Posted on 04/06/2008 5:27:22 AM PDT by SkyPilot
Amen!
[WOW! I have a 7 year old that has just learned how to cut and paste. How many years did it take you? It took her about 30 seconds.]
Pretty amusing that you would post that to Godzilla. Considering you posted the same propaganda blurb to myself and others a total of 18 times that I count.
Even more amusing is that the propaganda blurb from the Apostle still doesn’t hide the fact that the FLDS trace their roots directly back to core doctrine of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, the original templates for abusive polygamy. But that’s ok, deny away, it’s pretty transparent to everyone.
No, I imagine you don't. However, you definately get lies and deception, and I would venture to guess you probably have no clue about the facts surrounding your spiritual misleader, Joseph Smith.
Is your definition of hatred someone who points out obvious deception?
Is Jesus God?
They claim to be the only ones who can properly translate the Bible, all others are mis-translated.
Yes. The Mormons are about the only who believed that you needed a "translator" to translate King James English into King James English (Joseph Smith's JST version...even though he hardly knew any Greek or Hebrew!).
When God made a new special covenant with Abram in Gen 17, "Abram" became Abraham. (Sarai became Sarah). Same is true with Jacob, who became Israel. Same is true with Saul, who became Paul. Same is true for Simon, who became Peter the Rock. Over & over again, God would "convert" so to speak a man into a man of God, and would "covenant" with that man.
Besides, if this was pre covenant, then why had Abraham (if you are correct, a non believer non covenant person) Promised posterity by the lord (Gen 12), Praying to God at an alter he built, and Promised Children (Gen 13), Paying tithes (Gen 14), Promised offspring (Gen 15)...
It was pre-the Gen. 17 covenant...why is that so hard to understand (you can read God's use of the word "covenant" in Gen. 17:2). Three of your references above are God's promises, not Abram's hardy "good works!" Beyond that, you're talking about tithing & praying done by Abram. Now I'm not dissing Abram for doing that, but are you seriously telling me that the millions of religionists who publicly prayed once & tithed are automatically highly "righteous" folks just because of those 2 things? Do you know how many qualify under that? (Bring home your LDS missionaries then). See, how illogical your logic is? Abram does something millions of average members do, publicly pray & tithe & you're jumping cartwheels over his "earned righteousness."
Certainly, Biblical pre-covenant men often are trying to "do right" by God (even Saul-Paul's persecution of Christians was zealously done in God's name). Still these were not yet "transformed" men. I suggest you take another look at Gen. 17:1-2...
Verse 1: God was tired of Abram being "blame-able" & God wanted a "blameless" patriarch. So he told Abram, "I am Almighty God; walk before me and be blameless." (Gen. 17:1) This was AFTER the Hagar sleepover of Gen. 16. Now why would God particularly emphasize blamelessness at this juncture in Abram's life? Why? Because Abram had been relying upon other means of reproductive multiplication--other means than God's promise!
Read Gen. 17:2, where GOD promises to be the Multiplier--not Hagar. Hagar, as Paul says in Gal. 4, is representative of man's slave-ridden way of trying to accomplish God's promise. (It's almost, DU, like you've intentionally stayed away from reading Gal. 4:21-31 because you're concerned how pathetic Paul presents Hagar).
Beyond that, you keep getting it wrong. You keep thinking you've got God in your pocket, & that if you do righteous things, He is obligated to bless you. (Almost like pushing a button that forces God to do something beneficiary for you...you might as well have a robot god...I mean, just look at your wording! First you think that Abram's public prayer & tithing automatically qualified him as a patriarch & promise recipient! Then you say God blessed Abraham for his righteousness because he would be righteous in the future... (The reality God blessed Abram so that Abraham would be righteous in the future...a big difference where God receives all the honor & glory instead of man being a self-centered glory hog!!!)
...and the adultery was OK because Moses hadn't written the ten commandments yet? (IE according to you, God is changing the rules) Man, I wish I had lived before there were commandments, it would be easy to be righteous!
OK? No! But certainly you know the Scriptural passages where teachers will be judged more severely than non-teachers. The same is true for those who have been given greater light about God's truth. (America, for example, would have no excuses w/ umpteen million Bibles available vs. a citizen of a people who had little of God's word translated into his language)
I mean, your dad held you MORE accountable the older & more mature you got, right? The Bible over & over mentions the difference between "once you were NOT a people of God" & "now you are a people of God" ... likewise, I believe because of His great forgiveness that the sins you make prior to entering into a personal covenant with him are washed away in his blood, as is those afterward--as long as you're not guilty of what Hebrews 6 says about intentional sins.
But even minus the 10 commandments, God didn't as you say "change the rules"...men were accountable even minus knowledge of the law: For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness... (Romans 2:14-15) Paul has already written in Romans 1:20-21 that folks are "without excuse" because even natural revelation reveals God. He adds in Romans 2 that these same folks also have the benefit of a God-given conscience--a "law written in their hearts." Certainly, the Genesis folks had both even minus the 10 commandments.
OK, so now you are saying it's polygamy wasn't a sin yet because God hadn't gotten around to banning it, so Abraham was still righteous? This makes no sense to me
Let's say you're a landowner with boundary issues of trespassers who are establishing permanent pathways you don't want on your land. You know that these trespassers should generally know what's your property even though nothing is marked. You're are more likely to "prosecute" a trespasser if you have a SPECIFIC sign that says "No trespassing" with boundaries clearly marked. That's what the 10 commandments did. It wiped away all "excuses" for moral trespassing in the areas it covered. Your new signs as a landowner doesn't mean the trespassing is new if you suddenly started prosecuting for it. It just means those trespasses are more clearly identified, and the reader of the sign is without excuse.
That's a pretty neat escape you are trying to execute there, except God does not say that people are righteous when they convert, that takes a little time.
You are off-base. I know a lot of Mormons & Christians read Matthew 5:48 (about BEING holy) and they think in their minds, "Oh, I'll BECOME holy one day." But Jesus doesn't say, "Become holy (in the future)." He says, "BE holy." So that's the dilemma! How do folks become holy & righteous immediately?
Paul has the answer: But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: (1 Cor. 1:30) The original Greek is quite clear...By being "in Christ Jesus who...is" our "righteousness and sanctification." Since no sinful human flesh can enter into God's presence, only a substitutionary righteousness is what He accepts.
God seems to care far more about the Permanency and quality of the relationships in families than the number of female partners.
And it's exactly because of the poor quality that polygamy leaves within families that God cares. Look at Gen. 16. Sarai mistreated Hagar after Hagar slept with Abram. Look at Gen. 30: a 4-woman baby competition is fueled right off the bat by jealousy, doubling the problem (2 bedpartners doubled). In 19th century Mormonism, one first wife was so upset about her husband bringing another wife home, she crawled out onto the roof & froze to death in the winter night.
"I had read about it [polygamy], of course...but I never dreamed that Papa had another wife. It broke my heart...I'll never forget it."--Hortense Young Hammond, March 15, 1980 interview of Hammond by Leonard R. Grover, as cited by Hardy, A Solemn Covenant, p. 339. Brigham Young in 1860 described how hearing sorrowful stories linked to polygamy was like "drinking a cup of wormword." (JoD, vol. 8, pp. 62-63). Hardy cited Joseph Lee Robinson who said that polygamy was something that would nearly tear "their heart strings out." (Hardy, p. 17)
...and neither you or I know the relationship to elected senators [re: why the LDS church finally got around to ex-communicating two polygamous apostles].
Sure, historians do. (It's called reading Smoot's communications). Read B.Carmon Hardy's book, A Solemn Covenant, chapter 7: "The Leaders Divide: Roberts and Smoot, Taylor and Cowley."
Why would you want to be less than God created you to be? [invite to become a god, eh?]
The Bible never talks about "believing in ourselves." Faith is about believing in God. It's transferring our trust from ourselves to Him. Paul says it's believing in what is unseen. You? You're see-able. (That's not faith; that's looking in a mirror!). If you or I were truly gods-in-embryos, all we would need to do is to trust in our alleged divinity...after all, we're already gods, you say. We would believe in ourselves. But once we do that, we're already "confessing" that we actually are practicing polytheists. Once we "bite" on the Serpant hook that we're gods (Gen. 3:5), we add yet another god (ourselves!) onto our god pile. That, my friend, is polytheism! (pretty sad when Mormons say they are gods or gods-in-embryo in the same breath that they claim NOT to be polytheists)
God's Word settles it: Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any. (Isaiah 44:8) [I would suggest that every day for the next 30 days, that you ask God for wisdom on this passage, and pray about it with a sincere heart. Pray, "C says that you, Heavenly Father has no god beside you...and in fact that you know of no other god. And that if YOU know of no other god, that settles it! That we can take you at your word. That contradicts what I've been taught. Please reveal unto me that you are the lone-God-who-has-no-god-beside-You; the lone-God-who-knows-of-no-other-god; that you alone are the Ultimate God; and that no gods were formed before you or after you--Isaiah 43:10."]
Of course I seek Exaltation, God has commanded me to. No God has commanded that we seek to Exalt Him, and Him alone.
You know, even Joseph Smith got some things right along these lines up through early 1832 before he changed "gospel doctrines" left & right. "Exaltation" is all about "glory" but the Bible & even several D&C passages are clear that it belongs to God alone: Joseph Smith repeatedly talked in his early years about having an "eye single to the glory of God" (see D&C 55:1; 59:1; 82:19). Smith added in D&C 76:61 to "let no man glory in man, but rather let him glory in God." He further said in describing Jesus Christ -- "to him be ALL glory, both now AND FOREVER." (D&C 20:4). ALL eternal glory belongs to him. I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another... (Isaiah 42:8)
no, if anyone is to become a God, all their imperfections will be swallowed up in Jesus' atonement, they will be perfect from then on and they will become Co-inheritor with Christ.
This is NOWHERE in the Book of Mormon, the supposed "fullness of the everlasting gospel." If this was the heart of the Mormon gospel, it would be there. It's not. You can't squeeze grape juice from raisins; it's a rather "dry" source. Whatever "gods" people are in Scripture, they are "unjust" ones (Psalm 82). Other than that, no divinity is promised; an inheritance doesn't mean you turn into your father; you simply share what He owns & what He's willing to impart. No promise of godhood exists.
Me: Pray tell, then, Delf. Please show us all the Old Testament Hebrew word for “polygamy.” (What verses is it in?) Surely you can go to any KJV index and tell me where to find the word “polygamy.” Surely you can go to Joseph Smith’s perfect JST version of the Bible and tell me where Smith “translated” the English word, “polygamy.” (Go ahead, we’re all anxious to see those verses that mentions “polygamy” or “polygamous”…Come on, Delf, as you know “words mean things,” so if adultery and polygamy didn’t mean the same thing, why we’d see that “polygamy” has it’s set-apart word, wouldn’t we?).
You: the word is Wife. as in second wife, third wife...
You are funny, Delf. You preach that the Trinity doesn't exist because the word "trinity" isn't in the Bible; but you preach that polygamy exists even though the word also is not in the Bible. (I would guess you need to re-think one or the other to be consistent). But, since you can claim that "wife" and the number of them defines polygamy, then I would say that divine person--the Father, the Divine ONE; the Son, the Divine ONE; Holy Ghost, the DIVINE ONE all defines God the Trinity. If YOU can say that the Biblical word for "polygamy" is WIFE (singular), then that's also a very good argument that the Biblical word for "Trinity" is GOD (also singular). As you say then, "Wife as in second wife, third wife"..."Trinity, as in the Second Person of the One God, third Person of the One God..."
If you have a one car garage it is called a garage, if you have a two car garage it is still called by the same name, not Garages, polyparking.
Ah, good, Delf. You finally are getting a bit of a handle on the true concept of the Trinity! If you have a "Father" God (like garage), He is called God; if you have a two-Person God, He is still called by the same name, not gods, polytheists, etc.
If you can defend polygamy using the same arguments Christians make for the Trinity, you are before God forever without excuse. You can no longer claim that Mormon teachers deceived you. For God has given you a personal revelation-explanation that you thought was merely an apologetical answer for me; but Delf He loved you so much He gave you a personal-revelation-explanation for you to better understand His compound unity as His nature.
You don't see polygamy in the Bible, but you do see the word Trinity, there may be no help for you.
You don't see the Word Trinity in the Bible, but you do see the word polygamy, there may be no help for you, Delf.
... then there is also Concubines...concubine is the answer...
Sorry. FAIRLDS elevates George Q. Cannon's character to this very day on the subject of polygamy. What did Cannon say about concubinage in 1894? "My son David died without seed and his brothers cannot do a work for him in rearing children to bear his name because of the Manifesto. I believe in concubinage, or some plan whereby men and women can live together under sacred ordinances and vows UNTIL THEY CAN BE MARRIED." (Source: Abraham H. Cannon diaries, April 5, 1894, as noted by B. Carmon Hardy, A Solemn Covenant, p. 214).
Cannon said that "concubinage," then, in effect, was some sort of a temporary non-sacred ordinance & vow adhered to PRIOR to marriage. (If you're not married, there's no "wifey"). You don't think you know more about this than a top LDS leader from 100 years ago, do you?
A prophets who are at that moment polygamous are specifically called righteous by God
Have you been listening Reading? the Bible approves of polygamy in several ways. A prophets who are at that moment polygamous are specifically called righteous by God. No one in the bible is ever reproved for polygamy...
"No one?" Is Solomon a "no one?" Those taking on "many wives" are told it will lead their heart astray. That is clearly communicated in Deut. 17:17 & Lev. 18:18. In fact, Solomon, with 700 wives & 300 concubines, then becomes the "poster boy" for failing to heed that proscription. 1 Kings 11:3-4 mentions that this is exactly what happened to him...uses the EXACT same words...Solomon's heart was led astray. God judges him for this, and then takes away part of his kingdom (1 Kings 11:9-11). Sure, Solomon was as wise as they come...up until he did this. (We've all seen gifted men of God who don't finish strong)
And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart. For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father....And the LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the LORD God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice, And had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods: but he kept not that which the LORD commanded. Wherefore the LORD said unto Solomon, Forasmuch as this is done of thee, and thou hast not kept my covenant and my statutes, which I have commanded thee, I will surely rend the kingdom from thee, and will give it to thy servant. (1 Kings 11:3-4, 9-11)
Moses tried to save fellow Hebrew who was being beaten, he did not set out to murder the Egyptian, the Egyptian tried to kill him for stopping the beating, then in the fight, the Egyptian died.
Well, thank you, Delf. You finally concede I am right. Nobody ever said, me included, that Moses was "guilty" of Murder 1 (pre-meditated murder). He was simply guilty of "manslaughter," which you aptly described above. (Now do you want to explain how it is that God disciplined David for his guilt of manslaughter of Uriah--I mean that was even more "pre-meditated" than Moses...but because he didn't directly do it, David might have gotten off less than Murder 1...so there you have it...2 men God used...despite their less-than-righteous behavior of manslaughter. Are you sure your Mormon "prophets" had it right in saying that murder was an "unforgiveable sin?"
DU, you cited 2 Sam. 12:8, right? Here's the passage you quoted: And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
What does Nathan say that God would have given unto David? Well, you have four choices: (a) Master's house; (b) Master's wives; (c) the House of Israel & Judah; (d) all of the above. You apparently believe the reference is ONLY to (b)--with absolutely NO EXPLANATION as to why you've censored A, C, or D as part of your interpretation. Nathan closes out v. 8 by concluding that this offer of what would be given was something as he defined as "such THINGS." DU, is a "wife" a "thing?" If you are married, or plan on getting married, are you going to tell her, "You know? I believe the Bible calls you a 'thing.' See, it's RIGHT here in 2 Sam. 12:8. Don't you feel honored?"
No, DU, the plural "such things" is (a) Master's House (Yes, indeed, a "house" is a "thing."; And certainly, (c) House of Israel + the House of Judah should also be included because the verse says "things" plural. Houses & Kingdoms are "things"; wives are not! [You're (future?) wife will be glad I gave you this little lesson in ensuring you don't treat her as an "object thingey")
Fine, you would prefer Gross sin for which he was damned by Nathan in 2 Samuel?
David suffered by the loss of a child for his adultery & murder. He wasn't "damned." The Bible speaks well of David in the books of Acts, for example. A repentant, forgiven David recovered. ...if you want to be able to say that polygamy is immoral because it's un-biblical, you should be able to back that up with something that's actually, clearly in the Bible, and it's just not there.
First of all, polygamy as an institution IS unbiblical because God never says, "I approve of polygamy" in the Bible. (In fact, he leaves out the very word "polygamy" in the Bible). Secondly, I never said that multiple-partners ISN't in the Bible...but all kinds of sexual sins are "Biblical" in that they are mentioned ....adultery, rape, etc.
You keep making the false assumption that just because it's mentioned in the Bible, and that God didn't soundly & specifically condemn that specific person engaging in that practice, that it's A-OK. By that logic, you must think that God sanctions men taking practicing prostitutes as wives who continue to practice that trade during the marriage:
The beginning of the word of the LORD by Hosea. And the LORD said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for the land hath committed great whoredom, departing from the LORD. So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim; which conceived, and bare him a son. (Hosea 1:2-3)
Wasn't Hosea a "righteous" man? Why would God bless a man who intentionally took a whore as his wife while she continued her whoredom? (see Hos. 3:1, where her own husband had to buy her back off of the whore market)
Polygamy when practiced legally means not in the USA right now), by consenting adults, who are not being lascivious, is moral in God's view.
(I'd like to call attention to the "witness'" statement that DU implies that polygamy is not only a moral practice in the past USA history, but in the future USA history...this seems to confirm the standard LDS understanding, as proclaimed by LDS apostle Bruce R. McConkie in his book Mormon Doctrine (pp. 577-579), that polygamy will return to the LDS Church before Jesus comes...so, please note, folks, that one of the reasons LDS can seemingly never distance themselves or divorce themselves from polygamy is not only because the LDS leaders in 1891 said that polygamy was merely "suspended" (all pro athletes when they get "suspended" return), but that Jesus would be bringing it back to the Mormons. So DU is saying, in effect, that were it not for this little "legal" hang-up, polygamy would be a moral open door for Mormons. (Ya hear that you high number of single LDS gals who can't find a suitable husband?...DU implies there is one...he's just already married...you may just want to emulate the 1890s & 1900 Mormons who shipped themselves out to another land wrongheadedly thinking polygamy was "legal" in Canada & Mexico when it was definitively ILLEGAL).
So you are saying works have no effect on righteousness that it's created with us or not and that we have no choice? Are you a Calvinist?
Isaiah says our works are like filthy rags. But that doesn't mean our works have no effect on righteousness. Just the opposite. But you somehow think that once-born men (your words, "created with us") can readily accomplish such righteousness. I say it was quite rare in the Old Testament era, and few achieved it in any kind of demonstrable way. Therefore, the righteousness accomplished by those in Christ is His righteousness being exercised thru us. Certainly God exercises righteousness; and as He works through us, we do, too. In our unity with him, the collective righteous works is like the white robe his saints will wear in heaven (Rev. 19:8). And, no, I'm not a Calvinist.
I will never confess that man has no choice for God commands us to choose all the time, and God will not command men to that which they cannot do.
If your dog is chained up, oh, sure, he can choose to eat or not to eat; to sleep or not to sleep; to bark or not to bark. But if you want to really define that as "freedom" and "choice," then you don't know what real freedom & choice is. As for God commanding them to do something they cannot do, He does it all the time, if you understand that you didn't really complete that sentence properly. For God commands people to do something they cannot do (on their own). There, I properly finished that sentence.
I know of men who have told their sons to do something, knowing full well their sons were way too young to do it. But once those sons asked their father's assistance & empowerment, it was accomplished. If you want examples of God asking us to do things beyond us, there are plenty...moving mountains...doing greater works than Jesus (John 14:12)...loving others as Jesus has loved (John 13:34)...DU, are you really going to tell us that you've Jesus-loved somebody? (If you haven't you are not "perfect").
So, does a man produce fruit but once? (no) The first fruit is simple, but when actions (work) reinforce faith, the next action (work) is greater than the first, because the faith has grown also. Works and faith can form a positive feed back loop that leads one upwards to God.
The "loop" of faith is not an inward "thing." Faith always has an object beyond us. The Bible especially likes to focus on a faith in a promise...We didn't give the promise. We weren't responsible for it. We can't take the glory for believing it. It's beyond us. If it leads us to actions & works, well then it was the promise that beckoned us. And the Promiser gets the glory, not us.
DU - Besides, if this was pre covenant, then why had Abraham (if you are correct, a non believer non covenant person) Promised posterity by the lord (Gen 12), Praying to God at an alter he built, and Promised Children (Gen 13), Paying tithes (Gen 14), Promised offspring (Gen 15)...
It was pre-the Gen. 17 covenant...why is that so hard to understand (you can read God's use of the word "covenant" in Gen. 17:2). Three of your references above are God's promises, not Abram's hardy "good works!"
Paul makes this very clear in Romans:
Romans 4:1 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? 2 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about–but not before God. 3 What does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
So you are saying works have no effect on righteousness that it's created with us or not and that we have no choice? Are you a Calvinist?
Paul adds more to C’s statement
Romans 3: 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. 21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished– 26 he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
27Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.
New post up on the polygamy discussion:
Yes, interesting article.
WOW. That is an outstanding quote. So very true and thoughtful and just nails the perversion with those who practice this sinful behavior. Thanks for posting this greyfoxx!
BTTT
|
Oh, and Elsie, this is directed to you and your ceaseless question about why Joseph Smith singled out Presbyterianism at the age of 14 after the First Vision. His Mother, and 3 of his siblings had joined the Presbyterian Church, others of his family had joined the Methodists. He was talking to his mother, who was a member of that denomination. Here is the reference. |
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/1/19#19
17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!
18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.
19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”
20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, mother inquired what the matter was. I replied, “Never mind, all is well—I am well enough off.” I then said to my mother, “I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true."
16 But, exerting all my powers to acall upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into bdespair and abandon myself to destruction—not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power as I had never before felt in any being—just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of clight exactly over my head, above the brightness of the dsun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself adelivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I bsaw two cPersonages, whose brightness and dglory defy all description, estanding above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My fBeloved gSon. Hear Him!18 My object in going to ainquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.
Watch it you guys!
A THREE DAY 'timeout' may be in YOUR future!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8I4zFSipKs
Nothing personal; but do you have any information from LDS headquarters that can explain just what Joseph Smith found UNTRUE about PRESBYTERIANISM?
Hey... just what does she LOOK like?
--FundyMormonDude(it was a GIRL; right??)
Well; what can you expect from a member of a LARGE group that will not even follow what their OWN Scriptures tell them?
BOO HOO!
The gummint might...
...at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people......and many men would be made prisoners.
At least OUR group is NOT afraid of the governmental boogeyman!!!
--FundyMormonDude(come and get me; Copper!)
Welcome back, Elsie!
(... and Resty...)
Welcome FMD, looking forward to your comments on the polygamy practices...or do they NEED practice? (See, LC, I beat you to it!)
ELSIE,
YOU ARE BACK !!!
Did you know ??????
O happy day
:)
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.