| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 03/03/2008 9:42:54 AM PST by Religion Moderator, reason:
Childish behavior |
Posted on 02/22/2008 9:11:12 AM PST by Zakeet
They're called the "Lost Boys," the teenagers kicked out of their homes and communities by leaders of the polygamist Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to ensure there's an ample supply of single, young women who will one day become plural wives. Representative Lorie Fowlke (R-Orem), is running a bill to make this abandonment a felony.
"Estimates are that we've had more than 1,000 children - primarily in southern Utah - thrown out of their homes," Fowlke says. "What we were trying to do with this bill is criminalize this behavior and send a message to this community that they can't just throw away their children."
H.B. 23 adds child abandonment to the definition of child abuse, and makes it a felony crime. It also adds an enhancement if a parent or organization benefits from the child's abandonment to further an illegal enterprise, such as polygamy. This is the case with the FLDS church, says Roger Hoole, a lawyer who represents some of the displaced young men and sits on the board for the Utah Association for Justice. He says the church benefits from kicking out young men who would compete for plural wives. This, he says, has devastating consequences.
"There's a huge impact that's coming, like a tsunami, that's going to hit the state of Utah, when these boys get a little older and realize what has happened to them and get angry," Hoole says. "There's a real problem here."
Fowlke's bill gained unanimous support in a Senate committee this morning, and now heads to the full Senate for consideration.
I think your post was instructive, especially the last line, which stated,
“We should let the Bible determine what our belief is, and not let our ‘belief’ determine for us what the Bible says.”
Sounds great in theory, but as one can see, in practice it is not quite that easy...which explains, of course, why there are so many different Christian religions, with wide differences of belief between them, and supposedly all those beliefs based on Biblical understanding...people have been arguing and fighting for ages, on points of belief, and have come to absolutely no resolution, and I dont expect they ever will...in many cases, only one belief can be true, and yet the arguments continue...
For example, Catholics believe that Mary, remained a virgin, even after the birth of Christ...many other non-Catholic Christian churches, believe that after the birth of Christ, Mary resumed a normal sexual relationship with her husband Joseph and went on to have other children...these two views, extremely different from each other, and directly opposed to one another, are supposedly based on Biblical understanding, taking from Biblical scriptures...yet, they both cannot be true....Mary either remained a virgin after the birth of Christ or she did not...she either had other children or she did not...there are no nuances here, yet you have various Christian churches opposed to each other on this particular subject, and all is supposedly based on the understanding of Biblical scriptures...so it would seem, that your advice is easily given, but difficult to follow...
You have just used quotes from a movie I just loved, “OH , Brother, Where Art Thou”
Not quite sure how that related to anything, but thanks for bringing up that movie...
Thank you, for saying so...
And thanks for that as well...
“Yep, July 2006 would be about correct....I dont consider it a ‘long’ time from then till now, it is between a year and half, and two years, hardly what I would call a long time...it is just a difference of views I would guess...
No, Murray is not important to me, of no more importance than any other TV preacher...”
It is a different view, when I read your posts you seem quite passionate about him, and two years of closely following six hour sermons >”I have been watching Rev. Arnold Murray, late at night, viewing his chapter by chapter, verse by verse teachings,”< I am curious about the racial identity stuff, he sounds like a very questionable man to be promoting on FR, but I’ll try to look into him some more, do you have a favorite link or two?
“I started watching Rev. Murray on Tv, several months ago, quite by accident, and I must say at first, I was quite shocked at some of the things he was saying, as they were so clearly in complete contradiction to what I had been taught in traditional mainstream religion...the more I listened to him, the more I followed along in his daily Bible readings, the more I began to believe, that altho Murrays beliefs are quite a bit different from most mainstream Christian religous beliefs, still that did not make him wrong...in fact, much of what he said, made more sense, that I had heard before, and it all comes from his own readings from the Scriptures...
Some have called Murray a racist, but I suspect that the few persons who told me that Murray is a racist, dont know anything about him, but rather get that characterization from anti-Murray websites...they should listen to Murray himself, and see what he says about the different races...”
That was an excellent example of what I have been talking about...what you referenced me to, the matter of the ‘rock’, was interesting...I knew about the Catholic perspective and the Protestant perspective, but did not know a thing about the Mormon perspective on this, so this post was informative...thanks...
Resty – I was speaking about the Joseph Smith Translation (aka Inspiried Version) of the KJV. You know, the source of those footnotes in the mormon KJV, owned and published by that other mormon church.
However, since you brought it up, lets discuss the age of the bom. This book and its author – JS – states that it documents the history of America some 2000 years ago or so. Normally one would have the manuscript this was alleged to be translated from – that is gone and unavailable for evaluation (to be looked at below). The bom does state that cities with millions and millions were spread from sea to sea across America. With the relatively recent age and the purportedly vast civilization that existed, there should be a wealth of archaeological findings. However, so non-existent is the archaeological support for the bom that the Smithsonian and National Geographic Societies have gone on record to state that the history said to be documented in the bom is not there. Consider these items:
1. No bom cities have been found
2. No horses and elephants in America during the bom times
3. No steel, armor, chariots, etc that were reported in abundance in the bom have been found.
4. No archaeological finding from the middle east / Israel have been found to support the bom, such as reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics, etc.
5. The story surrounding its translation are highly questioned.
Much more could be said and we could explore those other areas later. However, if you know where these cities and their artifacts have been found, I would be glad to review that evidence.
If Smith was a truly inspired translator, are there any other evidences that we could look at to see if God worked through him? Yes there are two other sources. The first is the Egyptian scroll Smith obtained and translated to produce the Book of Abraham. Once thought lost, it was rediscovered, returned to and accepted as authentic by the mormon leadership. Did Smith properly translate this document? Although facsimile 1 was mostly intact and all the characters Smith referenced in his handwritten manuscript were intact and the proper order, mormon scholars (as well as MANY others) deduced that the scroll was really a pagan prayer commonly known as the Book of Breathings who’s translation did not resemble in the least that which was written down by Smith.
The second evidence for Smith’s translation skills relate to brass plates found near Kinderhook IL. According to the History of the Church, Joseph Smith did accept these plates as authentic and even claimed that he had translated a portion of them:
Monday, May, 1.—. . . I insert fac-similes of the six brass plates found near Kinderhook, . . .
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, page 372)
On January 15, 1844, this statement appeared in the Mormon publication Times and Seasons:
Why does the circumstance of the plates recently found in a mound in Pike county, Ill., by Mr. Wiley, together with ethmology and a thousand other things, go to prove the Book of Mormon true?—Ans. Because it is true! (Times and Seasons, vol. 5, page 406)
Lost and refound, these plates were accepted as real by the mormon prophets, mormon John A. Wittorf tried to come to grips with what would happen if the Kinderhook plates were proven to be forgeries:
Accepting the find as genuine, Joseph had facsimile drawings of the plates made, presumably for future study. The brevity of his translation of "a portion of the plates" precludes the possibility that—if the plates are ultimately demonstrated to be fraudulent—his abilities as a translator of ancient scripts and languages can be called into question. (Newsletter and Proceedings of the Society for Early Historic Archaeology, BYU. Oct. 1970, p. 7)
It has been shown that the plates were a hoax, both by the hoaxers confession but by chemical analysis showing the brass to be from the 19th century.
Only a hoaxer would translate fake metal plates. Only a fraud would translate papyri containing a pagan prayer into a book thousands of words long – saying something very much not what the true translation said. Since Smith cannot be trusted with these translations how well do you think he did with the gold plates, if those plates ever existed at all? But wait! There is a third evidence we can look at. Although the original gold plates from which the Book of Mormon was supposed to have been translated were reported to have been taken away by an angel, Joseph Smith did make copies of some of the characters from the plates. According to the account given in the Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith claimed that Martin Harris
came to our place, got the characters which I had drawn off the plates, and started with them to the city of New York. . . . I refer to his own account of the circumstances, as he related them tome after his return, which was as follows:
I went to the city of New York, and presented the characters which had been translated, with the translation thereof, to Professor Charles Anthon, a gentleman celebrated for his literary attainments. Professor Anthon stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian. (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith, 2:63-64)
Although Book of Mormon witness David Whitmer preserved a paper which contained Book of Mormon characters, it did not match the description given by Professor Anthon in a letter dated Feb. 17, 1834:
This paper was in fact a singular scrawl. It consisted of all kinds of crooked characters . . . arranged in perpendicular columns, and the whole ended in a rude delineation of a circle divided into various compartments decked with various strange marks, . . . I . . . well remember that the paper contained any thing else but "Egyptian Hieroglyphics.". . . (Letter written by Charles Anthon, as published in Mormonism Unvailed, 1834, pages 271-72)
On May 3, 1980, the Church Section of the Mormon Church's newspaper, Deseret News, made the startling announcement that Mark William Hofmann had discovered the original document that Harris took to Professor Anthon. According to another newspaper report, Dr. Richard L. Anderson, of Brigham Young University, claimed that
"This new discovery is sort of a Dead Sea School [sic] Equivalent of the Book of Mormon,". . . (The Herald, Provo, Utah, May 1, 1980)
Acknowledged mormon expert Dr. Hugh Nibley was quoted in the same article as saying,
"This offers as good a test as we'll ever get as to the authenticity of the Book of Mormon,". . . (Ibid.)
Is this your ultimate proof for the bom? To settle the matter a photograph of the original document was sent to Klaus Baer, Professor of Egyptology at the University of Chicago's Oriental Institute. Dr. Baer replied:
What is it? Probably not Egyptian, even if here and there signs appear that could be interpreted as more or less awkwardly copied hieroglyphs or hieratic signs, . . . I suspect that one would have about the same batting average in comparing this with Chinese or Japanese or other systems that arrange signs in columns. (Letter dated May 10, 1980)
When the Mormon apologist Dr. Hugh Nibley was asked about the document just after its discovery, he proclaimed: "Of course it's translatable." (The Herald, Provo, Utah, May 1, 1980) However, it is now nearly 28 year later and no translation has been published. It appears that Mormon scholars have found it impossible to vindicate Joseph Smith's claims concerning the bom. With all this said, why should I believe the bom is authentic let alone 600 years old? These items were all accepted by the prophets of mormonism at that time – so where was the activity of the spirit of prophecy in all of this?
Moroni ….snip……
So I kneel over the wastepaper basket and did the prayer I truly wanted to know if the Book was true.
This doe not tell anyone what salvation is as defined by mormonism, this tells me how you became a mormon – see the difference.
The bom makes big claims, as does its author. Nowhere in the Bible are we to pray about a book to see if it is valid. We are to study the scriptures as the Bereans did to see if this new thing is real. One could apply the same to the Koran, or any other religious writing and get the same result you did, and would have similar subjective witness like you. Are subjective experiences the standard for belief, especially regarding a book that encourages you to pray about IT and not seek the scripture.
I can say an event in the bible is X- years old in most cases because of archaeological evidence and findings. The same cannot be said for the bom, therefore it is the peak of foolishness to pray to an document allegedly translated by a documented hoaxer. 2 Cor 11: 13-15 is very applicable here :
13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, fashioning themselves into apostles of Christ.
14 And no marvel; for even Satan fashioneth himself into an angel of light.
15 It is no great thing therefore if his ministers also fashion themselves as ministers of righteousness, whose end shall be according to their works.
Think about it, is this the highly questionable (at the very best) something I want to place my eternal security in?
>>”Modern medicines” do not treat ilness, they modify symptoms, leaving the disease in place to continue ravaging the patient, and enrich the pharmaceutical, and medical technology industries.
Proven remedies that do not cause harm to the patient, and restore body function, which in turn cures disease exist, and they are actively attacked by the mega-med industry, much to our detriment.<<
I appreciate your clarifying.
Would you agree that this view is tremendously out of step with the publicly expressed views of the vast majorities of doctors and scientists?
Would you also agree that the size of the conspiracy needed to pull this off would beyond anything previous, in scope since every doctor and every scientist would have to be “gotten to” as soon as they develop enough scientific or medical knowledge to see through it?
Jacob 2:23-24
"But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.
"Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord."
Seems God wasn't too happy about that were they. And then there is this:
"Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife, and one woman, but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again." (Doctrine and Covenants - 1835 edition, section 101, verse 4)
Looks like the revelation was against it then too. But being the prophet he was, Smith knew that he was going to prophecy D& C 132 in 1876, so he started right out and not only committed adultery with other men's wives but married others - all the while forbidden by the bom and 1835 D&C. Well, I guess if you are at the top of your food chain, you can do what ever you want in the name of gods.
Only a blind fool would agree with that nonsense. The will of big pharma is carried out by a handful of their revolving door pawns at the FDA, and those doctors that fail to comply are attacked with all the might of the FDA thugs. The case of Dr Stanislaw Bruzinsky is a perfect example, and the comments of the members of the jury after the trial are all any sane person needs to see to understand how our system has been corrupted.
This is not a matter of thread hijacking at all...it goes to the very basic point, that different people come to different understandings of what the Bible is saying while reading the very same Biblical scriptures......and I did not bring you into this discussion, that was someone else, who used my past posts to you on FR, and copied them here on this current thread...I had nothing to do with what the other poster did, in pinging you and bringing you into this thread...just keeping things straight...
Now, since you have agreed with me, that having certain diseases treated with modern medicines, and that having certain surgeries done are against the Bible, could you again provide your Biblical references to support your stand, not only me, for for others as well, to study, to see if we would agree with you...I know you gave me some Biblical references once before, but I dont seem to have them, and I am quite sure, that you have them readily available...then each person reading your particular Biblical references can make up their own mind, as to whether or not they agree that your Biblical references actually support what you are saying...
As for the rest of your post, I will just let it stand, without comment...those are your remarks, and beliefs, and others can take it or leave it...it is up to them...
>>You have just used quotes from a movie I just loved, “OH , Brother, Where Art Thou”
Not quite sure how that related to anything, but thanks for bringing up that movie...<<
That is a magnificent movie - I’ve just watched it again in Hi Def.
What I took from the message of the “unaffiliated” quote and theme was that the love of God continues even when we don’t participate in organized religion , even when we are cynical.
In the end, Everett (Ulysses) puts others before himself and looks to God and that is what is truly important so he is saved.
At least, that is my take on it.
>>Only a blind fool would agree with that nonsense. The will of big pharma is carried out by a handful of their revolving door pawns at the FDA, and those doctors that fail to comply are attacked with all the might of the FDA thugs. The case of Dr Stanislaw Bruzinsky is a perfect example, and the comments of the members of the jury after the trial are all any sane person needs to see to understand how our system has been corrupted.<<
I couldn’t find him in a Google search - any chance there is a different spelling?
I really do not like to hijack threads with controversial issues not related to the core issue of the thread.
If you wish to start another, and ping us there for discussion, go ahead.
To be fair to sevenbak, at the time he and DU hadbeen touting the example of David being given Saul’s ‘household’ as an example of God fostering polygamy thus it was not ‘adultery’ to take Sual’s wives from him an d give them to David because God can supercede His admonitions. I pointed out to them that Saul was dead when the ‘household’ was given to David (I failed at the time to show that it was more an issue of ‘for his protection’ rather than their destruction being allowed to happen), thus the thing was not adultery nr fostering polygamy. Sevenbak went back over the references and accepted that Saul was in fact dead when God gave Saul’s household over to David’s care.
Natural man is in a fallen state. Your statement, resty.
In your many posts accusing others of being “a natural man”, are you then accusing them of being in a “fallen state”? And by comparison, are you saying YOU are saved? Hmmmmm!
***
Those scriptures I gave pretty much describes the degrees of what I said.
Gal 5 (behavior of the natural man)
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Even when man is sarcastic or get mean towards another or try to spin another ones words that is the natural man state.
The Holy Spirit is unable to visit or dwell in a vessels like that.
1 Cor. 2: 14
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned
James 1: 23
23 For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass:
D&C 67: 12
12 Neither can any natural man abide the presence of God, neither after the carnal mind.
Mosiah 3: 19
19 For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.
Gal 5 (When we walk with the Lord)
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
24 And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
26 Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another
It would be good to read the Chapter for a proper context http://scriptures.lds.org/en/gal/5)
It is the atonement of Christ which when we apply allow the Lord to correct those flaws within us. we are counsel to be perfect.
1 Jn. 4:
12 No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.
• • •
17 Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.
18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
2 Cor. 13:
9 For we are glad, when we are weak, and ye are strong: and this also we wish, even your perfection.
• • •
11 Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you.
Eph. 4:
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
Heb. 7:
11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
• • •
19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.
Alma 11:
43 The spirit and the body shall be reunited again in its perfect form; both limb and joint shall be restored to its proper frame, even as we now are at this time; and we shall be brought to stand before God, knowing even as we know now, and have a bright recollection of all our guilt.
44 Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil.
When we allow our selves to be worked upon through the atonement of Christ then we are striving to bring our beings up to standards or on the road to perfection and only the Jesus atonement can edify that for us as counsel give in
Mosiah 3: 19 (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/mosiah/3)
19 For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/search?search=be+ye+perfect&do=Search
It would be an interesting study to show how God passing Saul’s household over to David’s care was biblically sound rather than fostering polygamy. Certainly we see that ‘acquisition’ of Bathsheba was condemned, and especially the murder of Uriah in order to try and cancel the adultery angle.
I heard a voice!
Well, then you would be quite in error, regarding my view...Murray is interesting, and I have a habit of trying to put myself into other peoples shoes, and trying to seek their perspective...and from certain peoples perspective, certain questions come about..., Like this one, that many people ask... ‘Where did Cain get his wife from’, is a frequently asked question...often it is answered by others, that Cain married his sister...the questioner than wonders about incest, only to be told, that ‘Oh, incest was not prohibited during that time’...now a lot of people are unwilling to accept that answer...
Murray provides an answer, that is more satisfying to many people...and his answer would be, that Cain married one of the offspring of the people that God created on the 6th day of creation, and since Cain was the product of Adam and Eve, created on the 8th day of creation, Cain simply married one of the offspring of the people created on the sixth day, and therefore, incest was not involved...now, I dont believe I ever said, I believed such a thing, what I said, was that for ‘some’ people this provided an answer that they are willing to believe and accept, and I can understand that, if I can try to imagine their perspective...
Now, for many people, this answer is more satisfying than being told that Cain married one of his sisters..from their perspective, it makes much more sense...
I have not said that I have believed what Murray teaches, I have said, that I can see, how from someone elses perspective, what he teaches may satisfy their questions, that they feel have not been sufficiently answered in the past, by mainstream Christian churches...
So again, I stresss, I view Murray as ‘interesting’, not important, except that in the overview of things, Murray and his teachings have had an impact on many people, some right here on FR, for they do believe in what he teaches about...so Murray and his teachings are as important to me, only as much any other religious teacher...I can find him interesting and different, that certainly does not mean I think he or his teachings are important to me...
If anything, how and what Murray teaches just underlines and stresses what I have been saying...that you can take a whole group of people, from various Christian religions, ask them to all read a certain passage, or verse, or chapter from the Bible, and they will all come up with different meanings, some different only slightly, but some different to a much greater degree...
Hence, what we see today, within the Christian community is quite understandable...so many religions, claiming to be Christian, and all claiming to have the one and only truth...but as we can clearly see, many of them have ‘truths’, which are completely opposite of what another Christian religion says is the ‘truth’...
2 Nephi 3:12 Wherefore, the fruit of thy loins write; and the fruit of thy loins of Judah shall write; and that which shall be written by the fruit of thy loins, and also that which shall be written by the fruit of thy loins of Judah, shall grow together,
2 Nephi 3:18 And the Lord said unto me also: I will raise up unto the fruit of thy loins; and I will make for him a spokesman. And I, behold, I will give unto him that he shall write the writing of the fruit of thy loins, unto the fruit of thy loins; and the spokesman of thy loins shall declare it.
Joseph Smith Translation Gen. 50: 27 Thus saith the Lord God of my fathers unto me, A choice seer will I raise up out of the fruit of thy loins, and he shall be esteemed highly among the fruit of thy loins; and unto him will I give commandment that he shall do a work for the fruit of thy loins, his brethren.
Joseph Smith Translation Gen. 50: 31 Wherefore the fruit of thy loins shall write, and the fruit of thy loins of Judah shall write; and that which shall be written by the fruit of thy loins, and also that which shall be written by the fruit of thy loins of Judah, shall grow together
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.