He he he he he
Posted on 10/26/2010 3:02:11 PM PDT by Colofornian
Here's your history lesson for the day.
October 3rd 1918, then LDS Church President Joseph F. Smith received a vision regarding the redemption of the dead. The next day at General Conference,
“President Smith declared that he had received several divine communications during the previous months. One of these, concerning the Savior’s visit to the spirits of the dead while his body was in the tomb, he had received the previous day. It was written immediately following the close of the conference; on October 31, 1918, it was submitted to the counselors in the First Presidency, the Council of the Twelve, and the Patriarch, and it was unanimously accepted by them.” (Doctrine and Covenants, Introduction to Section 138)
Following this endorsement of President Smith’s October 3rd vision by Church leaders, the revelation was published in the December 1918 issue of the Improvement Era magazine and in the January 1919 issue of The Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine.
It wasn’t until 57 years later, at the April 1976 General Conference, that President Smith’s vision was presented to the general membership of the Church to be accepted as Scripture and approved for inclusion in the Pearl of Great Price. In June of 1979 the First Presidency of the Church announced that the vision would be removed from the Pearl of Great Price and added to the Doctrine and Covenants as Section 138, where it remains today.
I find it curious that this revelation — from God to His prophet (from the LDS perspective), written down, regarded as true by top Church leaders, and made public — was not actually presented to members of the Church (to be adopted and accepted) until more than half a century later.
I also wonder about the other “divine communications” which President Smith said he received in 1918. Only one (to date) has been canonized. Perhaps sometime in the future some of his other revelations will be presented to Church members for their approval and acceptance.
“Thank you. I liked your version better. ;o)”
You are welcome-the mormon cult link-spamming is a great opportunity to point out how bizarrely they distort the truth.
He added a picture of a statue in his latest spam - so much more powerful! Of course the mormonic jesus is a created, sinful spirit being who cannot save...
WHAT'S THAT ZILLA?
BZZZT, BZZZT, BZZZT, BZZZT...
CAN'T HEAR YOU OVER THE PRINTER!
ZING!
Riiiiip...
Oh, that's better, they must be getting ready to post the latest defense...
LDS says Jesus was a lessor god than Almighty God, that there are many other gods and leave open your doctrine about the capability for other humans to become gods themselves. I went to your recommended site and checked out your "answer" and it contradicts historical Christianity. Just like we have been told you do on these very threads!
Yep as usual it is all garbled and stupid. . . . .
It is very clear and if you take off your blinders you will see the truth (after pull out your hair and lose your mind...)
I am pretending to be a LDS apologist and trying to explain LDS Monopolytheism without going into a coma from rapid IQ drop...
I detect a scared little man...
CAlling pananax!!!
Who REALLY carved that statue???
He he he he he
WHAT!, they've gone over to using the New World Translation - oh the humanity.
“I detect a “misguided obsession”.
“I detect a scared little man...
I detect someone with nothing but subjective feelings about a cult with no facts, evidence or logical argument to support it’s wild claims of truth.
It is an empty hole religion that people get feelings about. They know the hole is not empty because they have feelings that it is full. They know their feelings are true because they have feelings to verify their feelings...
Seekers of truth,
HI!
I am pleased to offer my services for the Betterment of Mankind.
Please feel free to ask me ANYTHING and I'll sincerely post my link list again.
Remember...
I am normal too; and I am a MORMON!
Sincerely, PD
LOL
[I think PD frowns upon Consumer Reports' descriptions of some of those brands that are yellow and shaped like a certain fruit]
Hey, I'm beginning to actually see how PD is quite representative of the Mormon god.
How so? Well, P-M, you & many others invite PD to chat. What do we usually get? Spam.
Well, what's this thread about, in part? It mentions that during the 20th century, the Mormon god only sent down one revelation worthy of canonizing as "Scripture."
Only 1 in 100 years!!!
Doesn't sound like a very chummy, chatty god to me!!!
In fact, the Mormon god speaks so infrequently, that it took the Mormon church almost 60 years to actually decipher it as an actual "revelation!"
Hmmm...what was that final "giveaway" that it came from the Mormon god?
Well, Detective Clouseau of the Pink Kitty Cat series [GF can supply graphics] came to the aid of the Mormon Theological Department.
Detective Clouseau told Spencer W. Kimball that Smith's vision of the dead matched what is "central to the theology of the Latter day Saints" -- (well, at least that phrase is how Lds author Richard E. Bennett framed it in an article on the BYU Religious Studies Web site)...
...therefore, it must be a...
...gen-u-ine
cano-nine-z'd
drip di-rect from Ko-blob!
Here, allow me to quote Bennett in context: Considered an indispensable contribution to...performances of proxy ordinances for the dead, including baptism for the dead and confirmation, and of the relationship between the living and the dead, it has been heralded as “central to the theology of the Latter-day Saints because it confirms and expands upon earlier prophetic insights concerning work of the dead.”
Hmm...one sentence...and Bennett mentioned "the dead" four times!!! (Can you say, "Obsessed" w/the dead?...and he's quite representative of this religion re: focusing on the dead as much as PD is quite representative of this religion spamming us to death!)
And, as pointed out, Bennett stressed that this "vision of the dead" is "central to the theology of the Latter-day Saints..."
Source: “And I Saw the Hosts of the Dead, Both Small and Great"
How does “word was a god” even make sense in the context of the thing?
Sheesh...
bttt
They are trying to rely upon the flawed translation methodolgy of JWs to avoid the clear translation here, as well as in many other locations in the NT. A lame attempt to superimpose theology upon scripture.
**They are trying to rely upon the flawed translation methodolgy of JWs to avoid the clear translation here, as well as in many other locations in the NT. A lame attempt to superimpose theology upon scripture.**
Hence, the proper word they should be using, concerning their ‘church’, is not ‘restored’, but ‘reinvented’.
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.