Posted on 12/27/2013 8:33:08 PM PST by Colofornian
...For eight years, I had been a professor at Brigham Young University...
I looked down on Christians...They had part of the gospel, but I had the fullness of it. I kept the laws and ordinances of Mormonism.
Three weeks before the end of his two-year mission, Micah called to tell us he was being sent home early—a horrific disgrace in Mormon culture. He had been reading the New Testament. There he encountered a different Jesus than the one I was taught about in Mormonism—a God of grace, not of works, so that no one can boast...
To a roomful of missionaries at his parting testimony, Micah had professed faith in Jesus alone and not the Mormon Church. He told them he had found a deep and genuine faith—one that didn't include Mormonism. It did not go over well. Church leaders told us that Micah had the spirit of the Devil in him, sent him home, and subsequently, back in Utah, invited us to bring him before the high council...
Micah pleaded, "Mom and Dad, please read the New Testament." We commenced. As I read, I became increasingly consumed by reading about the God of grace. I barely ate or slept. It's all I wanted to do.
...In John's gospel, I read, "These are the very scriptures that testify of me yet you refuse to come to me to have life." Salvation did not require the Mormon Church, only Jesus...
...on a chilly October evening in 2006, Michael and I settled in with Katie in our basement to watch the movie Luther. My heart pounded as I learned of the reformer's struggle against the Catholic Church. I seemed to be facing a similar struggle: Did I believe the Mormon system of obedience to laws and ordinances would secure my forgiveness?
(Excerpt) Read more at christianitytoday.com ...
"I've never killed anyone who didn't need it."
"I studied to make this man's [Brigham Young] will my pleasure for thirty years.
See, now, what I have come to this day!
"I have been sacrificed in a cowardly, dastardly manner." (Lee enunciated this sentence with marked emphasis.)
Excerpted from --> http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mountainmeadows/leeexecution.html
Aren't ALL of them?
just, wow!
Hmmm...
Google® can't find this exact quote.
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22hold+onto+the+traditions+we+have+passed+on+to+you%2C+either+by+word+or+by+letter.%22+&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-ContextMenu&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7ADRA_enUS475
So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
KJV and others say TRADITION, others say DOCTRINE.
It's not a real good proof verse for holding onto your unique RCC 'traditions'.
I didn’t write the Bible. I’m just telling you what it says.
Heb 12:15
(15) Guard against ** turning back ** from the grace of God. Let no one become like a bitter plant that grows up and causes many troubles with its poison.
Heb 6:4-6
(4) For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
(5) And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
(6) **If they shall fall away**, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
My compliments on your well written posts. Sadly, if predictably, the responses of differences and disagreement fail to rise to the level of actual dialogue.
Pretty much how the RF has been for years and the major reason I cannot participate much.
Perhaps some are called to this ministry. Just not me. I lack the charity.
I concede the truth of this statement. I see now the progression your conversation is taking and will stand aside.
No. I'm simply correcting falsehoods. The arrogance I'm referring to is your continued intent to make this personal. That's against forum rules and annoying. I'll deal with the rest of your post later when I have more time. Thank you for taking time to write it.
Exactly! The Church is alive and has grown through inner conflict. The point of the post was that Doctrines of the Church don't conflict with Scripture. St Peter wasn't rebuked for preaching false doctrine, he was rebuked for his personal behavior of removing himself from among gentile Christians to keep among the Jewish Christians. All in the Church (including the Pope) go to confession because we are all still striving in this world. Showing that St Peter was weak is not a hard thing to do. Trying to show he didn't have a special place among his brothers is hard:
In nearly every place there is speaking to be done on behalf of the Apostles, Peter is the man to do it. When he ran with John to the tomb, John got there first but waited deferentially for Peter before entering. In fact, the Bible tells us more about Peter than almost any figure but Christ and Paul. He is a central figure... even among his fellow Apostles.
“legalistic “
Legalistic is a far cry from physical restraints, like what Scientology has done in the past, or honor killings, like what the Muslims do.
Can you name a single instance of the Mormons killing someone for leaving the Mormon church?
Very often what passes for "dialogue" hereabouts is: one guy serves the tennis ball, the other guy watches it indifferently as it sails over the net and bounces out of the court, then gets his own ball out of his pocket and serves back. Then eventually they whistle up their pals to play doubles (or triples), ending up with half a dozen balls sailing and bouncing: nice in its way, but it's no tennis match.
P.S. I like your writing. I may steal some...:o)
Assume for the sake of argument that the proper translation is "doctrine." In that case, St. Paul would be equating Oral Apostolic Teaching (what the Church calls "Oral Tradition") with Written Apostolic Teaching (what the Church calls "Written Tradition," i.e., Scripture).
Placemark
Your post #18 to Migraine:
"It is this Spirit which animated the Church to declare new DOCTRINE in Acts 15."
The "new doctrine" replaced existing doctrine -- with the existing doctrine being a false one: That the Gentiles couldn't be saved minus circumcision.
How do we know this was taught as teachings/doctrine -- and not simply exemplified by personal lifestyle -- as you now try to portray this?
'Tis simple, PG. You've cited Acts 15 5x on this thread (posts #18, twice on #195, twice on #205). Did you ever bother to read the beginning of Acts 15?
Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were TEACHING the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, YOU CANNOT BE SAVED." 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and DEBATE with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this QUESTION." (Acts 15:1-2)
ALL: PGYanke would have ALL of us believe that what led to the Acts 15 "moment" was Peter's "personal behavior" re: the Gentiles...and NOT Peter reinforcing others' teaching/preaching "false doctrine"
How do we know this isn't so from the "text" (Acts 15:1-2)?
(1) v. 2: Paul & Barnabus didn't "go up to Jerusalem" to debate further the "question" of Peter's lifestyle.
(2) At this point in the history of the church, personal lifestyles may have indeed been opposed face-to-face like Gal. 2, but they weren't subject to open public "debate" like what was happening in v. 2.
(3) And the "kicker" here is v. 1: Judean teachers were TEACHING believers. And 'twas a TEACHING that "you cannot be saved" minus circumcision.
Now Peter putting this false teaching "to bed" in Acts 15:6-11 wasn't simply a "personal testimony" that he had a change of heart over his "personal lifestyle."
When "The apostles and elders met to consider this question" (Acts 15:6), "the question" under discussion wasn't Peter's personal lifestyle preferences! The "question" was -- what Peter summed up in v. 10: "putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke" of whether they could be saved without circumcision!
This wasn't a mere "fellowship" issue growing out of a personal lifestyle preference issue that PGYanke tries to make it out to be! This was a doctrinal conflict thru & thru!!!
So what? Aaron was the key speaker in Moses' time. Yet who was Aaron in comparison with Moses or with THE Mt. Sinai Burning Bush Himself?
That Theophany was "The I AM" (Ex. 3:14) -- whom Jesus claimed to be (John 8:58-59)
Last time I looked, Jesus Christ is the Ever-Present Living Head of the Church (Eph. 1:22; 4:15; 5:23; Col. 1:18; 2:10,19) -- and Jesus PROMISED He "would be with" us always -- even unto the end of the age! (Matthew 28:20)
Yes, Rosmos Anderson...as confessed by John D. Lee...Lee being the ONLY MAN to stand trial in the Mountain Meadows Massacre in which 120 others died...including one other Lds apostate who had joined up with the wagon train to leave Utah.
"Lee stated in his memoirs that he had heard of only one person who had properly received death by blood atonement - by willingly atoning for the crime: Rosmos Anderson was a Danish man who had come to Utah...He had married a widow lady...and she had a daughter that was fully grown at the time of the reformation... At one of the meetings during the reformation Anderson and his step-daughter confessed that they had committed adultery, believing when they did so that Brigham Young would allow them to marry when he learned the facts. Their confession being full, they were rebaptized and received into full membership. They were then placed under covenant that if they again committed adultery, Anderson should suffer death. Soon after this a charge was laid against Anderson before the Council, accusing him of adultery with his step-daughter...the Council voted that Anderson must die for violating his covenants. Klingensmith went to Anderson and notified him that the orders were that he must die by having his throat cut, so that the running of his blood would atone for his sins. Anderson, being a firm believer in the doctrines and teachings of the Mormon Church, made no objections, but asked for half a day to prepare for death. His request was granted. His wife was ordered to prepare a suit of clean clothing, in which to have her husband buried, and was informed that he was to be killed for his sins, she being directed to tell those who should enquire after her husband that he had gone to California. Klingensmith, James Haslem, Daniel McFarland and John M. Higbee dug a grave in the field near Cedar City, and that night, about 12 o'clock, went to Anderson's house and ordered him to make ready to obey the Council. Anderson got up, dressed himself, bid his family good-bye, and without a word of remonstrance accompanied those that he believed were carrying out the will of the "Almighty God." They went to the place where the grave was prepared; Anderson knelt upon the side of the grave and prayed. Klingensmith and his company then cut Anderson's throat from ear to ear and held him so that his blood ran into the grave. As soon as he was dead they dressed him in his clean clothes, threw him into the grave and buried him. They then carried his bloody clothing back to his family, and gave them to his wife to wash, when she was again instructed to say that her husband was in California .... The killing of Anderson was then considered a religious duty and a just act.
For original source documentation, see: Confessions of John D. Lee, photomechanical reprint of the original 1877 edition, pages 282-284 [btw, FREEPER Colorcountry is a descendent of John D. Lee]
Secondary source of above: Blood atonement
That secondary source lists other murders, and ex-BYU history prof D. Michael Quinn has listed others.
“Exactly. Being a Mormon isn’t like being a Muslim whereby they stone such people to death. There are no honor killings in Mormon. Love ‘em or hate ‘em but being Mormon is a free choice.”
Yea, no death, just social condemnation... And of course not being able to watch family get married, unless they escape too...
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.