Posted on 05/01/2010 8:33:45 AM PDT by GonzoII
TRUE LEADERS!
You are right of course. In fact it would be even better if we were all be atheist, that would makes things MUCH better...
Is the Pope greater than Joey Smith ???
Everyone has a purpose, even little old me.
I’ll let you know when I find out what my purpose is.
Sorry resty, this is misleading. There were no revivals at the time of the "official" first vision. Revivals were ongoing 3 years later and about 2 years before.
Second - from the very words of smith himself -which of all the sects was right - and don't forget resty, this same smith wrote in the bom the only true church was mormon.
Eh ???
Compromise thy name is Gop_Lady..
Is the Pope greater than Joey Smith ???
Some of us can handle more than one cause at a time. Of course some can also complain about more than one cause at a time.
I just had a thought. What if Gonzo were to start posting a series of the Journal of Discourses? Talk about a hoot!
Remember when a long gone FReeper decided to post ALL the chapters of a book on mormonism?
Searchable Journal of Discourses
This link should, at least give you some grist for your mill Gonzo ;)
It might also interest others who see this thread. Early mormon leaders in their own words which BTW, present mormon leaders do NOT want the general public to see.
Ok, so what did he learn was wrong?
Don't you mean religion has already divided us (past tense)? And if that's the case, don't you mean the real considerations are:
(a) Do we acknowledge real divisions?
(b) Do we acknowledge real divisions -- and still find a few areas to work together -- like Prop 8 in CA; working together as co-Boy Scout leaders; etc.?
Or (c) Do we downplay them?
Or (d) Do we ignore them altogether and everybody plays a game of happy-go-lucky pretense of ignorance (coupled with a cold-hearted attitude where others' eternal spiritual welfare can be damned!)
I say we do both (a) and (b) -- depending on the...
...circumstances,
...what coalitions are involved and for what reason?
...does it unnecessarily sanction legitimacy to a cultic group?
...what's at stake? -- including if it's a life and death issue?
If two paramedics are coming to save my life, and one's Lds, I'm not going to say, "Send somebody else." (But if both offered to also pray with me as they tried to save my life, I'd take the Evangelical's offer and politely decline the Mormon's...knowing the Mormon is praying to an entity who hasn't been God from all eternity)
The point is, the personages told JS (or so he says) that ALLwere an abomination.
Y’all might want to see the extensive refutation of Mormonism, which just ended(?) here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2495971/posts
As regards Mormonism and Romanism, both effectively presume authority over Scripture, declaring themselves to be uniquely, if conditionally infallible, and thus according to their interpretation that they are infallible, only their interpretation can be correct in any conflict. Appealing to the Scriptures for doctrinal certainty is contrary to Rome’s premise that doctrinal certainty can only be had thru her. Thus,
“Who else can teach him [the Catholic] religious truth when he believes that an infallible Church gives him God’s word and interprets it in the true and only sense?” “Holding to Catholic principles how can he do otherwise? How can he consistently seek after truth when he is convinced that he holds it? Who else can teach him religious truth when he believes that an infallible Church gives him God’s word and interprets it in the true and only sense? (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapter XXIII. The consistent believer. p. 93, 1904; Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York)
Upon this presumption to authority, extra-Biblical books are made equal to the Bible, and doctrines are promulgated that are contrary to the Scriptures, from Mormonism’s polygamous evolved God, to Rome’s making departed saints heavenly object of earthly prayer, etc.
In contrast, those (fundamental type evangelicals) who hold to the supremacy of Scripture - which does not disallow other sources of truth or the teaching magisterium of the church but makes them subject to it - cannot presume to infallibility but are bound to provide demonstrable substantiation for their doctrines from that objective authority which is declared to be infallible, (2Tim. 3:16) in appealing to the hearts of pious souls. (2Cor. 4:2) It is thus that those who hold to the supremacy of Scripture have historically tenaciously upheld Biblical Christian essentials such as are articulated in the Nicene Creed, while reproving both Rome and cults for their unScriptural teachings, and presume authority over.
The idea that Protestantism includes those who deny such essentials is an oft repeated canard, as it is no more true than to say such are Christian, as one must define such terms by their source, and both the founders of Protestantism and the Bible reject to those who hold to aberrant doctrine as concerns the nature of the Godhead and the gospel.
While those who hold to the supremacy of Scripture can be said to allow a limited degree of disagreement in a limited amount of doctrine, this roughly corresponds to the degree and areas in which Catholcs may disagree with what Rome teaches (re. non-infallible teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium and the General Magisterium) while evangelicals in general evidence far greater conformity to basic doctrines as well as conservative values than Catholics in general. And if you divided Catholics according to their beliefs and worship styles you would have many denominations.
However, unity itself is not the prime goal of the church, but truth, and because of their share faith in the gospel which must result in one becoming born again, evangelicals manifest a remarkable unity of the Spirit, as evident in the multiplicity of interdenominational ministries and gatherings.
As for what constitutes that one true church, this most essentially is the invisible church, though it will have visible expression, as the true church only consists of born again believers, and souls are baptized into it the moment they effectually believe, (1Cor. 12:13; Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9) which is with a faith that will follow Christ. (Jn. 10:27; Heb. 5:9)
The basis for ecclesiastical authenticity does not rest upon a particular organic ecclesiastical linkage, as problematic as that is for Rome, any more than the authenticity of a true Jew rests upon physical lineage, (Rm. 2:28,29) but upon essential Abrahamic-type faith in the Biblical Christ and the gospel of God, and by such faith it lives (Rm. 1:17) and overcomes. (1Jn. 5:4) As the church is not limited to one particular visible expression of that essential faith, the Bible excludes those who reject its gospel from being part of the body of Christ. (Gal. 1:6-9)
You cannot separate conservatism from it source, that being the Bible, as esp. in America, you would not have the former without the latter. http://www.conservapedia.com/Moral_decline#The_United_States
http://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/Education_in_the_United_States
And Catholics when they were thought of at all, did not qualify as respectable. What Joseph may have thought of Catholicism in his very early years probably mirrored the ideas of his neighbors.[3] One thing is sure, when Joseph Smith went into the woods to pray in the early spring of 1820, he was not asking whether Catholicism was the true religion.
But based on public sentiment and the religious and political persecution of Mormonism over the years, Joseph came to a position of respect with regard to Catholics and their somewhat similar condition to Mormons in America.
Joseph mentioned Catholicism on several occasions and on at least one, reflected that Mormonism and Catholicism held a better hand than the Protestants. Thomas Bullock reported on rain-spotted foolscap:
“[the] old Catholic Church is worth more than all [the other churches]—here is a princ[iple]. of logic–that men have no more sense–I will illustrate [with] an old apple tree—here jumps off a branch & says I am the true tree. & you are corrupt–if the whole tree is corrupt how can any true thing come out of it—the charr[character] of the old ones have always been sland[ere]d. by all apos[tates] since the world began—
“I testify again as God never will acknowledge any apost[ate]: any man who will betray the Catholics will betray you–& if he will betray one anoth[e]r. he will betray you”[4]
http://boaporg.wordpress.com/2009/07/18/joseph-smith-and-catholicism/
I have an icon on my desk top that says “F.R.” it takes me here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/news-forum/index
Every time I come to F.R. it is to, “News/Activism”, not the “every thing” page.
All? Would that include Islam? How about J.W.s? Christian Scientists? Scientology? Or any other man made religions?
No thanks.
No respect at all.
“when Joseph Smith went into the woods to pray in the early spring of 1820, he was not asking whether Catholicism was the true religion.”
Here’s how it happened...
Ma Smith: “Joey, for the last time, go do your chores!
Li’l Joe to Ma: “Ma! I’m jest fixin’ to go into the woods to pray!
Ma: You’ve used that line one too many times!
Li’l Joe: Ma, I am going to pray. I’m not going to think about Catholicism this time.
Ma: Don’ you go sneaking around with that peep stone bilking our neighbors!
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.