INHABITANTS OF THE MOON

Astronomers and philosophers have, from time almost immemorial until very recently, asserted that the moon was uninhabited, that it had no atmosphere etc.. But recent discoveries, through the means of powerful telescopes, have given scientists a doubt or two upon the old theory.

Nearly all the great discoveries of men in the last half-century have, in one way or another, either directly or indirectly, contributed to prove Joseph Smith to be a Prophet.

As far back as 1837, I know that he said the moon was inhabited by men and women the same as this earth, and that they lived to a greater age than we do -- that they live generally to near the age of a 1000 years.

He described the men as averaging near six feet in height, and dressing quite uniformly in something near the Quaker style.

In my Patriarchal blessing, given by the father of Joseph the Prophet, in Kirtland, 1837, I was told that I should preach the gospel before I was 21 years of age; that I should preach the gospel to the inhabitants upon the islands of the sea, and to the inhabitants of the moon, even the planet you can now behold with your eyes.

From the verification of two promises we may reasonably expect the third to be fulfilled also.

One truth after another men are finding out by the wisdom and inspiration given of God to them.

The inspiration of God caused men to hunt for a new continent until Columbus discovered it. Men have lost millions of dollars, and hundreds of lives to find a country beyond the North Pole; and they will yet find that country -- a warm, fruitful country, and inhabited by the ten tribes of Israel, a country divided by a river on one side of which lives the half tribe of Manasseh, which is more numerous than all the others. So said the Prophet. At the same time, he described the shape of the earth at the poles as being a rounded elongation and drew a diagram in this form; (see graphic at link) which any one can readily see will allow the sun's rays to fall so near perpendicular to the center that part of the earth may be warmed and made fruitful. He quoted scripture and proof of his theory which says that "the earth flieth upon its wings in the midst of the creations of God," and said that there was a semblance in the form of the earth that gave rise to the saying.

First of all, DouglasKC, I want to say I appreciate your input & feedback on this thread. I’m also glad you raise these issues & the scriptures you’ve cited, because I know you actually represent the way a number of Christians (& probably many Mormons, too) feel & believe…and we don’t always get folks in these threads willing to speak up and try to be lucid and give a scriptural “backbone” to their comments.

Since there are several aspects to what you are addressing, I am going to break my comments up into a series based on what you’ve said, starting with the “positive.” (I think, though, I’ve reserved my positive comments to about 3 graphs or so, and my concerns to about 6 “bursts” here).

I would appreciate that since you’ve taken the time to export what you believe (& I would especially wish more Mormons would take this to heart vs. some of the hit & post & run tactics we’ve seen of late where LDS will post something, a cogent response is given, & they’re off sprinting to yet another thread-post like some arsonist loose in Halloween “hell night” in Detroit…for those of you who don’t know what that’s like, ask Lady Lawyer).

I’m glad you cited Titus 2 & 3 on post #121. Certainly, that scripture is a helpful reminder to all of us on how to “behave.” I would hope that even those who have taken issue with what you’ve said on this thread, would “do well” to review the Scripture that you placed on that post.

To all of us: I would even go so far to add another verse as a caution to us all: Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you; rebuke a wise man and he will love you (Prov. 9:8) We cannot be too hardened to simply “dust away” all of KCDouglas’ rebuke at first glance. Even the remnant of a diamond-in-the-rough still has at least a speck of that diamond…and although your rebuke has multiple rough edges, we can turn this stone in our fingers & find out what truly glitters.

In my opinion, part of that “glitter” includes this nugget:

If you think that the LDS church teaches false doctrine, then give true doctrine. Patiently prove the gospel. Rebuke by showing how certain things run contrary to God's word. Exhort. Defend. [what you said to CC in #64]

Bravo, DougKC. Certainly I don’t we have to always stop there as if this was some magical boundary. But you stated this well as what should be our walkway and our diet as we walk on that path.

Another “commendation” would be that you indeed attempted to make a distinction of how we address different kinds of folks. In post #139 to Enosh you made a distinction between how we treat Christians vs. others. (And yes we need to do that). In post #64 to Colorcountry, you made a distinction between how we treat “pagans” according to Acts 17 vs. others. Again, good. I applaud you making this particular distinction because it is quite biblical.

Multiple problems exist, though, in your “exegesis” of the Bible. I am going to “list” them here, and then I will revisit each one on separate posts:

(1) In your efforts to distinguish the “how” of “who” we talk to, you haven’t gone far enough in closely examining how the Bible treats “religious folk.” IN post #79 to HereintheHeartland you claim that Jesus’ rebukes to the Pharisees had only to do with hypocritical behavior and thoughts. (That’s a rather rudimentary reduction, I might caution, that needs further study on your part)

(2) In your efforts to outline a Pauline standard for behavior, you haven’t studied enough Paul, Pauly, or Pauline! (sorry, couldn’t “resist”  )

(3) In your study of Acts – even Acts 17 – you “cherry-picked” some verses at the sheer neglect of others. (So much so that if the book of Acts was a child, the spiritual CPS could come in and take her until things were remedied)

(4) Here’s my disclaimer: I don’t defend every post or thread where “mocking” or “sarcasm” is used, including this one, even by every “Flying Inman.” (We don’t have a “Flying Inman” editor—yet…although there’s rumors of starting a “Flying Inman” publishing house. So we have no centralized “carpet bombing” control tower as Reno232 recently claimed). But most of the time, I’d rather see some reactive “check” attempt at what passes for “truth” than the sheer apathy I see daily on the part of many Christians. At least these folks are “showing up” to the frontlines. Their minds (for the most part) aren’t tied to the boob tube or “I’ll spend my time on materialistic me.”

In your biblical study of mocking & sarcasm, while you are correct that the overwhelming number of biblical references are negative and most originate in those who accuse God or His people, you concede a key point when you say it is generally done by non-Christians no matter what the context…however your clear tenor from all your posts lumped together is that you don’t ever seem to want to concede that this is only a general truthful observation and is nowhere close to an exclusive claim.

(5) In your citing Titus 2 & 3, including Titus 2:7, you have yet to respond to a specific challenge by another poster, greyfoxx39, in #87, about possible lack of “purity of doctrine” in your own home camp. IOW, how can you quote Titus 2:7 as a rebuke to multiple others, which includes a highlighted reference to doctrinal purity, when your own threading has apparently introduced questionable doctrinal sources into FReeperville? Greyfoxx’ question raised a big question mark that you apparently refused to address. (Why didn’t you address it?)

According to Greyfoxx: You posted this thread: 'Many False Prophets Will Arise and Deceive Many' in which the title belies your sermons here....the source is Good News Magazine, published by the United Church of God Link Many of the current ministers and members of the United Church of God were once members of the Worldwide Church of God, a nonprofit corporation under the leadership of Herbert W. Armstrong until his death in 1986. A subsequent unwarranted shift toward nonbiblical practices and beliefs led numerous ministers and members to leave the fellowship of that organization.

What’s your response?

(6) And while I’ve even introduced another verse above (Prov. 9:8) to confirm a smidgen of what you’ve said, Proverbs doesn’t stop @ 9:8, either. (I would commend you to Prov. 1:24-31; 3:34).

Proverbs starts off right off the bat, saying in 1:26 that wisdom absolutely laughs at those who hate knowledge. (If you can’t understand that many of these posts are not personality-driven derisiveness but rather is wisdom laughing at those who will go to the extreme of claiming moon & sun inhabitants or a hollow earth, then I’m not sure how to further advise you)

A New Testament verse in a similar vein is Paul advising Timothy to have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives’ tales (1 Tim. 4:7). These moonbat & “sunstroke” & hollow earth stories by faithful Mormons, (& Huntington was a faithful Mormon his entire life and was an associate to many of its leaders), are A#1 examples of old “husbands’ tales” (to give the male sex equal “bashing”).

(7) You said on several (#129 & #121, #55, #83, #90): I'm pointing out that the comments of those who call themselves "Christian" are not exactly what the bible refers to as Christian behavior. …Now if you want to insist that you're behavior is Christian, then I'm going to have to disagree based upon scripture… The tone is mocking, sarcastic and sometimes just plain mean. None of these attitudes and behaviors can be remotely considered Christian…. Are you going to sit there and honestly tell me it's Christian behavior to mock others? … I'm saying that the sarcasm and ridicule on display here are not Christian behaviors.

I’m glad you are attempting to stand upon Scripture. No better foundation. But a few of the comments earlier on this thread about “judging” might be something for you to not write off so quickly. (May I suggest to you that if you’re going to indict “behavior” and claim that it is absolutely not Christian behavior, that you be very specific about what you are condemning. Not just the poster/person. Not just a general accusation (like “mocking”). But a specific phrase. Narrow it down. I know I’ve been guilty of engaging in this as well, so I’m actually speaking from experience. Perhaps with most of us our tendency is to paint a broad brush. But rather than take on the entire person, I’m simply suggesting specificity. (Movie critics tend to be specific. Coaches critiquing players tend to be specific. When journalists aren’t specific, the athletes & coaches tend to get understandably upset).

I will now take my own advice medicine and will “be specific” over the next series of posts. You’ve taken the time to make a stand. I’m glad you did. I simply want to offer you some additional considerations. (I particularly want you, in light of your slew of comments above about what is “proper Christian Behavior,” to review #4 in the ensuing series).

OK, here goes my “specific” additional comments:

When other posters cited the way Jesus treated the Pharisees, your response was: But in this particular case he wasn't addressing their doctrine, but their hypocritical behavior and thoughts.

To a Mormon, what is foundational doctrine if not authority. Please read Luke 20. You’ll see that you cannot cleanly separate doctrine from behavior (even Mormons know this). In that chapter the Pharisees question the very source of authority Jesus operates under (20:2). Jesus goes on to tell them a parable about their violence toward the representative of the authority. Jesus was telling them that their very violence was rooted in the protection of the religious turf—the vineyard—that they claimed apart from the owner. The Pharisees knew that this indirect accusation by Jesus of being mass murderers was uttered ”against them” (Luke 20:19).

Earlier, Jesus had cut into the Pharisees (literal meaning of “sarcasm” is to cut into): Woe unto you, lawyers! For ye have taken away the key of knowledge. (Luke 11:52). Jesus didn’t just harp only on their hypocrisy & general behavior, but very specific behavior which had removed “the key of knowledge.” (Are you going to try to claim that “the key of knowledge” doesn’t have anything to do with doctrine?)

Yet one more example: Please review John 8:31-55. As you read through that, note these words & concepts & tell me that as Jesus openly condemns the Pharisees, is he addressing more concepts related to doctrine, or behavior, or as I would claim, more doctrine but can’t be separated from behavior?

”Truth” (John 8:31, 32, 40, 46 + 44 says don’t abide in the truth);
“no word in you” (John 8:37); “can’t hear the word” (8:43,47);
“don’t believe in me” (John 8:45); don’t know the Father (8:55); don’t belong to God (8:47);
children of the devil (8:42,44);
bondage (8:33) vs. freedom (8:36)

Allow me to directly address that question. In post #129 to P_M, you cited & highlighted 2 Cor. 6:3: Giving no offense in any thing, that the ministry be not blamed… and you came back to that standard of “offense-giving” in post #153 to Ansel12: But I'm also balancing this against those who are giving offense in the name of Christ…

The NIV says “stumbling block”—KJV “Offense.” While the two are close, these days “offense” can mean anything. Perturbed. Annoyed. If that was the true standard, Paul would be a major hypocrite. I mean, have you really taken a closer look at Paul’s pre-Corinthian letter life as recorded in Acts?

Do you think Paul gave “offense” in the following circumstances?
Acts 17:6: These men who have caused trouble all over the world have now come here… (NIV)
Acts 19:26: …this fellow Paul has convinced & led astray large numbers of people. ..He says that man-made gods are no gods at all There is danger not only that our trade will lose its good name, but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis will be discredited, and the goddess herself, who is worshiped…will be robbed of her divine majesty. (verse 29 mentions that soon the whole city was in an uproar)
Acts 24:5-6: We have found this man to be a troublemaker, stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world. He is a ringleader of the Nazarene sect and even tried to desecrate the temple; so we seized him.
(Boy…this last verse could be the prototype the LDS caucus has tagged us with: Greyfoxx is a ringleader of the Flying Inmans sect and even tried to desecrate the LDS temple; so we seized upon them all!)

Acts 19:8-9: And he [Paul] went into the synagogue and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God. But when divers were hardened and believed not, but spake evil of that way [the Ilky Way???] before the multitude [in FReeperland?] …disputing daily… (KJV)
Acts 23:3-5: Then Paul said to him, "God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! You sit there to judge me according to the law, yet you yourself violate the law by commanding that I be struck!" Those who were standing near Paul said, "You dare to insult God's high priest?" Paul replied, "Brothers, I did not realize that he was the high priest; for it is written: 'Do not speak evil about the ruler of your people.'

I ask you here, in Acts 23:3-5, did Paul break his own standard—calling someone a “whitewashed wall?”
Acts 24:16: So I strive always to keep my conscience clear before God and man.

This last verse gives us all an excellent point of measurement: What does our conscience say before BOTH God and man? Paul could say he had kept a clear conscience in what he proclaimed (Acts 24:16) yet at the same time people had become deeply "offended" numerous times in the book of Acts alone. (I commend a study of these Scriptures especially to many Mormons who ignore them)

You started off citing Gal. 5:22-23 about fruit of the Spirit. Enosh mentioned Gal. 1…where you responded in post #139: But in that particular case Paul was addressing Christians who were being turned away from Christ. It also doesn't contradict his examples in scripture about how to treat those outside of the church.

What you don’t understand is that just because the Galatians were part of a church didn’t make all of them “Christians!” (remember Jesus the tares amidst the wheat?) And how do we know the Galatians probably had a whole lot more tares than wheat? What did he ask them in Gal. 3:1? You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?

Now do you think that Paul just went around calling any ole group of “Christians” foolish and bewitched? (Remember Jesus said those who say “you fool” could be subject to judgment). If church membership makes you a Christian, then a garage makes you a car!

What you (DougKC) said in post #55 in context: The tone is mocking, sarcastic and sometimes just plain mean. None of these attitudes and behaviors can be remotely considered Christian. A bible word search on "mock" will turn up some interesting results. It's something that's generally done by non-Christians no matter what the context. When Christians encountered beliefs that they didn't agree with or that were wrong, did they mock or did they teach?

You might as well have asked, “Did they beat their brothers, or did they bear-hug as they taught?”

My first question on this post is why didn’t Enosh get a response to you when he pointed out that Elijah mocked “false” prophets in 1 Kings 18:27?

Could it be that this was a pin-prick in your supposed air-tight theological bubble?
Could it just possibly me that you’ve errored in putting “religious” folk outside of God’s people in the “pagan” category you assigned to the Acts 17 folks?
We all know that God customizes his revelation & illumination for each person…but beyond that, could it be that some of the major points of distinction for how we approach folks fall into at least three dimensions…
(a) non-legalistic orthodox historic Christians,
(b) unbelievers/pagans, and
(b) thirdly, heterodox, legalistic or heretical religious folk?

My suggestion is that you re-read Acts 17-19 for some major clues. Underline the religious folk being addressed. Example: Apollos. How do he approach religious folk? (He vigorously refuted…Acts 18:28)

I guess Apollos, like various Apollo flights, was outside your radar screen, eh?

How about God? If sarcasm is so bad, why has God escaped your condemnation of this practice? What? You don’t know about our sarcastic God? (Here, let me introduce you to Him and some of his ridiculing…Oh, & I think “ridiculing” is perhaps the best word to describe God’s reaction. Why? Because what do we all do when we see something “ridiculous” like somebody believing in men on the moon or Brigham Young’s ”inhabitants of the sun”—(well at least he didn’t say inhabitants IN the sun, eh?). 4% of Mormons believe in the Mormon hollow-earth theory? We laugh! To “ridicule” is to see something absolutely “ridiculous.”)

P-Marlowe was sooo right when he said: TN, do you not realize that there are posters on this thread here in 2008 who apparently believe that the Astronauts just landed in an unpopulated part of the Moon and that there may still be Billions of Quakers living on the moon at this very moment. Joe Smith thought he could get away with preaching this kind of nonsense to his followers and they would still blindly follow him.... AND HE WAS RIGHT! HE WAS RIGHT! That TN, is the scary thing. We can joke about and laugh about this because it is ridiculous.

Let’s listen in on a new side of God folks seem to want to miss:

Psalm 2:4: The One enthroned in heaven laughs; the Lord scoffs at them.
Psalm 59:6-8: They return at evening, snarling like dogs, and prowl about [FREEPER?] city. See what they spew from their mouths—they spew out swords from their lips, and they say, ‘Who can hear us?’ But you, O Lord, laugh at them; you scoff at all those nations.
Ps. 37:12-13: The wicked plot against the righteous and gnash their teeth at them; but the Lord laughs at the wicked for he knows their day is coming
Prov. 3:34: He mocks proud mockers but gives grace to the humble.
1 Kings 14:10: I will burn up the house of Jeroboam as one burns dung…
(Or how about God’s mocking of the Israelites?) Judges 10:14: “Go and cry out to the gods you have chosen. Let them save you when you are in trouble!” [I mean where do you think Elijah “learned” the mocking of those who rely upon false gods re:1 Kings 18:27?]
Here. Let me give you a paraphrase of Numbers 11:18-20 as God speaks to His people? (Think of God saying this in a New York street hoodlum accent): “You want a piece of Meat? You want a piece of Meat? OK, I’ll give you a piece of Meat. In fact I’ll not just give you a piece of Meat. But 2 days’ worth…or 5, or 10, or 20…how about a whole month’s piece of Meat? “…until it comes out of your nostrils and you loathe it—because you have rejected the Lord, who is among you…

Now is “the right” of sarcasm limited to God? (No). Examples:
The righteous will see and fear; They will laugh at him, saying, ‘Here now is the man who did not make God his stronghold but trusted in his great wealth and grew strong by destroying others!’” (Ps. 52:6-7)

Mormons hold a strong tradition of embracing the Olive tree and other trees in their “Scriptures” and a particularly Mormon parable… and note that the verse after Ps. 52:6-7 talks about the “olive tree,” as does a passage where one of God’s people (Jotham) uses a sarcastic parable (Judges 9:7-19).

When you (DougKC) cited Titus 2:7-8, 11, 13 it included “in all things show yourself to be an example…with purity in doctrine

You know what this verse tells me? It tells me in ALL THINGS show yourself to e an example...with purity in doctrine!!!

This means that we can't just have a "take it or leave it" blah attitude about Brigham Young's "teaching" about "inhabitants of the sun" [see her more recent post about that] or Zakeet's mention of Kolob as yet some other star replacement for heaven!!!

WHAT? DO YOU HONESTLY THINK THAT GOD IS OVERJOYED THAT HIS HOME ADDRESS OF 'HEAVEN' HAS BEEN SUPERCEDED BY SOME JOHNNY-COME-LATELY NAMED JOSEPH WHO THINKS HE CAN MARCH IN HEAVEN & TEAR DOWN THE BANNER OF GOD'S 'HOMETOWN' AND SAY, 'I've renamed your Jesus Bail-Out Park as Pottersville?'?????

What I object to here, also, is you joining the "FReeper Mormon Tabernacle chorus" of crits when these threads are simply pointing out how Mormons have re-arranged the universe from...
...renaming Heaven to "Kolob"...
...renaming the graveyard and hell as a baptism for the dead fount...
...renaming Earth as some colony right alongside the Moon, the Sun & every other planet that will have their own "god" & "goddess"
...and establishing all of these multi-galaxy lineup of planets & suns as simply new "colonies" for the practice of polygamy which they dupliciously say has been "done away with" ("oh, we don't live polygamously, anymore...except on Kolob, Celestial Kingdom Planet A, Celestial Kingdom Planet B, CKP C, CKP D, etc. and ALL other planets except those in the 'Ilky' Way")

Finally, what you seem to miss is that the bulk of "ridicule" is the constant stream of names tossed at us..."bigots," "bashers," "antis..." "haters..." and the like. At times when we indeed “show” ourselves as examples focusing on doctrinal purity, we’re going to be the recipients of pot-shots for doing so. We’re going to be accused of all manner of things because we’ve shown a bright light on “impure” doctrine. The purity of the doctrine of Christ is ALWAYS going to be upsetting to the impure among us who are not covering themselves in the Passover blood of the Lamb of Jesus Christ!

Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, P-Marlowe for shining a light on so many dark corners of late. It's been a pure sacrifice of time for you to do it, but our beloved Mormon friends and relatives are worth it. They are of tremendous value & worth to our Lord who made them HERE on earth for the first time, but desires to as the book of Mosiah in the BoM mentions, for them to become "born again."

Mormons are so valuable they are worth our entering into hell for eternity -- and not hell for "temporary damnation" as they see it -- according to the apostle Paul (Romans 9:1-4).

They, of course, will continue to "read" our efforts as those of an enemy bent on destroying them. But it's only an effort to halt the trust in the self for salvation...as LDS "prophet" Spencer W. Kimball boasted with as much pride as a man can muster, Man can transform himself, but he has in him the seeds of Godhood that can grow. He can lift himself by his very bootstraps" (Tribune, Sept. 18, 1974).

It is only thru the grace of Jesus Christ, which is pure gift, can we reach eternal life and progress to God's celestial kingdom of heaven, which has no class warfare to wage on the spiritually poor.

Jesus said "blessed are the poor in spirit," not "blessed is the wealthy side of the kingdom."
Jesus said "unless your righteousness exceeds (surpasses) that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, YOU WILL CERTAINLY NOT ENTER THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN." (Matthew 5:20)

That is the biggest negative promise in Scripture!

I receive the testifying of the Holy Spirt, who has testified alongside the water and the blood (1 John 5:7-8): For there are three that testify: 8the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. 9We accept man's testimony, but God's testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son. 10Anyone who believes in the Son of God HAS this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. 11And this is the testimony: God HAS [present tense] given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12He who HAS the Son HAS life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. 13I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may KNOW [present tense] that you have eternal life. 14This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. 15And if we know that he hears us—whatever we ask—we know that we have what we asked of him. (1 John 5:7-15)

(Ask according to 1 John 5, not just according to James 1)

God's universal Wisdom is an equal-opportunity "laugher"--it will laugh at my own folly, and it will laugh at others' as well. (When will we stop going to the extreme we've seen on this thread where Huntington is twice defended by pointing to astronauts who landed perhaps??? on only the "unpopulated" sections of the moon & therefore moon population guesses are only that???)

Allow me to cite Proverbs 1:24-31 which personifies wisdom (this is “wisdom” talking)…and as you read this think of some of the most ridiculous statements read in the thread posted:
Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded;
But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof:
I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh;
When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you.
Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me:
For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD:
They would none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof.
Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices.

Oh, Ultimate Lord of the Universe, who had no beginning, I pray with many real tears, save our beloved Mormon family members & friends...for I know how much you love them.

Thank you for your responses.

When other posters cited the way Jesus treated the Pharisees, your response was: But in this particular case he wasn't addressing their doctrine, but their hypocritical behavior and thoughts.

In the particular post I was addressing, which specifically referenced Matthew 23:27, he was only addressing their behavior. In my response (post 79) I was very careful to point that out. I said:

He wasn't. But in this particular case he wasn't addressing their doctrine, but their hypocritical behavior and thoughts. And he was:

Mat 23:27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchers, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.

To a Mormon, what is foundational doctrine if not authority. Please read Luke 20. You’ll see that you cannot cleanly separate doctrine from behavior (even Mormons know this).

I don't quite see what point you're trying to make here. I would agree that doctrine and behavior are sometimes linked. But clearly not always. For example I assume you observe Sunday as a day of worship and a doctrinal point, the same as the LDS. Jesus Christ observed the sabbath as a doctrinal point as did the Pharisees. But the difference was that the Pharisees had taken this doctrinal point, which is biblically based, and added non-biblical tradition to it.

So doctrine can be correct and correctly observed, or it can be correct and incorrectly observed.

But I also said in post 79 "But He also infallibly knew and taught the truth. He also infallibly knew the hearts and souls of men. So when you find yourself infallible, go for it." In other words, Jesus knew exactly what they were thinking:

Mat 9:3 And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth. Mat 9:4 And Jesus said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?

Luk 11:17 But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth.

In other words, the condemnation of Jesus is much more specific and warranted because he knew their thoughts. He knew their intent. He knew that they were being directly driven by the devil who wanted his mission to fail.

Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Now we are NOT Christ. We sin. Christ didn't. When he made these accusation against the Pharisee's he wasn't engaging in sin. He was telling the truth because he knew the truth absolutely. We don't. We make mistakes. Differing doctrinal points are not a good starting point for determining if someone is a brother or not because someone may be a brother but deceived on a certain doctrinal point. Or at the very least they haven't been called YET and mocking them will only serve to harden their hearts against our faith.

I’m no Mormon, but I think this is a bit disingenuous.

Thank you for your comments. This particular thread is from a Mormon Sunday School lesson in 1892. If you read the article, it shows it's purpose in being published:

"Nearly all the great discoveries of men in the last half-century have, in one way or another, either directly or indirectly, contributed to prove Joseph Smith to be a Prophet."

I don’t think it’s fair to judge the past by today’s vantage point. Advances in science, civil rights, economics, etc., have of course made so much of the past obsolete - from surgery to slavery.

FWIW there are people (apparently on this thread) who claim that it is possible that the Apollo Astrounauts landed in an unoccupied section of the Moon and that Joseph Smith may yet be proven to be correct on this issue.

If you don't believe me, see posts 23 and 112, where this particular paragraph was posted by two different Mormon apologists in defense of Joseph Smith:

Another aspect of the matter needs to be considered. At the present time, man has no scientific or revealed knowledge of whether or not there are inhabitants on the earth’s moon. The fact that a handful of astronauts didn’t see any inhabitants in the tiny area they viewed when they landed on the moon decades ago certainly gives no definitive information, any more than visitors to earth who might land in barren Death Valley would have any idea of the billions of inhabitants elsewhere.

I think we need to understand that there are some who are willing to blindly follow a con-man like Joseph Smith to spiritual destruction. I don't think it gets any more serious than that. While we can laugh at this ridiculous article by a very close friend and confidant of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, underneath the humor here, is a frightening fact. If Joseph Smith and Brigham Young are false prophets, then they are leading millions of people into spiritual darkness.

Thank you again for your contribution. I do hope you read the whole thread. I think you will find it... educational.

You (DouglasKC) said: I'm pointing out that the comments of those who call themselves "Christian" are not exactly what the bible refers to as Christian behavior. Do you agree that the Christian standard of behavior that Paul sets forth (in numerous places) is applicable in this case? If not, why? Allow me to directly address that question. In post #129 to P_M, you cited & highlighted 2 Cor. 6:3: Giving no offense in any thing, that the ministry be not blamed… and you came back to that standard of “offense-giving” in post #153 to Ansel12: But I'm also balancing this against those who are giving offense in the name of Christ… The NIV says “stumbling block”—KJV “Offense.” While the two are close, these days “offense” can mean anything. Perturbed. Annoyed. If that was the true standard, Paul would be a major hypocrite. I mean, have you really taken a closer look at Paul’s pre-Corinthian letter life as recorded in Acts?

Well again you've taken a specific point and broadened it to a general statement.

Stating the gospel of Christ IS offensive to those who dont' believe. There's no doubt about it. However, it can be stated without ridicule and contempt.

Here are two examples. I believe that violation of the 4th commandment is a sin. I believe that most of Christendom is violating the 4th commandment by not observing the 7th day sabbath of scripture. This may be offensive to some because the implication is that they are sinning. However, this is a far cry from me saying:

"How can rational people follow a moon-bat cultist like Calvin?. He just keeps getting funnier and funnier, it would be hilarious if it weren't so tragic for his blind, deaf and dumb followers." (modified post 11)

Or the myriad other mocking posts I could modify for the situation.

The point being is that Paul and his followers didn't all chum together, chortle, laugh, point, mock and insult the beliefs, or supposed beliefs, of others in a public forum. And that's exactly the type of juvenile behavior exhibited on this thread.

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.