many times before, a story that is told to different police in exactly the same way is considered by them to be a fabrication...)
Sure, many church leaders have said inaccurate things in speeches or in private conversation, they are men called to be prophets and leaders, there is only one perfect exemplar (*Jesus Christ) that is why you have to limit "Authoritative" to Cannonized doctrine.
See above – Smith personally gave two completely different accounts of his first visitation, one the lds church canonized, the other they try to sweep under the rug. However, you still don’t seem to get it so let me use little words. The source of the Story – Smith – was unable with time to organize his thoughts and remember correctly, gave two (or more) completely conflicting stories. If he cannot get something as important as a first visitation right, it becomes increasingly doubtful if he got any thing else right either.
Show me any Church where some leader somewhere has not said something stupid / Doctrinally incorrect, or taken some action that had to be undone and I'll show you a really new church Â….
So the founder of mormonism, with respect to such a profound event in his life cannot even tell the same story – I guess you consider Smith to be stupid.
Moroni as the Cannonized work shows, you knowÂ….
Your ‘cannonized’ work P.of G.P. published in 1851 had Nephi, use was confirmed by an eyewitness – Smith’s own mother. So which cannon do you believe, the one that is most convient at the moment?
Yes, for it is the Gospel of God, too bad much was lost or changed in the Bible, or we'd be able to prove it better.
I’m still waiting to see textural proof of these alledged ‘changes’. Pray tell me what MS are you referring to?
Yeah, that's why I pity those who attended the Vote at Nicea where they changed the definition of God for the church, they will really wish they had just let Constantine kill them.
Except that vote reaffirmed the teachings of the Apostles, tough when you are wrong isnÂ’t it DU.
I don't see a disguise... (If you pray to God, you are praying to God, even if you have some of the details wrong.)
2Co 4:4 in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn upon them.
Neither do we, we no more preach polythiesm than the trinitarians do.
Terrible to be caught in a lie isnÂ’t it. Mormons do PREACH polytheism as the clear quotes from Joseph Smith himself plus James Talmage (Articles of Faith) and Bruce McConkie (Mormon Doctrine) I posted previous plus many others I didnÂ’t make very plain.
Maybe you better pull up that on-line dictionary and look polytheism up.
U Said: polygamy?
No, but neither did he preach against it.
Yes he did preach against it.
1Co 7:2 But, because of fornications, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.
Eph 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh.
Tit 1:6 if any man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having children that believe, who are not accused of riot or unruly.
Note that the singular is given here, not wives.
I encourage everyone to Get a Book of Mormon, and Get a Bile,(sic)
Yep, and my bile rose when I read it. Freudian slip on your part.
I will however note that I am (again) the only one asking people to pray for an answer, Godzilla is telling people Satan may answer a prayer to God. Good luck with that Godzilla.
The question is whether or not the bom is a valid ‘other testimony’. Just about every book in the New Testament contains a warning about false prophets and teachers bringing false gospels. They further warn against straying from the teachings documented in the letters. Furthermore, mormonism regards the Bible, absent any valid textural or MS documentation, as being corrupted. So if mormonism treats the Bible as suspect, one should question their motivations in this oft stated challenge. The book of mormon, OTOH, claims to represent a history of happenings here in America. DU has continually refused to respond to the absence of archaeological support to this claim. The bom was written by a man who was accused of swindling people, claiming to find treasure using a seer (or peep) stone. This same stone figures prominently in the writing of the bom. This same author has recited the tale of his first vision in a multitude of contradictory versions. This same author openly contradicted the bom in both his personal actions and teachings.
With that summarized, what should your response be? The Bereans examined the bible only to see if this new thing taught by Paul was valid.
Acts 17: 10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who when they were come thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of the mind, examining the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so.
When they saw the truth of the Gospel, they accepted the message. Through evaluation of these points will show that the testimony of Smith is false and the bom is a fraud. The Bible makes it clear that Satan is the “god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn upon them (2Co 4:4). He is the author of the bom, is that the ‘god’ who DU wants you want to pray to and stake your eternity on.
Who said unrebuked? Â…Â….
I refer all to DUÂ’s obfuscations on the subject with Colofornian at
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1950542/posts?q=1&;page=441#441
who is much more eloquent at deconstructing your smokescreen.
Prophets do not come in ascending order.
He was your prophet of restoration, through whom most of your doctrines originated. The only other one who came as close was Young.
I never said Joseph did not know what he was talking about.
First of all you did in your very post to me, repeated here in the context of talking about Smith:
Show me any Church where some leader somewhere has not said something stupid / Doctrinally incorrect,
Furthermore, in discussing whether or not god had a father, you did not dispute the fact but then hid behind the worn out ‘but its not cannon’ cry, making it clear that Smith didn’t even know what he was talking about in regards to the very religion he founded.
I have said you don't know what you are talking about.
Just because you said it doesnÂ’t make it so
You are not Joseph Smith.
Oh pithy come back, but we have his history and written teachings.
I have not denied eternal progression.
No, you are denying Smiths prophetic word and the mormon perpetual teaching of it as such.
U Said: Are you denying that Smith was your greatest prophet and mouthpiece of God and that when he spoke as such his words were not doctrine? Or do Mormons only accept those teachings as prophetically uttered when it is less objectionable to do so?
Um neither? (these silly do you poop your pants or droll down your chin type arguments are so silly since everyone who reads them knows it's going to be neither.)
Such brilliant rhetoric! I repeat this because one would expect the person who heard god’s voice and produced the vast majority of these ‘doctrines’ would be the very best person and knowledgeable when teaching the masses based upon those same doctrines. The mormon church has taught this doctrine of god having a god since then. Makes the question very simple – either Smith (and all those who promulgate the teaching to this date) are wrong and haven’t a clue or by silence the General authorities have accepted it as doctrinal.
I will simply state state that God's parentage, or lack thereof has not been addressed in Cannonized works of the church, and request any citations specifically God's parents to prove me wrong...
As the keepers of doctrinal purity and the holder(s) of the office of prophet, their silence is affirmation – especially since they promulgate the teaching.
Skip a ton of blovation
Of course DU is passing over, to the casual observer, his statement that Smith’s doctrine on the necessity of god to have a father was ” irrelevant to our salvation directly contradicting Smith’s own pronouncement that it was essential for salvation. Furthermore, Smith specifically refuted that idea that God was God from all eternity. Again, Smith and every prophet and general authority on up has endorsed and promulgated this teaching.
He also skips some specific doctrinal/cannon references asked for as well as being caught agreeing with me that Jesus couldnÂ’t become a god until perfected, occurring only after his death.
In your post (# 404) you brought up "Christaology" it was such a fallacious argument Â…Â….
The term is technically specific regarding Christianity and the study of the Person, Nature and Work of Christ in the Bible. The fact that you tried to ridicule it rather than deal with it head on shows your lack of understanding.
With your cuts no lurker would know what the Sam hill we are talking about, that's the problem with your monster posts. Cut them down, or no one will read them, much less respond to them, wait, its that the point write such boring stuff and since your opponent can't red it without falling asleep, you win be default?
Well, it's an interesting approach to debate, I'll give you that much.
How Clintonesque. On the one hand DU complains for the length of these posts while not acknowledging the fact that his replies are much more. Then he derides the lurkerÂ’s ability to follow the links at the bottom of each post.
Now, the topic is Â…..
Totally unrelated to my post, must be answering some one else
U Said: Luke 23:42-42
There is no way for you or I to know if the Thief had been baptized, but Jesus knew. Your argument fails here.
Baptism for Christ was not instituted until after His resurrection. The thief was on the cross, there was no opportunity for him to be baptized, yet he was promised immediate access to heaven. The only failure is yours.
Other citations that are possible.
DU goes backwards here so just gobblygook.
I keep presenting truths here, truths like the spelling differences of different scribes, the list of over 3,000 changes with 90%+ being spelling, punctuation, and verses being added, I point out the corrections by Joseph to the scribe's errors on the manuscript that were never incorporated by the printer.
You drop this defeated argument and move to a new smear.
What DU is obfuscating here. I hardly dropped this argument. Apart from his “say so” regarding the spelling difference argument (minus any supporting documentation) it is the fact that mormon history teaches that the bom was translated virtually letter by letter and that the translation would not SUPERNATURALLY go forward until any error was corrected immediately. That was proven conclusively in my last post (and conveniently ignored by DU). Secondly, historical records by mormons of the period detail that there was very tight scrutiny of the first printing and that those errors were “minor’. The ‘corrections’ on the hand written ms came about after the first edition was printed and still do not account for the continued corrections through the history of the book (many as recent as 1964 – particularly the Mosiah/Benjamin corrections). Lds church history teaches this literal and detailed translation "... we heard a voice from out of the bright light above us, saying, 'These plates have been revealed by the power of God, and they have been translated by the power of God. The translation of them which you have seen is correct, and I command you to bear record of what you now see and hear.'" (History of the Church, by Joseph Smith, Vol. 1, pp. 54-55)
By this and the previous proofs, the manuscript was perfect, not needing the thousands of corrections. This teaching is supported by the lds official website in numerous articles. So if your failure to confront your own church teaching, history and other facts I presented, it is your acknowledgement of defeat, not mine.
Chiasmus, a literary structure used in semetic writings, unknown in Joseph Smith's day, but the Book of moon is chock full of them Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon.
At the risk of more whining by DU, who brings another topic on board (see end of post), IÂ’ll refer the reader to the following link, second topic down:
http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_bookofmormon.html
Chiasmus was not unknown at the time of Smith (contrary to mormon apologists). Mormon scholars have recognized that this literary form was known at that time. The bom has many examples and, at first sight, this seems impressive. Furthermore, while it is common in the Bible, Old and New Testaments it is by no means restricted to these. If Smith could draft chiasmic forms in the D&C he could have done the same with the bom - whether consciously or no.
These two papers (among many) one from Doctor who specializes in DNA, Address the Straw man argument posed by those attempting to use DNA as a scientific "cloak" for their straw man debunk the whole issue.
Book of moon – really. These strawman is that set up by mormon apologetics and are merely excuses for *lack* of evidence. The interested reader is referred to the following for an expanded commentary on the DNA and bom apologists:
http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.dna%20controversy1004917.pdf
Excepts from the link, in direct regard to the author DU put forth as his champion:
However, Meldrum and Stephens did not say this in the kind of clear fashion that would be required for a layperson to understand it. And then they go on set out a number of other theories, none of which are supported by any evidence, which could lead to the conclusion that the Native Americas did descend from the Israelites. So, given how oblique Meldrum and Stephens' statement against the Church's theory was, and how they indicated ways in which the Church's theory still could be true if evidence to support it was found, and how the Church's website referred to them as supporting the Church's position, most members who take the time to read what they have written will not understand it, and will likely conclude that these scientists are saying that science supports the Church's theory.
Each of the other articles referred to on the Church's website as supporting its position respecting the origin of the Native Americans takes a similar approach, but does not refer to the principle of parsimony. All they show is that science has not proven with 100% certainty that JS's theory of American Native origins is incorrect, and hence they invite Mormons to continue to believe that JS was correct.
For example, Michael F. Whiting (See "DNA and the Book of Mormon: A Phylogenetic Perspective") sets up a straw man by saying that LDS critics claim certain proof of BofM falsity based on DNA alone. He then sets out to prove that of course does so. The difficulty of proving a negative is well known. In addition, contrary to the belief of most non-scientists, science does not purport to prove anything with 100% certainty. Even the basic principles of mathematics were shown by Kurt Godel to be uncertain. So of course it has not been proven that JS was wrong. Without an assessment of the probability based on the best evidence available to date as to who is right and who is wrong, this type of analysis tells us nothing. I should be embarrassing to a scientist such as Whiting (who I understand is reputable) to provide such analysis.
When it comes to Lamanite DNA, the Mormon Church finds itself absolutely abandoned and on its own, with no place to turn (except inward) for support of its long-held, heretofore official, scripturally canonized and, now, totally repudiated position that Native Americans descended from Hebrews.
Where are the voices of the modern-day Mormon prophets on this one?
God having a father is not.,/I>
Your argument is no longer with me, it is with the Prophet Prime Smith and all the GAs and prophets that have continued this to this very day as doctrine. May be you should write them and inform them of their grave error on this doctrine.
Godzilla, if you cannot stick to one topic, and make more cogent posts, I will begin to edit your posts in my responses for a single topic, and for brevity.
Shall I call a waaaaaambulance for you on this too, how clintonesque. Even in your post to me you threw numerous other topics in and I have followed your posts, not adding to the topics. I see that you are totally ignorant as well, given that I split my response to you into three separate posts. Quit being a crybaby at postings that you enlarge.
Godzilla, you attack all the time, I have yet to see you testify as I just did. Is there a problem with asking you if you personally believe in the savior?
I believe in the Savior, it just isn’t the ‘savior’ of mormonism.