Posted on 10/08/2007 7:49:32 AM PDT by colorcountry
Not only is Mormonism a Christian faith, it is the truest form of Christianity, said speaker after speaker on the first day of the 177th Semiannual LDS General Conference. LDS authorities were responding to the allegation that Mormonism isn't part of Christianity. Made by different mainline Protestant and Catholic churches and repeated constantly during coverage of Mitt Romney's presidential campaign, the claim is based on Mormonism's beliefs about God, its rejection of ancient ideas about the Trinity still widely accepted, and the LDS Church's extra-biblical scriptures. "It is not our purpose to demean any person's belief nor the doctrine of any religion," said Apostle Jeffrey R. Holland in the afternoon session. "But if one says we are not Christians because we do not hold a fourth- or fifth-century view of the Godhead, then what of those first [Christians], many of whom were eye-witnesses of the living Christ, who did not hold such a view either?"
{snip}
The day's sermons included many familiar themes, including the importance of faith, the need for pure thoughts and actions, avoiding pornography reaching out to neighbors and eliminating spiritual procrastination. Hinckley talked about the destructive nature of anger in marriages, on the road, and in life, urging Mormons to "control your tempers, to put a smile upon your faces, which will erase anger; speak with words of love and peace, appreciation and respect."
Also, lying , (fibbing is OK) is a powerful tool when in front of the recommend vendor. That machine most likely is also "one of the boys" that all go together for the annual deer (dear) hunt.
On a book that was compiled at the behest of the Roman Empire, I think it is up to your side to PROVE that it is all there. Are the original manuscripts still available?
‘Bout as available as those golden plates you seem to believe in.
On a book that was compiled at the behest of the Roman Empire, I think it is up to your side to PROVE that it is all there. Are the original manuscripts still available?
Originals ... ?
Not likely ... but, we do have a multitude of agreeing copies of the original texts ... in the original languages.
That's actually more than can be said for any of the 'so-called' Mormon scriptures.
For those not familiar w/ the workings of the Holy Ghost, I can certainly see where systematic theology could be a big benefit. Actually, I think it could be beneficial for those familiar w/ the Holy Ghost as well but not as an end all conclusion. It certainly is a reasoned approach & one that I can respect. I cannot accept it as being a way to reach a final conclusion on truth of gospel concerns however.
Let me give you an example of why I think the Holy Ghost is so pivotal in this process & why reasoning alone won’t carry the day. When Paul was writing to the saints in Corinth, where they using systematic theology as a basis to form their testimonies? Did they have the bible? They had some scriptures but in most cases a very scant availability of such. They had the writings of Paul, but was that really enough to form the basis of systematic theology? What about the saints in outlying areas that didn’t receive from Paul? Did they have to rely upon systematic theology or the Spirit?
The only ones that really practiced a form of systematic theology were the leaders of the Jews w/ all their seminaries & higher education. The saints were instructed to study, yes, but to ultimately get their witness from the Spirit. Please don’t misunderstand me, I’m not trying to slam systematic theology or you for that matter, b/c I really do think it can be a good thing, just not the ultimate when it comes to truth. The ultimate as I’ve stated all along, is a witness of the Spirit just as the saints of old received. Just food for thought as we wind down the week.
I need to step back for awhile as yesterday things got somewhat contentious on my side. I love having a spirited debate but not normally at the expense of others & yesterday that was not the case. My purpose is not to show up my fellow Freepers but to have reasoned discussion even when bated to do otherwise. Yesterday I fell into that trap & for that I have deep regret. Have a great finish to your week. I’m sure we’ll meet up again somewhere down the line.
Reno,
Thank you for your note.
A volume of systematic theology is no substitute
for a personal relationship with Christ, who alone
can save and the Holy Spirit who illumines the
Word of God.
Any study of scripture, which we are commanded to
do, is a tool to harvest what it actually says,
so that the Holy Spirit can illumine it and give
it life.
On the flip side, there is little you can learn
about the things of God without His revealed Word.
To say you do not need it to know the truth is
inaccurate. To say early believers didn’t have
it is inaccurate. They had the Hebrew scriptures.
The Bible says the Bereans checked out everything
Paul said in the Word. Which Word? The Hebrew scriptures.
I recommended a systematic theology volume to you
Reno, for your own usage, to help you see the
Biblical basis for fundamental Christian truth. It
is not a study of scripture to read a volume of
systematic theology. It is simply a tool that compares
what the Bible teaches throughout. You have raised a
series of questions here that could largely be
answered by a reference book like this.
have a good weekend.
ampu
Ancient brass plates? (Fool me once, shame on you) In 1843 six brass plates were found in a mound in Kinderhook, Illinois. Mormons who saw the plates were impressed by their ancient appearance and felt that they would prove Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon. In a letter written from Nauvoo, Illinois, dated May 2, 1843, Charlotte Haven said that when Joshua Moore "showed them to Joseph [Smith] the letter said that the figures or writing on them was similar to that in which the Book of Mormon was written, and if Mr. Moore could leave them, he thought that by the help of revelation he would be able to translate them ." ( Overland Monthly, Dec. 1890, page 630) Joseph Smith was about to be tricked by some con men. Joseph accepted these plates as authentic and later claimed that he had translated a portion of them.
The evidence comes from the diary of William Clayton, Joseph Smith's private secretary. The information in Clayton's journal was deemed so important that it was put in the first person and used as a basis for the story of the Kinderhook plates in the official Church History. The following is attributed to Joseph Smith: "I have translated a portion of them and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found . He was a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the Ruler of heaven and earth." ( History of the Church vol. 5, p. 372)
Also, on May 7, 1843, Parley P. Pratt wrote a letter containing the following: “A large number of Citizens have seen them (the Kinderhook Plates) and compared the characters with those on the Egyptian papyrus which is now in this city.” A few lines previously, he had begun his comment on the plates as follows: “Six plates having the appearance of Brass have lately been dug out of a mound by a gentleman in Pike Co. Illinois. They are small and filled with engravings in Egyptian language and contain the genealogy of one of the ancient Jaredites back to Ham the son of Noah. His bones were found in the same vase (made of Cement). Part of the bones were 15 ft. underground.”( The Ensign , August 1981, p. 73)
Since Joseph Smith was the only person around who claimed the ability to translate ancient languages, the source of Pratt's information is all too obvious. Unfortunately for the Mormon position, it was later revealed that the plates were forgeries. On April 25, 1856, W. P. Harris, who was one of the nine witnesses to the discovery of the plates, wrote a letter in which he stated that the plates were not genuine: "...I was present with a number at or near Kinderhook and helped to dig at the time the plates were found... I... made an honest affidavit to the same.... since that time, Bridge Whitten said to me that he cut and prepared the plates and he... and R. Wiley engraved them themselves.... Wilbourn Fugit appeared to be the chief, with R. Wiley and B. Whitten." (The Book of Mormon? , by James D. Bales, pp. 95-96)
On June 30, 1879, W. Fugate, who was also one of the nine people who signed the certificate, wrote a letter in which he admitted his part in the hoax: "I received your letter in regard to those plates, and will say in answer that they are a humbug , gotten up by Robert Wiley, Bridge Whitten and myself.... We read in Pratt's prophecy that 'Truth is yet to spring out of the earth.' We concluded to prove the prophecy by way of a joke." (Letter of W. Fugate, as cited in The Kinderhook Plates by Welby W. Ricks, reprinted from the Improvement Era , Sept. 1962)
Kinderhook plate rediscovered Around the time of the Civil War the Kinderhook plates were lost but, nearly 100 years later, one of them was rediscovered in the Chicago Historical Society Museum by Professor M.Wilford Poulson, of Brigham Young University (see a picture of this plate above). Welby W. Ricks, who was President of the BYU Archaeological Society, hailed the discovery as a vindication of Joseph Smith's work: "A recent rediscovery of one of the Kinderhook plates which was examined by Joseph Smith, Jun., reaffirms his prophetic calling and reveals the false statements made by one of the finders.... "The plates are now back in their original category of genuine.... Joseph Smith, Jun., stands as a true prophet and translator of ancient records by divine means and all the world is invited to investigate the truth which has sprung out of the earth not only of the Kinderhook plates, but of the Book of Mormon as well." (The Kinderhook Plates)
In 1965, three years after Mr. Ricks made this triumphant announcement, George M. Lawrence, a Mormon physicist was given permission to examine and make "some non-destructive physical studies of the surviving plate." In his "Report of a Physical Study of the Kinderhook Plate Number 5," George Lawrence wrote: The dimensions, tolerances, composition and workmanship are consistent with the facilities of an 1843 blacksmith shop and with the fraud stories of the original participants." Since Mr. Lawrence was only allowed to make non-destructive tests, some Mormon scholars would not accept his work as conclusive. In 1980, however, the Mormon scholar Stanley P. Kimball was able "to secure permission from the Chicago Historical Society for the recommended destructive tests." Professor Kimball described the results of the tests in the official Mormon Church publication, The Ensign , August 1981, pp. 66-70: "A recent electronic and chemical analysis of a metal plate... brought in 1843 to the prophet Joseph Smith... appears to solve a previously unanswered question in Church history, helping to further evidence that the plate is what its producers later said it was - a nineteenth-century attempt to lure Joseph Smith into making a translation of ancient-looking characters that had been etched into the plates.... As a result of these tests, we concluded that the plate... is not of ancient origin .... we concluded that the plate was made from a true brass alloy (copper and zinc) typical of the mid-nineteenth century; whereas the 'brass' of ancient times was actually bronze, an alloy of copper and tin."
If Joseph Smith had not been murdered in June 1844, it is very possible, even probable, that he would have published a complete "translation" of these bogus plates. Just a month before his death it was reported that he was "busy in translating them . The new work... will be nothing more nor less than a sequel to The Book of Mormon ;..." (Warsaw Signal May 22, 1844)
The fact that Joseph Smith was actually preparing to print a translation of the plates is verified by a broadside published by the Mormon newspaper, The Nauvoo Neighbor , in June 1843. On this broadside, containing facsimiles of the plates, we find the following: "The contents of the Plates, together with a Fac-Simile of the same, will be published in the 'Times and Seasons,' as soon as the translation is completed ." Now, the funny thing about the Kinderhook plates is the fact that for nearly 140 years the LDS Church defended Joseph Smith's partial translation of them (in fact there are several pages dedicated to the story of the Kinderhook plates in the 7 volume History of the Church) but as soon as they discover beyond any reasonable doubt that the Kinderhook plates were as fake as a 3 dollar bill, the LDS Church tries to distance themselves from the whole situation by simply claiming "...there is no evidence that Joseph Smith ever concluded the plates were genuine..."( The Ensign , August 1981, pp. 66-70). Apparently a partial translation of them as recorded by Joseph's personal secretary and witnessed by several Mormon Elders was plenty of evidence for the nearly 140 years in which the LDS Church defended Joseph's translation of the plates but now it is just too inconclusive to prove anything.
"Written on by the hand of Abraham" (Fool me twice, shame on me)
In July of 1835, an Irishman named Michael Chandler brought an exhibit of four Egyptian mummies and papyri to Kirtland Ohio, then the home of the Mormons. The papyri contained Egyptian hieroglyphics. In 1835 hieroglyphics were unreadable. As Prophet and Seer of the Church, Joseph Smith was given permission to look at the papyri scrolls in the exhibit and to everyone's shock, revealed that "one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt" (History of the Church, Vol. 2: 236).
Several members of the Church pooled their money and bought the papyri and mummies for $2400 (Mr. Chandler refused to sell the papyri without the mummies). After about 7 years, Joseph finished the translation of the scroll he claimed was "written on by the hand of Abraham" which he then called the Book of Abraham , but the book of Joseph was never translated. The papyri were lost soon afterwards and were thought to have been destroyed in the "Great Chicago Fire" in 1871. There was, therefore, no way to validate Joseph's translation. If the papyri were re-discovered and translated it would either prove or disprove the abilities of Joseph as a divinely inspired prophet of God. After all, he was supposed to be a prophet and have the abilities of a Seer as the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham and the Kinderhook plates supposedly proved.
Although the Book of Abraham was published in various formats as early as 1842, it wasn't until October of 1880 that The Pearl of Great Price, a collection of writings, which contained the book of Abraham, was canonized as scripture by the LDS Church. A miraculous discovery To every one’s surprise, in 1966 the papyri were rediscovered in one of the vault rooms of the New York’s metropolitan Museum of Art. The Deseret News of Salt Lake City on Nov. 27, 1967 acknowledged the rediscovery of the papyri. On the back of the papyri were "drawings of a temple and maps of the Kirtland, Ohio area." There could be no doubt that this was the original document from which Joseph Smith translated the book of Abraham. With the papyri rediscovered and Egyptian hieroglyphics decipherable since the late 1800's, it would then be an easy task of translating the papyri and proving once and for all that Joseph Smith was a prophet with the gift of "Seer" as he and the Mormon church have claimed. This would then prove the truth of the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham and would vindicate Joseph Smith as a true prophet of God.
It would be a serious understatement to say that the Mormon community was holding its collective breath in anticipation of what the scholars would have to say. Surely they would confirm what the Prophets have told us for decades; that Joseph Smith was indeed an divinely inspired man who came up with an accurate translation of this ancient papyri. Uh oh...This can't be right Joseph Smith copied three drawings from the Egyptian scrolls, labeled them Facsimile No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3, and incorporated them into the Book of Abraham with explanations of what they were. Egyptologists over the past century have viewed the drawings and found Joseph Smith's interpretation of them to be wrong. But, the Mormons, in defense of the sacred book, maintained that the Facsimiles alone were not sufficient to prove that Joseph Smith was erring in his translating abilities. With the rediscovery of the papyri, not only were there the same drawings in the scrolls, but so was the text from which Joseph Smith made his translation. It was now possible to absolutely determine the accuracy of Smith's translating abilities.
Joseph Smith said that Facsimile No. 1 was of a bird as the "Angel of the Lord" with "Abraham fastened upon an altar," "being offered up as a sacrifice by a false priest. The pots under the altar were various gods "Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, Pharaoh," etc. In reality, this is "an embalming scene showing the deceased lying on a lion-couch." In the original papyri, this drawing is attached to hieroglyphics from which Joseph derived the beginning of the book of Abraham which begins with the words, "In the Land of the Chaldeans, at the residence of my father, I, Abraham, saw that it was needful for me to obtain another place of residence"(1:1). In reality, the hieroglyphics translate as, "Osiris shall be conveyed into the Great Pool of Khons -- and likewise Osiris Hor, justified, born to Tikhebyt, justified -- after his arms have been placed on his heart and the Breathing permit (which [Isis] made and has writing on its inside and outside) has been wrapped in royal linen and placed under his left arm near his heart; the rest of the mummy-bandages should be wrapped over it. The man for whom this book was copied will breath forever and ever as the bas of the gods do." It is the opening portion of an Egyptian Shait en Sensen, or Book of Breathings, a late funerary text that grew out of the earlier and more complex Book of the Dead. This particular scroll was prepared (as determined by handwriting, spelling, content, etc.) sometime during the late Ptolemaic or early Roman period (circa 50 B.C. to A.D. 50). Even Mormon scholars do not disagree with these facts.
One of the problems with this new information is the fact that the papyri were only about 2,000 years old; far too recent to be "written on by the hand of Abraham ". The picture to the left is a professional reconstruction of the original (See next picture down). Note the hieroglyphics on the right side from which Joseph Smith began his translation of the Book of Abraham. In actuality, it "depicts the mythical embalming and resurrection of Osiris, Egyptian god of the underworld. Osiris was slain by his jealous brother Set, who cut up his body into 16 pieces and scattered them....The jackal-headed god Anubis is shown embalming the body of Osiris on the traditional lion-headed couch so that he might come back to life..." ("...by his own hand upon papyrus" Institute for Religious Research, Grand Rapids, Mich. 1992, p. 62) The figure to the right shows a reprint of the actual papyrus used by Joseph Smith. Note the areas where the Papyrus has been lost. It is in these that Joseph Smith "finished" the drawing resulting in Facsimile No. 1. His restoration, according to Egyptologists, reveals a complete lack of understanding of Egyptian practice and theology.
As is explained by Joseph Smith and included in the Pearl of Great Price, the drawing to the left contains different scenes which Joseph Smith interpreted. They vary: "Kolob, signifying the first creation, nearest to the celestial, or the residence of God." "Stands next to Kolob, called by the Egyptians Oliblish, which is the next grand governing creation near to the celestial or the place where God resides." "God, sitting upon his throne, clothed with power and authority." "...this is one of the governing planets also, and is said by the Egyptians to be the Sun, and to borrow its light from Kolob through the medium of Kae-e-vanrash, which is the grand Key..." But again scholarship disagrees with Joseph’s rendition. "It is actually a rather common funerary amulet termed a hypocephalus, so-called because it was placed under (hypo) a mummy’s head (cephalus). Its purpose was to magically keep the deceased warm and to protect the body from desecration by grave robbers." (Ibid, pg. 104)
According to Joseph Smith, the drawing to the right shows "Abraham sitting upon Pharaoh’s throne, by the politeness of the king, with a crown upon his head, representing the Priesthood...King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head...Signifies Abraham in Egypt...Olimlah, a slave belonging to the prince..." But this is not what the Egyptologists say is the meaning of the Facsimile No. 3 is. Instead, it shows, "the deceased being led before Osiris, god of the dead, and behind the enthroned Osiris stands his wife Isis." (Joseph Smith Among the Egyptians , by Wesley P. Walters 1973 pg. 29)
Let's see 1+1=3 It should be quite obvious that present scholarship has revealed that Joseph Smith did not translate the Book of Abraham by the power of God as he had claimed. We know for a certainty that the partial translation of the Kinderhook plates was obviously not a divinely inspired translation as well. It follows that if he did not translate the Book of Abraham by the power of God, and he did not translate the Kinderhook plates by the power of God, then it would be very easy to conclude that he did not translate the Book of Mormon by the power of God either. Obviously Joseph Smith had a vivid imagination and was perfectly capable of simply making up "translations" of real and imagined ancient texts.
When Joseph first gave his translation of the Egyptian papyri, hieroglyphics were undecipherable. Today they are fairly easy to decipher. He was safe in saying anything he wanted to and there would be no way of proving him wrong. But with the resurfacing of the same papyri he used to do his Book of Abraham translation, and the fact that he did not in any way do it correctly, should be proof enough that Joseph Smith lied about his abilities from God. It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to do the math here. 1 + 1 = 2 or, in simple English, Joseph's false "translation" of the Kinderhook plates + Joseph's false "translation" of the Egyptian papyri = a false prophet.
At the beginning of this I asked a hypothetical question. "What if we still had the gold plates and experts proved them to be incorrectly translated and/or not even of ancient origin?" As you can see, that exact scenario has happened twice now. First with the Kinderhook plates and then with the Egyptian papyri. How much evidence does a person need?!?
bttt
Matt. 3: 15 And Jesus answering said unto him, suffer it to be so now: for thus it bbecometh us to fulfill all righteousness. Then he suffered him. [ You need to take the LDS markers out when you drag and post to FR threads … the underlined is an illustration. As I mentioned last night, Jesus needed no baptism for righteousness, but He did submit to be baptized to start his Rabbinical service. ]
Matt. 28: 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: [ Neither of us would quarrel with this command in the new covenant. But it does not come down either way as to the necessity of baptism for salvation, so we will keep moving along in your word-search generated drag and paste exercise. ]
Luke 7: 30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him. [ This passage is better understood if one takes the perspective that ‘being not baptized of Him’ relates to not being ‘in’ Him, and speaks not a single deciding thing as to what importance water baptism has. So we move on … ]
John 3: 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. [The previous verses and exchanges show us that Jesus was referring to the water of the womb: John 3:3-5 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. ]
Acts 2: 38 Then Peter said unto them, repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the holy Ghost. [ Was Jesus Christ the means for remission of sin, or was the baptism in water you seem to prefer? ]
Acts 10: 47-48
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the holy Ghost as well as we? [ Having received already the Holy Spirit of God into them, they are already cleansed in the Blood of Jesus. Does the water make them cleaner? ]
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days. [ Submitting oneself for baptism ‘unto Jesus’ is the outward sign of the believer’s commitment to Jesus, to be transformed by the presence of His Spirit indwelling them. ]
Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. [ Again, I say to you that the Greek text had no punctuations such as commas to divide the clauses, so the ‘and’ is the operant divider; the text reads ‘arise AND be baptized AND wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord. ONLY the blood of Jesus washes away thy sins. ]
Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. [ They believed, were saved, then submitted for baptism. The text does not imply they were baptized to be saved for it was their belief in what Philip preached concerning the kingdom of God AND the name of Jesus Christ. ]
Ephesians 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Hebrews 6:2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of claying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. [ As with the first verse above which contains an extra “b” your drag and paste from church teaching aides has an extra “c” with ‘laying on of hands’. Preceeding the verse you pasted is this verse:
“Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God”. And following the verse you pasted is this: “And this will we do, if God permit.” Putting together 6:1 and 6:2 and 6:3 without the non-Greek punctuations, we have a different picture than the single out of context verse you pasted: “Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ let us go on unto perfection not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God of the doctrine of baptisms and of laying on of hands and of resurrection of the dead and of eternal judgment. And this will we do if God permit.”
May I ask you to question your heart? … Which is more important, faith toward God, doctrine of baptism, repentance from dead works, laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead? You can see that the first is the single most important because all the others can flow from that. And scripture/THE WORD OF GOD confirms this when it/HE teaches ‘by faith Abraham believed God and it was counted for him righteousness.
When you consider the Blood of Christ, what might you add to that Blood to achieve righteousness? If I ask you what is the means of your Salvation, do you say ‘Oh the Blood of Jesus, BUT I need to do all that I can do …?” Once you were born into the lineage of your father, is there any means you may apply that will ‘de relate you‘, take you out of being his son? Once you are born of His Spirit, at the confession with your mouth that He is your deliverer, your redeemer, you are born into His family. As a member of His family, you will do certain things He directs, such as being baptized to acknowledge Him before men --for if you will not acknowledge He is your Savior before men, why would He represent you before His Father in Heaven? The baptism doesn’t save you by addition to what He has already done, the works that you do or allow Him to do in you do not save you; His Blood applied to the doorpost and lintel of your spirit Saves you, THEN you are called to behave as His child in His family.
Pax Vobiscum
Boy, are you in for a shock.
Quite the opposite.
Really? I don’t recall a Roman Emperor ordering our Church to come up with scriptures and then they being adopted by a majority vote of the local preachers. Oh, I forgot, that’s you mainstream guys.
Where does it say there will be no more prophets? Nowhere, eh? You are hanging your hat on a loose nail.
Really? I don’t recall a Roman Emperor ordering our Church to come up with scriptures and then they being adopted by a majority vote of the local preachers. Oh, I forgot, that’s you mainstream guys.
Where does it say there will be no more prophets? Nowhere, eh? You are hanging your hat on a loose nail.
And then you have the LDS which hangs it's hat upon the loose nail named Joseph Smith.
Not another human soul ever read those golden plates. Joseph Smith could have alledged that they said anything he wanted. And noone would/will ever be the wiser.
At least the Bible was compiled by a multitude of churchmen, all reading and interpreting the same texts ... and then working together to arrive at a consensus.
But not so with the LDS. It all hangs (or doesn't) ... with Joseph Smith.
Methinks you should take a look at what MHGinTN posted at 787. Joseph Smith looks like an awfully crooked nail ... to hang one's hat upon.
Joseph Smith was God’s own prophet for the restoration of the Gospel. Like it, leave it or lump it, that’s the way it is.
I like it.
Joseph Smith was God’s own prophet for the restoration of the Gospel. Like it, leave it or lump it, that’s the way it is.
I like it.
So, I guess you're a believer ... in Joseph Smith.
Good luck with that.
BIC??
Just like the LDS should PROVE that JS was spoken to by GOD, and NOT 'an angel of light'??
HMMmm...
What 'book' would that be?
Like this?
NIV Acts 17:11
Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
Note that they did NOT 'pray, asking the Holy Spirit' if what they were being told was true.
I find it strange that the concept of building on a foundation seen in the New Testement is discarded in Mormonism.
We have been constantly asked to pray about the BoM to see if IT’S true, but most of the Mormon doctrine does NOT come out of that book!
Why do they try to follow ‘The Word of Wisdom”?
It’s NOT in any of their scriptures!
Why do they perform all those Temple Rites?
They, likewise, are NOT found in their holy books.
Strange, strange indeed.
We've figgered this out already.
Do you know what is so abominable in the Nicene Creed?
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.