What Is The Brown Scapular

Eternal Life Blog ^ | August 29,2014 | Eternal life

[Elsie]

But when WE vote; it is ALWAYS unanimous!

[Resettozero]

Do the LDS garments hold the same magical power as does the brown scapular?

Which is better and more cost-effective?

[Elsie]

Show me where it is incorrectly translated.

You waiting for SP to produce; TOO???

[HossB86]

And since they’re not interchangeable, call this number now and receive as a free gift....

:D

Hoss

[Mark17]

I remember getting one at about that age but have no idea whatever happened to it.

I couldn’t wear it because it was made of wool and I was allergic to wool.

Never fear MM, the church will grant you a dispensation. There is always an answer for everything. 😂😆😎 And if you can't find the answer, just get a dispensation. 😄

I remember wearing my scapular for awhile in grade school, but it just wasn't stressed much in high school, where I don't think I wore it even once. It was guaranteed not to rust, rot, or mildew, for 90 days after discharge. 😃

[HossB86]

Is that the Moronisterium?

Hoss

[Mark17]

You waiting for SP to produce; TOO???

I got saved in 1970, and I have been waiting since then for LDS to show me. I remember in 1968, I had just left Keesler, on my way to Mt Home AFB, ID. I had a layover in Salt Lake City. I was a catholic, so I knew nothing about other religions, but I had heard of Mormons. I saw a guy in the airport, wearing blue jean coveralls and round horn rimmed glasses, and a straw hat. I thought to myself, if I ever had a stereotype of what a Utah Mormon would look like, this guy fit it perfectly. In 1970, I got saved, and began to see the cults in a different light.

[Mark17]

they have High Hopes

No one could make that ram scram. He kept buttin' that dam.

[CynicalBear]

If you can’t show where any one of them is wrong why don’t you just say so? If it was just a different focus on different aspects of the same event there are no contradictions.

[CynicalBear]

Revelation 18:15 "The merchants of these things, who became rich from her, will stand at a distance because of the fear of her torment, weeping and mourning,

[Gamecock]

I too fail to see a contradiction.

Please share.

[CynicalBear]

>>CB, don't the Mormons say they believe the Bible is true, in so far as it is correctly translated?<<

I don't know what weasel words they use. The comment I was responding to was "There is truth in the Bible, but there is some errors also". It was direct claim of errors in the Bible with no caveat.

[Mark17]

I don't know what weasel words they use.

LOL, I love it. Weasel words. If I learn a new slogan everyday, I am happy. I was just wondering if maybe that was the Mormon idea that not everything is translated correctly. Either way, it is a bogus claim. Unfortunately, the Mormons have made inroads here too. I don't like it much.

[daniel1212]

As for the argument for a kind of universalism based on uncertainty, which is how I read your core argument, I don't think your premise is valid. Based on what you have written, you appear to be arguing that superstition is OK as long as it leads to people trying to be good, but that any attempt to come up with a sound definition of what is good is "heretic hunting." The underlying premise in that mess is that God has not objectively revealed truth to us that we can use to know how to relate to him, so it's OK to just make it up as we go along. In which case we are no better off than the secular postmodernists who disavow any notion of being able to know universal truth, other than the single premise that there is no universal truth to be known. And if you have in fact accepted that fatally circular epistemology, I can see why that premise of uncertainty about God's message would make sense to you.

That is too close to what seems to be conveyed. How can the Lord command us to live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God, quoting Scripture as it is the assured word of God, (Mt. 4:4) if it is as ambiguous as the poster?

[Springfield Reformer]

After this brief encounter and some additional reading, I am convinced the MO is to treat the Bible as an obstacle that must be overcome through doubt, in order to get to the Book of the False Prophet. It resembles the Islamic methodology. Yes, they would say, God delivered a good original message, but those early Christians botched it up so bad with corruptions that even God couldn’t fix it until they came along. Never mind that the evidence of meaningful corruption is entirely missing, never mind the explicit teaching that the Gospel will endure and prosper till Jesus returns, never mind how this theory of God being thwarted by pesky little humans insults both the character and the power of God at the same time. The important thing is to doubt God’s word so it can be replaced with the imaginative tales of Joe Smith, or Mohammed, or whoever. So with the Bible it’s all about the negatives, but with their preferred text it’s all about the positives. Truth? What’s that? Just sayin ...

Peace,

SR

[Resettozero]

A necessary step (methodology) for one to attain self-justification and sense of superiority to Christians while affiliating with a religious cult.

Agree with your observation.

Jus’ sayin’.

[StormPrepper]

[SP]No, a prophet first speaks with God directly, usually face to face or through a vision, then relays that information to the people. He doesn't just speak for God, he speaks to God directly. In other words, he can't speak for God unless he has first spoken to God.

And you know this how ???

[RnMomof7]In religion, a prophet is an individual who is claimed to have been contacted by the supernatural or the divine, and to speak for them, serving as an intermediary with humanity, delivering this newfound knowledge from the supernatural entity to other people.

You ask me how I know what I said, then you restate exactly what I said using different words. That's confusing.

I know this because that's the pattern God has set from Adam on down...Even the prophets spoken of by John in Rev 11, first stand before God then prophesy to the people.

[StormPrepper]

The Bible perfectly reveals the manner of thinking that belongs to the Lord Jesus Christ, who is perfect and without sin. The Holy Bible, reveals the Mind of Christ to the believer in Lord Jesus Christ but not to the unbeliever...the one who doubts.

Children can discern and accept that which is causing you to pull back in disbelief regarding just Who wrote the Bible and what it is that is being revealed so wonderfully! It is the same Author Who is revealed to each Christian who believes without doubting in the Word of God, however that Word is expressed and made manifest. The Author, the Inspiration of the Holy Bible is the One known as Jesus of Nazareth.

Most of the original writings are the words of God written in the language of men by men.

The issues I have with the Bible are not really with the Bible, but with the attitudes of the modern religionists toward the Bible.

It seems to me that people confuse a relationship with God with a relationship with the Bible. They give the Bible divine titles like "Word of God" and "God's Word", etc...

They rewrite it's history, claiming God created it and God wrote it all...they act like through out history all Christians had a King James Bible.

The Bible was compiled from all the writings of the prophets currently in the possession those men who lived centuries after the original Apostles were martyred. Who never claimed divine inspiration or divine contact of any kind. None of them were prophets.

It's no different than the golden calf created by the Hebrews. They created the golden calf with their own hands and called it divine.

The modern religionist continues down this road and says the Bible is not only divine, it's also complete and God doesn't speak to man, the Bible does. There's your golden calf. Because it's a creation of their own hands they can give any attribute they want or assign it any status. They claim it's "inerrant", "Holy", "God's Word", "The Final Authority", etc... in fact they've given their golden calf all the attributes of God.

Did God say He was going to put everything in a "Bible"... no He didn't. Did He ever say He would not talk to man...no didn't do that either. Did God say He would limit our scripture to just a few writings, no certainly not. So why say He did?

I don't worship the golden calf. The Bible is what it is. I wish we had all the writings from those areas of the world, but we don't. I love all of the Old Testament. Some of the New Testament. I find Matt, Luke, James, and Revelation to be the most worth.

There's nothing except people's imaginations that would suggest it was complete.

[mlo]

"Millions of sincere Catholics wear the brown scapular thinking by doing so it will help them spiritually."

Why would their superstition be any worse than your superstition?

[Resettozero]

Kinda ramblin’ around, aren’t you?

Here’s what I take away from your post:

You surmise that the Holy Bible is analogous to the Israelites’ golden calf at the foot of Mt. Sinai.