Posted on 04/20/2010 7:56:29 PM PDT by delacoert
The great irony here is that the Catholic prayer is so similar, and in fact their position is that anyone who baptizes with this language is valid, except for Mormons of course...
- - - - - -
IT’S NOT THE LANGUAGE, IT’S THE DOCTRINE THAT MAKES IT INVALID!!!!
BTW, Protestants use the same language as well.
Gee. How did I know you would go this way? I didn't read this post of yours prior to my posting of #119, yet somehow I knew you would resort to blaming "the mobs" for the past words of Lds "prophets."
So I'm glad I cited the words published by Smith by 1830 (+ one quote from 1832) in my last post (#119). The "mobs" weren't really fully energized in Missouri til 1834. (I guess you'll have to try to blame someone else now, eh?) I can hear it now: "Well, Smith wasn't actually the 'originator' of the Book of Mormon...he was just a 'translator'...and as for those D&C passages, he wasn't actually on the attack..."
Meanwhile you didn't answer my questions. Do you or do you not back up Brigham Young's words about those who don't confess Joseph Smith as a prophet of God are "of Anti-Christ?" And the same re: Kimball's words about Christian leaders operating as presumptuous "blasphemers."
It seemed like simple straightforward Q's (which you ducked). If you don't want to "sandbox" lengthy qualified responses, I'm not asking you to.
Just give a "yes" or a "nor" to where you stand on those quotes from Young & Kimball. Do you sustain them or not? (Yes or no?)
The ONE PROBLEM I find with the LDS or Mormoms is that they have an extra book and that is a BIG NO-NO, as the Bible book of Revelations WARNS against.
You both, though, confirmed what I thought: That Mormons rail against the Trinity except when it comes to practicing Baptism. Then it becomes the official practice (only to rail against it again beyond).
Of course, if a Mormon is baptized in a faulty name having to do with their own name (like a nickname), that becomes a legalistic invalid Mormon baptism, too!!! (Or if they have an inch of skin that wasn't dunked)
The BSA just lost a major lawsuit in OR because of an LdS Scoutmaster molesting scouts.
It’s not just Catholics.
Note the actual wording - ". . every spirit that does not confess that God has sent Joseph Smith, . ." Those words do not limit the statement to a specific time or group of churches. Fact is if you read the teaching found in Journal of Discourses 8:176, September 9, 1860 you find it was a speech to missionaries - no references to mobs or churches of that time. You accuse us of misrepresenting mormon teachings - yet here you misrepresent it. Have you ever bothered to read jod 8 where this talk is given?
Young repeats himself just a few sentences later stating essentially that who ever does not believe that mormonism is the representation of the kingdom of god is of the spirit of anti-Christ.
Bruce R. McConkie does not share your narrow interpetation either
Just food for thought - before you have to misrepresent these statements - it would be nice to see that you understand them first.
That is because he can't colofornian - the statement also found in JoD 8 is clearly placed within the context of a pep talk to missionaries. I could not find any references to the mobs or churches of that era being the 'subject' of the polemic. Inface Young calls the statement "his scripture.
So, are you inferring that the attempts on Joseph Smith’s life only came in Missouri? Either you know far less about church history than you claim, or you are guilty of yet more misrepresentations! Ever hear of Kirtland, or New York?
Also, was my post in reference to your reference to Brigham Young’s statement, or Joseph Smith’s? More slight of hand? I commented solely on your quote of Brigham Young. It was the first, & thus the first I looked up. I didn’t have time to look up the quote from Joseph Smith but surmise I would find the same result as I did w/ your misrepresentation of B.Y. BTW, B.Y.’s qoute was well after N.Y., Kirtland, & Missouri wasn’t it?
If you were to read my response to you, you find the answer to your question. The one where I showed your misrepresentation. Again, Enough of the sandbox. I don’t have the time nor the inclination.
I missed that part - an LDS scout troop!
And you didn't do a very good job of it did you. And since colofornian was not misrepresenting the quote - who was?
Please realize that the scripture you refer to was in the book of Revelation. The Bible wasn’t compiled until approx. 300 years later. That passage was solely for the book of Revelation. Chronologically, the book of Revelation wasn’t even the last book written which we find in the Bible, i.e. the book of John
Ironically, that same passage is also found in Deuteronomy, long before any of the New Testament was written, & way before the “Bible” came into existence.
Also note that the passage warns against MAN adding to or subtracting from. The Lord never indicated the HE couldn’t add, in fact, in Ezekiel 37:15-20, he indicates there would be an addition, the stick(book)of Judah, & another stick (book) of Ephraim. We believe the book of Judah to be the Bible. Where’s the book of Ephraim?
Just food for thought. I’ve appreciated your comments.
It goes FAR beyond the Book of Mormon, and there isn’t just ONE extra book there are 3 (Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, Doctrine and Covenants)
Christ paid for sins by sweating blood in the Garden, not on the Cross...
The Cross was only because He needed to die to be resurrected...
God has a physical body of flesh and bones...
God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are 3 separate ‘gods’ one only in purpose...
God has a God who has a God who has a God ad infinitum...
God was once human, and we can ‘progress’ to godhood ourselves...
God is the physical father of Jesus (through sex) with Mary...
All other churches are ‘apostates’, pagan and ‘so called Christians’. Only they are the ‘true church’...
Jesus was probably married with kids, and a polygamist...
and there is MUCH MUCH more that proves they are at complete odds with Christianity. many others here can testify to that as well
Feel free to freepmail me with any questions.
don’t like to think about my Mormon baptism but I remember it very clearly. It was done in the singular Name.
________________________________________
Which was ???
That is why so many of the “books” that did not get accepted become known as the lost books, which because the Church Councils, which I subscribe to, as a Christian and a Catholic, was were the Bible became what it was.
Also note that the passage warns against MAN adding to or subtracting from. The Lord never indicated the HE couldn’t add, in fact, in Ezekiel 37:15-20, he indicates there would be an addition, the stick(book)of Judah, & another stick (book) of Ephraim. We believe the book of Judah to be the Bible. Where’s the book of Ephraim?
- - - - - -
Read down that chapter further, Reno, it is EXPLICIT that Ezekiel is talking about the NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN KINGDOMS, NOT BOOKS. The stick of Judah is NOT the Bible. It is the Kingdom. More LDS eisegesis.
Ezekeil 15-23:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+37&version=NIV
15 The word of the LORD came to me: 16 “Son of man, take a stick of wood and write on it, ‘Belonging to Judah and the Israelites associated with him.’ Then take another stick of wood, and write on it, ‘Ephraim’s stick, belonging to Joseph and all the house of Israel associated with him.’ 17 Join them together into one stick so that they will become one in your hand.
18 “When your countrymen ask you, ‘Won’t you tell us what you mean by this?’ 19 say to them, ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am going to take the stick of Joseph—which is in Ephraim’s hand—and of the Israelite tribes associated with him, and join it to Judah’s stick, making them a single stick of wood, and they will become one in my hand.’ 20 Hold before their eyes the sticks you have written on 21 and say to them, ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will take the Israelites out of the nations where they have gone. I will gather them from all around and bring them back into their own land. 22 I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel. There will be one king over all of them and they will never again be two nations or be divided into two kingdoms. 23 They will no longer defile themselves with their idols and vile images or with any of their offenses, for I will save them from all their sinful backsliding, [b] and I will cleanse them. They will be my people, and I will be their God.
Reno - why misrepresent the bible now? Revelation was written late first century. The fact that an official 'compiling' was done until later matters very little. Joseph smith added and subtracted from Revelation when he 'retranslated' the Bible - by doing so, he is subject to the curse found therein.
Ezekiel 37:15-20, he indicates there would be an addition, the stick(book)of Judah, & another stick (book) of Ephraim.
Groan, not that lame statement. Talk about cherry picking lol. Read on reno - and remember context is our friend, even if it does screw-up mormon doctrine - in verses 15-22, God promises a future restoration for the whole nation, and announces that some day the northern kingdom, called “Joseph,” and the southern kingdom, called “Judah,” would once again be a united Israel. Ezekiel is talking about tribal staffs - not scrolls. It is also foolish to think that "Judah" in verse 16 would be representative of the whole Bible, particularly when not all its writers were from that tribe.
Food for thought - if I ate the food you've been presenting - the only result will be brain death.
As posted up thread:
, “Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen” (D&C 20:73).
My Christian baptism was “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen” - also by immersion.
But the experience of my Christian baptism was so much more meaningingful, it wasn’t ‘church membership’, I was already part of the Body of Christ, it wasn’t so my sins could be forgiven, it was because they already were forgiven.
It was a public statement of an inward faith and one of the most amazing events of my life, because I was publicly proclaiming my faith and love for my Lord.
Yes, Smith later claimed he was hounded in NY. From BYU profs like Allen, writing in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, clearly concluded that Smith never told his First Vision accounts in the 1820s or even early 1830s. (IOW, there wasn't much provocative about Smith in the 1820s besides his treasure-seeking/money-looking rep).
As for Kirtland, my understanding is that the mob didn't get after Smith til his very end there, and that's because his bank folded...it didn't have to do with his so-called "revelations."
Godzilla did a fine job answering your distortion that Young was addressing a made-up "mob" on your part...when he was addressing Lds Missionaries!
My overall pt, in also bringing Smith into it, is that the Lds attack dogs not only go back to Young, but Young learned it from Smith & Smith's writings.
So a third time...do you sustain Young's "antiChrist" comment & Kimball's "blasphemers" comment, or not?
(I can already surmise you endorse the D&C & BoM passages which attack the non-Mormon church bodies...verses Lds leaders have used not only to apply to early church times but more contemporary times as well)
One additional thing about those "mobs". Young was speaking from Utah, September 9, 1860. Young had total contol over the territory and any 'mobs' would survive for a minute. Any other part of mormon history you would like to further distort?
The LDS have found a safe haven and a new breed of defenders in the current Oprah fad version of all paths are correct Christianity.
Hosea 4:6
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.