| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 07/13/2010 2:29:14 PM PDT by Religion Moderator, reason:
Poster’s request |
Posted on 07/06/2010 6:54:33 AM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
I would be interested in knowing what these concepts and words are and would appreciatie if you might enlarge on these. Thank you. CW
Oh, but I did. Unless you can show me a non-Latin MS containing the verse prior to around 400 AD, I will stand upon my ground.
In the beginning was the Word. The Word was revealed to us both in the written Scripture and through the Apostolic Tradition. In this way the tradition precedes Paul and his writings.
Where is the best Jewish website to research further “The Shkimiah of the Schad” please. And thank you.
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. - Matthew 7:15-20
The Lds apologetics org, FAIR, posted this lengthy article by Gregory L. Smith, MD: Polygamy, Prophets, and Prevarication
You can read it for yourself. I'll give you a quick paraphrased upshot as it pertained at least to concessions Gregory Smith made about prevarication & deception within Mormon history.
In the article, Smith concedes:
* Polygamy was lied about during Nauvoo years (Smith puts lying in quotations);
* Lying for the Lord has been taught & implied by some Mormons;
* Just because some Mormon leaders lied, he still contended any takeaways somebody might glean from that -- that it might somehow be construed as a condition tolerated w/in the Lds community when he felt it wasn't;
* Some Lds leaders, like George Q. Cannon of the First Presidency around the turn of the century, favored denying any specific charges about the practice of polygamy in Utah [Smith cited Michael Quinn "Authority and New Plural Marriages" as a source];
* He said the Manifesto sanctioned active misdirection;
* He said with the Church's destruction at stake, the manifesto "extended the degree of deception which was permissible" in order to keep that from happening. Therefore, 'twas Woodruff's duty to provide a formal doc which he knew to be false in some of its particulars. * Woodruff sought to maintain "plausible deniability." How did he do that? Well, while he'd refuse to personally approve a post-Manifesto polygamous marriage, he'd turn around & refer these potential polygamists to counselor George Q. Cannon for a recommend!
Logo 'twas this kind of open deception that Mormon apologist Gregory L. Smith conceded to occur that has long stayed with the Lds reputation-wise.
If you click on any of the MANY sub-titles of that paper where the word "Lying" appears...you'll find all these comments Smith made.
Love God. Believe Him. Trust Him.
Shalom.
Everything? That makes no sense. Even if that particular quotation were wrong, it would not follow that everything we say or teach is wrong.
But before you dismiss everything we say on the basis of one quotation (and a weak stomach), perhaps you should read the entire paragraph you cite, including the parts that were omitted (bold text):
No Salvation Without Accepting Joseph Smith.If Joseph Smith was verily a prophet, and if he told the truth when he said that he stood in the presence of angels sent from the Lord, and obtained keys of authority, and the commandment to organize the Church of Jesus Christ once again on the earth, then this knowledge is of the most vital importance to the entire world. No man can reject that testimony without incurring the most dreadful consequences, for he cannot enter the kingdom of God. It is, therefore, the duty of every man to investigate that he may weigh this matter carefully and know the truth.- Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p.190
The complete paragraph makes several points:
1. If Joseph Smith told the truth about being sent by God to do His work, then that knowledge is of vital importance. That is a big if, I will grant you; but the statement is neither unreasonable nor blasphemous.
2. If Joseph Smith's testimony is true, then rejection of that testimony will have dreadful consequences. This is reasonable: rejecting God's prophets is always a serious matter.
3. The author concludes that everyone has a duty to investigate to know the truth. Again, that is neither unreasonable nor blasphemous.
Mormons follow, worship, another Christ...not the Christian Christ. Mormons are taught and know Christian beliefs and verbage but they are not following the Christian Christ they claim.
Not at all.
You have written things that are obscure, incorrect, tendentious, or fallacious. At times, you seem overzealous to win the argument, unwilling to admit you are wrong, and too apt to accuse others of bad faith.
But I always proceed on the assumption that those are honest mistakes.
Below is one of many in the Mormon organization who claim salvation is thru Joseph Smith”.....he is not the Christian Christ and the Christian Christ does not share His throne with any man who claims Godhead. This is a lie and an attempt to de-throne Christ.
Quote:
There is “no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith. ....for he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” - Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p.190
Thank you...regards. Cw
You stated that "I did not intend to answer your question". Truth is I did - several times. You apparently couldn't handle the answer.
At times, you seem overzealous to win the argument, unwilling to admit you are wrong, and too apt to accuse others of bad faith.
Who to believe - you or the Prophet Young. . . . decisions, decisions.
But I always proceed on the assumption that those are honest mistakes.
Ah, but no mistakes were ever proven logos, just your assertions that were in contradiction to you prophets and apostles. It is not my fault that smith created a bogus translation of a common egyptian papyri and couldn't keep his story straight.
Truly, even the most primitive man will be held to account to notice that God IS.
You may be right about the effect on our reputation. But tell me, do you think that today's Latter-day Saints deserve the reputation of being dishonest?
Or to put it another way, are Latter-day Saints more or less honest than other people?
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.