Mormon “truth” from racism to salvation
Posted by: LDS DH in UncategorizedMormon 210,
I asked you the following:
“Am I correct in interpreting what you have said is that salvation is bestowed upon man by other men?”
You answered: “Your half correct. My explanation clearly said “bestow” and “authority”. Two words we use regularly. Particularly authority. As Christ went to be baptized (since he was perfect why was he baptized, additionally, why didn’t he just grab the local believer instead of seeking out John). Hebrews talks about authority, the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants specifically define the authority. Therefore the answer is yes someone with the authority to bestow blessing must bestow them and then with the blessing (or commitment of baptism as an outward sign and following the example of our Savior) one can if faithful receive the Kingdom of God. But only the individual and his relationship with God and his (the individual) faith in the divine gift of our Savior Jesus Christ (and most importantly the Gift of Salvation offered by Christ) can define salvation for an individual.”
You have placed salvation squarely on the ability of human beings! The Bible clearly teaches that salvation is in Jesus
Christ and His sacrifice ALONE. Nowhere will you find in the Bible that one must look further than Jesus Christ for salvation because Christianity according to the Bible is confident that He alone is sufficient. It is a common characteristic of religious systems to add requirements for salvation (an excellent tactic for gaining leverage over church members), the Catholic church and LDS being two significant examples.
Regarding your claims about outer darkness and the levels of heaven or kingdoms I’d like to ask you this: If you are sealed with your family members what does that mean if one or more family members don’t live up to the standard of perfection that gets you into the celestial kingdom? Do they get there on your coat-tails? Or does that just mean that they can visit you in the celestial kingdom? And if you marry more than once in the temple who are you married to in the celestial kingdom? What if your wife hasn’t been a good enough mormon? Does she pass because you are sealed? Was Elohim sealed to Mary? Will she be sealed to Him or to Joseph in the afterlife? Was Mary the daughter of Elohim or the wife?
When I asked, “What does it mean to ““endure to the end?”” And just how perfect do you have to be?” you answered:
“Simple. Seek to obey His commandments. Follow His example. When you goof up work it out with Him through repentance (meaning turn away from) and not do it again. By doing it again (after we repent) we are indicating that we are not fully repentant of the sin, although we may feel bad about it, we still do it. Sort of like being an alcoholic and hanging out in a bar. We set ourselves up and don’t want to fully accept the offer of repentance offered by Christ.”
This doesn’t answer my question as to how perfect is enough to get into the celestial kingdom. How do you know when your life is measuring up? Is it possible for your prophet or an apostle to turn away to the point of missing out on the celestial kingdom?
You said: “After my example of an occurrence around when God had asked the Kings of Israel were told by the Prophet to kill people because of their religions-social structure-lineage etc., you ask:
“Are you truly stating here that these two issues are equivalent? God’’s righteous anger over idolatry is justified. Your teachings of hatred are not.”
You continued: “I am not judging the situation based on who was idolatrous or who was a lineal descendant of Cain. I am saying that God, in His wisdom to protect the Saints from intrusive cultures ordered Saul (as an example) to kill an entire citizenry. It is not the curse of the Black man to be killed, in fact if you will read my earlier statements, I stated, clearly, that those who abused the Black man will receive condemnation ten fold. My example here was not to equate the Judgment of God to His decisions to remove the priesthood from the lineage of Cain. My example was to offer a balanced discussion on the issue of race, culture etc.”
Brighham Young was also about killing other whites because of their associations with blacks. He stated unequivocally that any white with an intimate association with anyone black was required to be put to death on the spot. And he added that this would ALWAYS be so. Have you redefined the term “always”? Or do you agree with Brigham’s decree? Or should it be as Joseph Smith stated when he said, “Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species.” Obviously McConkie agreed with your prophet because he said, “…the resultant restrictions and segregation are right and proper and have the approval of the Lord.” Your prophet’s claim that God restored the priesthood said nothing about an end to segregation or intermarrying so where I am supposed to get the idea that this a a balanced discussion?
I stated “God does NOT change His nature. He does NOT find something an abomination one day and change His mind about it another.” You obviously have problems with these statements. I’d like to know, are they true or false according to LDS theology? And why?
You said: “After I explained my roommates thesis (in part) noting that he understood that there were Christian Religions, particularly Catholic and Protestant (particularly Methodist, Church of Christ and in the South the Baptists) that allowed negro conversion but he indicated that seldom if at all were they ever mixed. Clearly you don’t understand the statement. He was not looking at truth. He was looking only at the acceptance of diversity in USA religions. The LDS Church, was alone in the acceptance of diversity and the conversion (acceptance of baptism) of all races. He (my roommate) was in a sense making the argument that “a true Christian church” should be accepting of all repentant souls without regard to anything.”
How do you explain the statements made by your prophets calling for absolute segregation? You cannot deny the statements as they are a part of your scripture so please explain them.
You claim that my statement as follows is prejudiced: “Mormon young men are expected to go on a mission. It is NOT spontaneous, but failure to go on a mission is seen as failure to follow the gospel.”
I have read many statements by your leadership where they say that missions are expected, in fact a commandment of following the gospel. Are they prejudiced in making such statements? Your further statement suggests that you think only a black person (as you assume I am) would have issues with the prejudices of your church. That only furthers my contention that LDS worldview is blinded by the false teachings of their leadership.
You said: “Now as for logic, You said ‘Your use of logic theory is flawed. You cannot prove a negative, Mormon 210.’ Your wrong. You most definitely can prove a negative in an argument. Because in an argument there is no positive until proven negative with an argument.”
I will assume that you have never studied argumentation or logic. In a discussion or debate the person making a claim or assertion is responsible to support that claim or assertion with evidence. You claim that Joseph Smith saw God and you know this to be true by a personal feeling, which you call a testimony. Your personal feeling is not evidence to anyone but you. I cannot be responsible to disprove your subjective feeling. I can only respond to objective evidence. The objective evidence about the truthfulness of Joseph Smith is that he was not a reliable, consistent or truthful individual. There were multiple versions of the so called vision. There are numerous unfulfilled prophecies. There were numerous prophecies that were completely contradicted by reality. Then there’s the obvious falsification of the Book of Abraham which even an LDS scholar rejects as a true translation.
I believe that the next argument is one that you were having with Idaho Spud, not me: “Well here try this burden of proof on. You claim that man can’t see God and live, yet I showed you places that the Bible clearly states it is possible in fact it happened. Thus the basis of my argument is not denied and the fact remains that you can not prove by the Bible that Joseph Smith did not see God and Christ.”
Again, it was Idaho Spud who made the claim you are discussing. In any case I do not say that Joseph claimed to see God and lived is the reason I believe him a liar. I say he is a liar because he has made claims on God’s behalf that are clearly not of God. According to the standard of the Bible, Joseph Smith has shown himself a false prophet. Should we test a prophet? What standard should we use? Does Joseph Smith pass that test? What should we do with the standard that has already been set by the Bible for the testing of prophets?
Here is your response concerning Mr. Abel:
“Back to Brother Abel- so what!?!?! I am greatful for Brother Elijah Abel. For his example of overcoming the self centered notion of self pity. He could have groveled and complained but he did not. Additionally, His ethnicity is claimed to have been less than one eighth African. He receives a patriarchal blessing and is not given a lineage simply noted that he is orphaned and the patriarch states that he will be in the Kingdom of God as one of His great ones. Additionally, as a matter of reference he was ordained a seventy of a ward in Kirtland in 1839 (of which there were a few). This is far different than a 1st Quorum of the Seventy.”
Have you never seen a picture of the man? The man is black! Not 1/8th. He’s black! And his children were black. And they, too were given the priesthood. I ask again, How is it possible to confer the priesthood upon someone and his progeny when God expressly forbids it? And even if it were true that the man was one eighth black (which obviously is not the case) your leadership said that the slightest drop of African blood meant no priesthood. Brigham Young even went so far as to say that the priesthood authority would be removed from the church if blacks were given the priesthood. So maybe you are in a church where the priesthood has been removed after all. Black men were given the priesthood at a time God clearly said not to. And God stated, through Brigham Young, what the consequences would be if that was ignored. It was obviously ignored. As far as the difference between being a seventy and a 1st quorum of seventy, the man was still given a leadership position meant for someone holding the priesthood.
Next you quote me saying the following:
“You ask me about your motivation. You belong to a very powerful and alluring culture. There is much reinforcement and reward for being a good Mormon in your community. Mormons place more value on the approval of other mormons than the approval of God. In fairness I make the same charge against the ““Sunday Christians”” in the Christian church. My motivation is to take a stand, as God says I should, when people who claim to speak with the authority of God are leading others into a false belief of Jesus Christ.”
Then you respond with:
“I am thoroughly appalled that you would judge intent (knowing that this is God’s job). Why do you think that you can lip claim Christ and then be saved, while I back up what I say with good works and you claim them to be based simply on the acceptance of other Mormons? What is the culture and why is it alluring? I do appreciate your work for Christ, but I believe that you are wrong in your fullness. You may have some of His work but it is not complete and often time in contradiction to the work He gave. You my friend have a great deal of soul searching. Think about it for a while and let me know. Do you want to visit with the missionaries?”
Who determines, Mormon 210, whether or not you are living a life worthy of a temple visit? Don’t mormons have to go through their bishop to get a temple recommend? Aren’t you relying on the judgment of another man to decide who is worthy? If you were relying only on God then you could walk through the door without question. You are proving to men that you are worthy. And how do you know that I only give “lip” service to Christ but do no good works? I think an obvious difference in our stated motivations is that I do works for the Lord because He deserves the glory. You hope that your works will give YOU glory. Why don’t you share with me what work it is God has given me that I am contradicting. If you would like to send more missionaries my way, please feel free to do so. These young men, who for some reason are called “elders, have left here having been unable to answer my questions without revealing the doubts in their own hearts. Two young men came back several different times asking to take my questions to their bishop. Each time they left with more questions in their own minds. Another brought a church leader with them whose final recourse was to put the BOM on the table and say “You can’t believe everything you read.” Then there’s the two who brought over a black mormon missionary ( it took them a few months to find one in the area). That young man, who had been a convert to the church, acknowledged that he doubted he could continue his mission after hearing the truth most mormons would like to forget exists. So, yes, send more of these “elders” if you desire. I am willing to share the sufficiency of Jesus Christ with anyone.
LDS-DH
June 28th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
DH,
You asked me if, according to LDS doctrine, salvation requires men to do something. I answered (in summary) with a discussion about the requirements of baptism (outward sign) to follow the example of Christ who was perfect yet was baptized. Christ sought out a man (John the Baptist) and received the ordinance. So according to the LDS faith we seek men (who hold the same priesthood as John) and receive baptism, then endure to the end. Then you responded with a twisted interpretation of what I said. Let me say it clearly. It says all over the Bible that you must be baptized just as Christ was. Additionally, we (LDS) people also believe that we must find someone like John the Baptist (in terms of authority-in other words holding the authority to baptize as John did). You tend to work things around a corner taking a piece of what is said and disregarding the rest of it. YES. WE BELIEVE A MAN MUST BAPTIZE THE REPENTANT SEEKER OF THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST AND THAT THIS IS A REQUIRED ORDINANCE.
Additionally, what is the motive of this leverage you talk about? If there is leverage required (in the LDS church) what is the purpose of the leverage?
You asked several, very way out there questions. I can answer them all day the way I believe and you would have a comeback this way or that way. Let me put it this way. If God has provided the sealing power to men to seal families together, he will do the work of judging the validity of that power. Take it up with Him.
As for quantifying the issue about what is perfect or not, I will say this. That again Christ measures us. He is the Judge. If you want to know what is perfect enough ask Him. Additionally, how “good” do you have to be to go to “heaven” per your faith (51% - 49%, 88% - 22%, 30% - 70%) or do you have some magical equation as to what is necessary to enter “heaven”, or even better just assume that the grace of Christ will take care of it and if you don’t make it then you weren’t predestined to any way.
Additionally, I know I measure up for His grace so I don’t quantify the issue. I keep my faith and hope in Christ, I repent of the errors I make, and I do His works. I will see how I did at the judgement.
After a long winded discussion about several different issues, we finally get back to your contention and after my response on balance you state:
“Your prophet’s claim that God restored the priesthood said nothing about an end to segregation or intermarrying so where I am supposed to get the idea that this a a balanced discussion?”
I stated ““God does NOT change His nature. He does NOT find something an abomination one day and change His mind about it another.” You obviously have problems with these statements. I’d like to know, are they true or false according to LDS theology? And why?
You said: “After I explained my roommates thesis (in part) noting that he understood that there were Christian Religions, particularly Catholic and Protestant (particularly Methodist, Church of Christ and in the South the Baptists) that allowed negro conversion but he indicated that seldom if at all were they ever mixed. Clearly you don’’t understand the statement. He was not looking at truth. He was looking only at the acceptance of diversity in USA religions. The LDS Church, was alone in the acceptance of diversity and the conversion (acceptance of baptism) of all races. He (my roommate) was in a sense making the argument that ““a true Christian church”” should be accepting of all repentant souls without regard to anything.”
How do you explain the statements made by your prophets calling for absolute segregation? You cannot deny the statements as they are a part of your scripture so please explain them.”
I will not explain them. You have the issue with them so you work it out. I offered to you examples (to balance your issue) about Christ having Hittites, Ammonites, Palestinians, etc killed because of their race. He additionally counseled against mingling with them or intermarrying with non-Hebrew cultures. This was the balance I wrote about. I don’t have the answers or the time to go around and look at all of my leaders statements. Do you go back and review all of your thousands of leaders statements (thousand of different Christian religions - so there must be millions of different statements)?
Now you say:
“You claim that my statement as follows is prejudiced: ““Mormon young men are expected to go on a mission. It is NOT spontaneous, but failure to go on a mission is seen as failure to follow the gospel.””
I have read many statements by your leadership where they say that missions are expected, in fact a commandment of following the gospel. Are they prejudiced in making such statements? Your further statement suggests that you think only a black person (as you assume I am) would have issues with the prejudices of your church. That only furthers my contention that LDS worldview is blinded by the false teachings of their leadership.”
Your statement followed a line of discussion about what a Mormon missionary thinks when he chooses to serve a mission. We have a choice to either serve or not. We are not thought less of. Additionally, when Christ said to Peter “…come follow me…” Peter had a choice. He could say no. How do you think Christ would have viewed that decision. How do you think the other 11 chosen Apostles would have viewed Peter’s decision. As for being blinded by our leadership, I guess that means that followers of Christ have no reason to listen to His chosen leaders to do so we would be blinded.
Now on to the fun stuff. Lets be clear on what was said:
You said, “Now as for logic, You said ‘Your use of logic theory is flawed. You cannot prove a negative, Mormon 210.” and I responded that …Your wrong. You most definitely can prove a negative in an argument. Because in an argument there is no positive until proven negative with an argument.
Then you make an assumption and said “I will assume that you have never studied argumentation or logic. In a discussion or debate the person making a claim or assertion is responsible to support that claim or assertion with evidence. You claim that Joseph Smith saw God and you know this to be true by a personal feeling, which you call a testimony. Your personal feeling is not evidence to anyone but you. I cannot be responsible to disprove your subjective feeling. I can only respond to objective evidence. The objective evidence about the truthfulness of Joseph Smith is that he was not a reliable, consistent or truthful individual. There were multiple versions of the so called vision. There are numerous unfulfilled prophecies. There were numerous prophecies that were completely contradicted by reality. Then there’s the obvious falsification of the Book of Abraham which even an LDS scholar rejects as a true translation.”
Your incorrect, I have had some education and training in arguments. In fact aside from the little classes one might take in college required general education courses (you know Phil 1 and such), I have had a whole education dedicated to arguments, law and court room proceedings (JD).
Now my statement was that you can prove a negative in an argument. In fact, several times Johnnie Cochran shared that skill in the court room in the trial of OJ Simpson. Here is a logical equation. A logical equation is a simple math statement a=b, b=c therfore if a = b and b=c then a must equal c. What I claimed is that if I have negative a’s or negative b’s I can prove a negative c.
As for the issue on witness (providing proof), in a court of law providing proof is not the witnesses’ responsibility. The witness is to say what was seen, heard, felt, etc. at the scene in question. Refuting the witness would be the responsibility of the opposing counsel. This is often done by questioning to attempt to find inconsistencies in the claim of the witness, or providing evidence that would make the character of the witness to be negative (defame the testimony). A claimant is the one bringing the case. I am not bringing to you a case. I am giving you testimony or deposition of facts as I have ascertained them. If you have an issue with my character please let me know. Additionally, your reading of the character of Joseph Smith is wholly different than mine when I was searching for answers about this religion.
As for the discussion with Spud. My original question to him was that if Joseph Smith saw God then he is a perfect witness of who God is. As for your argument that Joseph Smith is a liar, this is your case. I will no longer attempt to prove him to you. As I stated earlier my research is different. Since there were so many discrepancies in the arguments for and against Joseph, I to my questions to Heavenly Father.
Back to Abel. It doesn’t matter. 1/8th or 100%. I discussed the issue. If Joseph Smith was the prophet then the issue is really mute.
After going back on your preconcieved notions as to why I am what I am you ask:
“Who determines, Mormon 210, whether or not you are living a life worthy of a temple visit? Don’t mormons have to go through their bishop to get a temple recommend? Aren’t you relying on the judgment of another man to decide who is worthy?”
The answer is I determine. I can sit and bold face lie to my Bishop or I can be truthful either way isn’t the effort towards worthiness, not toward the outward appearances? This meeting with the Bishop is an opportunity to reflect on the questions of worthiness to enter the Lord’s Temple.
You then state:
“ If you were relying only on God then you could walk through the door without question. You are proving to men that you are worthy. And how do you know that I only give “lip” service to Christ but do no good works? I think an obvious difference in our stated motivations is that I do works for the Lord because He deserves the glory. You hope that your works will give YOU glory.”
My statement was universal. I stated that I do works in the name of Christ. I do not just take His grace for granted (no lip service). Certainly I hope to be with Him in Glory, but my works are to His credit. You characterize incorrectly when your presumptively state … “You hope that your works will give YOU glory”. This, my friend, would be pre-judgment of my intent as well as an accusation against my character.
Mormon 210
June 28th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
DH,
You asked me if, according to LDS doctrine, salvation requires men to do something. I answered (in summary) with a discussion about the requirements of baptism (outward sign) to follow the example of Christ who was perfect yet was baptized. Christ sought out a man (John the Baptist) and received the ordinance. So according to the LDS faith we seek men (who hold the same priesthood as John) and receive baptism, then endure to the end. Then you responded with a twisted interpretation of what I said. Let me say it clearly. It says all over the Bible that you must be baptized just as Christ was. Additionally, we (LDS) people also believe that we must find someone like John the Baptist (in terms of authority-in other words holding the authority to baptize as John did). You tend to work things around a corner taking a piece of what is said and disregarding the rest of it. YES. WE BELIEVE A MAN MUST BAPTIZE THE REPENTANT SEEKER OF THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST AND THAT THIS IS A REQUIRED ORDINANCE.
Additionally, what is the motive of this leverage you talk about? If there is leverage required (in the LDS church) what is the purpose of the leverage?
You asked several, very way out there questions. I can answer them all day the way I believe and you would have a comeback this way or that way. Let me put it this way. If God has provided the sealing power to men to seal families together, he will do the work of judging the validity of that power. Take it up with Him.
As for quantifying the issue about what is perfect or not, I will say this. That again Christ measures us. He is the Judge. If you want to know what is perfect enough ask Him. Additionally, how “good” do you have to be to go to “heaven” per your faith (51% - 49%, 88% - 22%, 30% - 70%) or do you have some magical equation as to what is necessary to enter “heaven”, or even better just assume that the grace of Christ will take care of it and if you don’t make it then you weren’t predestined to any way.
Additionally, I know I measure up for His grace so I don’t quantify the issue. I keep my faith and hope in Christ, I repent of the errors I make, and I do His works. I will see how I did at the judgement.
After a long winded discussion about several different issues, we finally get back to your contention and after my response on balance you state:
“Your prophet’s claim that God restored the priesthood said nothing about an end to segregation or intermarrying so where I am supposed to get the idea that this a a balanced discussion?”
I stated ““God does NOT change His nature. He does NOT find something an abomination one day and change His mind about it another.” You obviously have problems with these statements. I’d like to know, are they true or false according to LDS theology? And why?
You said: “After I explained my roommates thesis (in part) noting that he understood that there were Christian Religions, particularly Catholic and Protestant (particularly Methodist, Church of Christ and in the South the Baptists) that allowed negro conversion but he indicated that seldom if at all were they ever mixed. Clearly you don’’t understand the statement. He was not looking at truth. He was looking only at the acceptance of diversity in USA religions. The LDS Church, was alone in the acceptance of diversity and the conversion (acceptance of baptism) of all races. He (my roommate) was in a sense making the argument that ““a true Christian church”” should be accepting of all repentant souls without regard to anything.”
How do you explain the statements made by your prophets calling for absolute segregation? You cannot deny the statements as they are a part of your scripture so please explain them.”
I will not explain them. You have the issue with them so you work it out. I offered to you examples (to balance your issue) about Christ having Hittites, Ammonites, Palestinians, etc killed because of their race. He additionally counseled against mingling with them or intermarrying with non-Hebrew cultures. This was the balance I wrote about. I don’t have the answers or the time to go around and look at all of my leaders statements. Do you go back and review all of your thousands of leaders statements (thousand of different Christian religions - so there must be millions of different statements)?
Now you say:
“You claim that my statement as follows is prejudiced: ““Mormon young men are expected to go on a mission. It is NOT spontaneous, but failure to go on a mission is seen as failure to follow the gospel.””
I have read many statements by your leadership where they say that missions are expected, in fact a commandment of following the gospel. Are they prejudiced in making such statements? Your further statement suggests that you think only a black person (as you assume I am) would have issues with the prejudices of your church. That only furthers my contention that LDS worldview is blinded by the false teachings of their leadership.”
Your statement followed a line of discussion about what a Mormon missionary thinks when he chooses to serve a mission. We have a choice to either serve or not. We are not thought less of. Additionally, when Christ said to Peter “…come follow me…” Peter had a choice. He could say no. How do you think Christ would have viewed that decision. How do you think the other 11 chosen Apostles would have viewed Peter’s decision. As for being blinded by our leadership, I guess that means that followers of Christ have no reason to listen to His chosen leaders to do so we would be blinded.
Now on to the fun stuff. Lets be clear on what was said:
You said, “Now as for logic, You said ‘Your use of logic theory is flawed. You cannot prove a negative, Mormon 210.” and I responded that …Your wrong. You most definitely can prove a negative in an argument. Because in an argument there is no positive until proven negative with an argument.
Then you make an assumption and said “I will assume that you have never studied argumentation or logic. In a discussion or debate the person making a claim or assertion is responsible to support that claim or assertion with evidence. You claim that Joseph Smith saw God and you know this to be true by a personal feeling, which you call a testimony. Your personal feeling is not evidence to anyone but you. I cannot be responsible to disprove your subjective feeling. I can only respond to objective evidence. The objective evidence about the truthfulness of Joseph Smith is that he was not a reliable, consistent or truthful individual. There were multiple versions of the so called vision. There are numerous unfulfilled prophecies. There were numerous prophecies that were completely contradicted by reality. Then there’s the obvious falsification of the Book of Abraham which even an LDS scholar rejects as a true translation.”
Your incorrect, I have had some education and training in arguments. In fact aside from the little classes one might take in college required general education courses (you know Phil 1 and such), I have had a whole education dedicated to arguments, law and court room proceedings (JD).
Now my statement was that you can prove a negative in an argument. In fact, several times Johnnie Cochran shared that skill in the court room in the trial of OJ Simpson. Here is a logical equation. A logical equation is a simple math statement a=b, b=c therfore if a = b and b=c then a must equal c. What I claimed is that if I have negative a’s or negative b’s I can prove a negative c.
As for the issue on witness (providing proof), in a court of law providing proof is not the witnesses’ responsibility. The witness is to say what was seen, heard, felt, etc. at the scene in question. Refuting the witness would be the responsibility of the opposing counsel. This is often done by questioning to attempt to find inconsistencies in the claim of the witness, or providing evidence that would make the character of the witness to be negative (defame the testimony). A claimant is the one bringing the case. I am not bringing to you a case. I am giving you testimony or deposition of facts as I have ascertained them. If you have an issue with my character please let me know. Additionally, your reading of the character of Joseph Smith is wholly different than mine when I was searching for answers about this religion.
As for the discussion with Spud. My original question to him was that if Joseph Smith saw God then he is a perfect witness of who God is. As for your argument that Joseph Smith is a liar, this is your case. I will no longer attempt to prove him to you. As I stated earlier my research is different. Since there were so many discrepancies in the arguments for and against Joseph, I to my questions to Heavenly Father.
Back to Abel. It doesn’t matter. 1/8th or 100%. I discussed the issue. If Joseph Smith was the prophet then the issue is really mute.
After going back on your preconcieved notions as to why I am what I am you ask:
“Who determines, Mormon 210, whether or not you are living a life worthy of a temple visit? Don’t mormons have to go through their bishop to get a temple recommend? Aren’t you relying on the judgment of another man to decide who is worthy?”
The answer is I determine. I can sit and bold face lie to my Bishop or I can be truthful either way isn’t the effort towards worthiness, not toward the outward appearances? This meeting with the Bishop is an opportunity to reflect on the questions of worthiness to enter the Lord’s Temple.
You then state:
“ If you were relying only on God then you could walk through the door without question. You are proving to men that you are worthy. And how do you know that I only give “lip” service to Christ but do no good works? I think an obvious difference in our stated motivations is that I do works for the Lord because He deserves the glory. You hope that your works will give YOU glory.”
My statement was universal. I stated that I do works in the name of Christ. I do not just take His grace for granted (no lip service). Certainly I hope to be with Him in Glory, but my works are to His credit. You characterize incorrectly when your presumptively state … “You hope that your works will give YOU glory”. This, my friend, would be pre-judgment of my intent as well as an accusation against my character.
Mormon 210
June 29th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Mormon 210
You say,
“It says all over the Bible that you must be baptized just as Christ was.
YES. WE BELIEVE A MAN MUST BAPTIZE THE REPENTANT SEEKER OF THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST AND THAT THIS IS A REQUIRED ORDINANCE.”
I agree that baptism is a required ordinance, not for salvation but as an act of obedience. If you are saying that you need the same baptism as Jesus, then your theology is teaching that Jesus needed baptism in order to be saved. Along the lines of following the ordinances of Christ, I’d like to know if you are in the Mormon camp that believes that Jesus was married and fathered children, and had to do so in order to be perfect, or are you in the other camp that believes Jesus was celibate?
You say,
“Additionally, what is the motive of this leverage you talk about? If there is leverage required (in the LDS church) what is the purpose of the leverage?”
The purpose of the church’s leverage is to ensure power and financial gain for its leadership. For the average Mormon, the incentive is that you believe you get to become a god. Follow this or do that = becoming a god… I’d say that’s leverage.
Mormon 210,
You said,
“You asked several, very way out there questions. I can answer them all day the way I believe and you would have a comeback this way or that way. Let me put it this way. If God has provided the sealing power to men to seal families together, he will do the work of judging the validity of that power. Take it up with Him.”
I know these are difficult questions to answer, but humor me and answer them anyway. This is after all, a discussion on Mormon beliefs and theology. If my questions are way out there, it is because the issues are way out there, and these are questions that only a Mormon can answer.
About measuring perfection You say, among other things,
“I will see how I did at the judgement.”
It saddens me to hear someone who may genuinely want to love Christ so diminish what He did on the cross. To deny His grace and mercy and define His love as being based on human effort truly must sadden and dishonor Him. Let me quote the Bible here…
Galatians 3
1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.
5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Continue reading through Galatians 3 to get God’s perspective on works, instead of that of the man Joseph Smith and his progeny.
I had asked, “How do you explain the statements made by your prophets calling for absolute segregation? You cannot deny the statements as they are a part of your scripture so please explain them.”
You reply,
“I will not explain them. You have the issue with them so you work it out. I offered to you examples (to balance your issue) about Christ having Hittites, Ammonites, Palestinians, etc killed because of their race. He additionally counseled against mingling with them or intermarrying with non-Hebrew cultures. This was the balance I wrote about. I don’t have the answers or the time to go around and look at all of my leaders statements. Do you go back and review all of your thousands of leaders statements (thousand of different Christian religions - so there must be millions of different statements)?
Your leaders state that they are speaking the very words of God. Why don’t you have time to go and read the “words of God?” One of the greatest issues of concern for me is that your leadership makes claims to be speaking as the very mouthpieces of God, and yet what they say are often lies and half-truths that do no represent God or Godliness in any way. If your leadership never claimed to be speaking for God, then I would have no issue with the evilness of their hearts that is being represented in their words. As to the “killing because of their race” accusation, that’s a perverted Mormon spin to allow for a theology filled with racism. God commanded the death of idolators, as He did with His own people, the Jews. For example, those who worshipped the idol in the wilderness saw death instead of the promised land. God did not kill for race sake, that is only LDS wishful thinking.
You said,
“Your statement followed a line of discussion about what a Mormon missionary thinks when he chooses to serve a mission. We have a choice to either serve or not. We are not thought less of.”
What does your church do when someone does not follow a church command, because your leaders have made it clear that you are commanded to go on a mission? What procedure is followed for someone who does not follow a direct command of the church?
You say,
“Your wrong. You most definitely can prove a negative in an argument. Because in an argument there is no positive until proven negative with an argument.”
Please explain how you prove that a positive is negative with an argument. In your world, I guess negative and positive don’t have absolute meaning, which is consistent with Mormon theology.
I had previously stated,
“I will assume that you have never studied argumentation or logic. In a discussion or debate the person making a claim or assertion is responsible to support that claim or assertion with evidence. You claim that Joseph Smith saw God and you know this to be true by a personal feeling, which you call a testimony. Your personal feeling is not evidence to anyone but you. I cannot be responsible to disprove your subjective feeling. I can only respond to objective evidence. The objective evidence about the truthfulness of Joseph Smith is that he was not a reliable, consistent or truthful individual. There were multiple versions of the so called vision. There are numerous unfulfilled prophecies. There were numerous prophecies that were completely contradicted by reality. Then there’s the obvious falsification of the Book of Abraham which even an LDS scholar rejects as a true translation.”
I’m keeping the previous quote in, because you completely ignored it the first time. Maybe the second time will be the charm and I’ll get a response to it.
Then you say,
“Your incorrect, I have had some education and training in arguments. In fact aside from the little classes one might take in college required general education courses (you know Phil 1 and such), I have had a whole education dedicated to arguments, law and court room proceedings (JD).
Now my statement was that you can prove a negative in an argument. In fact, several times Johnnie Cochran shared that skill in the court room in the trial of OJ Simpson. Here is a logical equation. A logical equation is a simple math statement a=b, b=c therfore if a = b and b=c then a must equal c. ”
In a court of law, aren’t there items of evidence that will either support or deny the charge being made? When you consider witnesses in a courtroom it is the facts in the statements of the witnesses that are allowed, not their subjective, emotional interpretation of those facts. Also, the character, motivation and credibility of a witness is always taken into consideration. Let that be the case with Mormon authorities. In Biblical Christian theology, you don’t have to throw out objectivity to address issues of faith. Let’s try your mathematical equation this way:
A: A false prophet is a person who gives false prophecies.
B: Joseph Smith is a person who gave false prophecies.
C: Joseph Smith is a false prophet.
All that Johnnie Cochran proved is that he was skilled at persuading twelve people to let a murderer go free. I would agree that this is a negative.
You say,
“This is often done by questioning to attempt to find inconsistencies in the claim of the witness, or providing evidence that would make the character of the witness to be negative.. If you have an issue with my character please let me know. Additionally, your reading of the character of Joseph Smith is wholly different than mine when I was searching for answers about this religion.”
There are so many inconsistencies in the witness of Joseph Smith, that I don’t need to address the consideration of his character, although many of his contemporaries impugned his character. (Including some who were cited as witnesses to the BOM) I have no issues with your character. To this point I find you a dedicated and sincere person. Sadly, I believe your dedication is to a false religion.
You said,
“Back to Abel. It doesn’t matter. 1/8th or 100%. I discussed the issue. If Joseph Smith was the prophet then the issue is really mute.”
You are the one who brought up the issue of his percentage of negro heritage. You are the one who was trying to address that percentage as insignificant. Now that I’ve pointed out the truth of the matter you go mute. Remember also that you said that whoever granted him the priesthood was probably in error. Here is a very important question that you have yet to answer: How can a man impart the priesthood to Abel and his progeny when it was expressly forbidden by God? Does the authority of the Mormon priesthood supercede God’s authority? The answer to these questions shows that the issue really isn’t moot.
After I asked,
“Who determines, Mormon 210, whether or not you are living a life worthy of a temple visit? Don’t mormons have to go through their bishop to get a temple recommend? Aren’t you relying on the judgment of another man to decide who is worthy?”
You said
“The answer is I determine. I can sit and bold face lie to my Bishop or I can be truthful either way isn’t the effort towards worthiness, not toward the outward appearances? This meeting with the Bishop is an opportunity to reflect on the questions of worthiness to enter the Lord’s Temple.”
It may be an opportunity to reflect, but the bishop still decides. If you are telling a “bold faced lie” to your bishop, how is this an effort toward worthiness? It is an effort towards the outward appearance, and appearing worthy to a man.
You conclude
“I stated that I do works in the name of Christ. I do not just take His grace for granted (no lip service). Certainly I hope to be with Him in Glory, but my works are to His credit. You characterize incorrectly when your presumptively state … “You hope that your works will give YOU glory”. This, my friend, would be pre-judgment of my intent as well as an accusation against my character.”
You have said many times that you do good works, and HOPE that that will put you in good standing at the judgement. You speak of “enduring until the end”. The end for you is being glorified to godhood in some celestial kingdom. If you want to deny that your works are for your glory, you have thrown out essential teachings of LDS.
LDS_DH
June 29th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
DH,
You said:
“I agree that baptism is a required ordinance, not for salvation but as an act of obedience. If you are saying that you need the same baptism as Jesus, then your theology is teaching that Jesus needed baptism in order to be saved. Along the lines of following the ordinances of Christ, I’d like to know if you are in the Mormon camp that believes that Jesus was married and fathered children, and had to do so in order to be perfect, or are you in the other camp that believes Jesus was celibate?”
Why do you twist things up? Do you have a personal agenda your trying to meet regardless of the truth? I said that men must follow the example of Christ. That His entering the waters of baptism were for fulfilling all righteousness. That He was perfect and that if He was perfect and was baptized, then we (who are sinners and following that He is the example) must follow His example. We get the additional benefit of receiving a remission of sins however. As well, so what if it is required for salvation or simply required to show obedience it is still required as you and I both stated. So if you don’t get baptized your not obedient and you don’t get salvation. As well who is allowed to offer the ordinance of baptism, John the Baptist, Preacher Bob, your local Sheriff, or is it someone who claims to hold the same authority as John?
You said:
“The purpose of the church’s leverage is to ensure power and financial gain for its leadership. For the average Mormon, the incentive is that you believe you get to become a god. Follow this or do that = becoming a god… I’d say that’s leverage.”
What a freaking joke. We already discussed the notion that if we do things for Christ He benefits. The financial gain for our leadership is absurd. They receive a stipend from serving on the Board of Directors for a few corporations which the Church either owns (Beneficial Life, Deseret Industries) or is a share holder of (Zions First National Bank). The total compensation is extremely small (less than $100K a year). Additionally, these men give large sums of their personal time towards building the Church of God and leading 11,000,000 members. Your “leverage” claim is full of holes. Oh yeah, for normal Mormons we will do good things, help other people, serve in callings at church while holding down a job (all voluntarily of course) and raising a family (hard as heck to do for a life time) all for the benefit of godhood. Think about it numbskull.
You asked for me to answer questions and to “humor you” because this is “…a discussion of Mormon beliefs and theology”. My response is….READ ALL THE RESPONSES FROM MORMON 210 ON BOTH THIS SITE AS WELL AS VOY.COM. Your particular questions (which I can’t currently recall) were lame.
I appreciate your list of questions on works, my discussion was that faith moves one to works. Without works faith is dead and that by their fruits (results of their works) you will know true followers of Christ. However, your long scriptural quote was a side step to my answer. You asked me if I knew when I was perfect enough. I said I would do what it right, repent, and have hope in the end that I have done the works of Christ and met the expectation of His Judgement. I then asked you what you think is the level of “goodness” one must obtain to enter your christs heaven. I even gave you a few examples (you know 51% to 49% etc.). When you pull the mote out of your eye give me a call.
You had asked, “How do you explain the statements made by your prophets calling for absolute segregation? You cannot deny the statements as they are a part of your scripture so please explain them. And then you said, Your leaders state that they are speaking the very words of God. Why don’t you have time to go and read the “words of God?” One of the greatest issues of concern for me is that your leadership makes claims to be speaking as the very mouthpieces of God, and yet what they say are often lies and half-truths that do no represent God or Godliness in any way. If your leadership never claimed to be speaking for God, then I would have no issue with the evilness of their hearts that is being represented in their words. As to the “killing because of their race” accusation, that’s a perverted Mormon spin to allow for a theology filled with racism. God commanded the death of idolators, as He did with His own people, the Jews. For example, those who worshipped the idol in the wilderness saw death instead of the promised land. God did not kill for race sake, that is only LDS wishful thinking.”
OK goofy, who are your leaders speaking for? What are they preaching? How many half truths etc have they spoken? You must be the great wise one, because you can determine through judgement that your leaders are telling the truth and that ours are full of lies. Please read the newspapers in the past 30 years. How many Oral Roberts, Jerry Falwell’s, Farahkans, Jesse Jackson ministers do we need out there.
After I said:
Your statement followed a line of discussion about what a Mormon missionary thinks when he chooses to serve a mission. We have a choice to either serve or not. We are not thought less of.
You said:
What does your church do when someone does not follow a church command, because your leaders have made it clear that you are commanded to go on a mission? What procedure is followed for someone who does not follow a direct command of the church?
If I am a Mormon and I choose to smoke cigarettes after having been commanded not to, I am whipped 200 times with a wet noodle and forced to attend your church for one full year. Also, if I am commanded by God to do something what should be done if I don’t do it? We believe in free agency. You have the responsibility with that agency to do what is necessary to return to live with God. We are given commandments by God, whether by His mouth or the mouth of His servants it is the same.
I said:
Your wrong. You most definitely can prove a negative in an argument. Because in an argument there is no positive until proven negative with an argument.
I meant to say there is no positive in an argument until proven positive in an argument. My bad. As for your assertion that I did not answer the question of proving my feelings. I gave a whole statement on the use of views, feelings etc as evidence. Please read that again.
You ask:
“In a court of law, aren’t there items of evidence that will either support or deny the charge being made?”
YES, but we are presenting facts to prove a case. You asked about my feelings, my personal testimony. Now you need to bring facts against my personal testimony of what I heard, saw, felt, understood, etc.
You also ask:
“When you consider witnesses in a courtroom it is the facts in the statements of the witnesses that are allowed, not their subjective, emotional interpretation of those facts.”
It is the experience of the individual that is questioned. You may ascertain fact or fiction in the questioning. You may bring to question the credibility of the character. You may cross examine the witness to ascertain complexity or errors in the testimony. But you can not brush aside the notion of feelings as a sweep against what is testified to. I will admit that feelings and passions become less valuable than physical evidence. But testimony of any witness is less valuable than physical evidence. As an example, I have the testimony of three men who claim to have seen an angel and held the plates. I also have the testimony of eight men who claimed to see the plates. Of the twelve witnesses I have no proof of recanting their original witness. Most (if not all) of these men chose the flesh and quit the Church for one reason or another, but never (as far as I know) recanted.
Now as for physical evidence, talk to Larry on Voy.com. He likes us to prove to Him physically as well. I am not saying that physical evidence is not available, I claim that when I give physical evidence the evidence is swiftly brushed off to some trumped up notion.
You said:
There are so many inconsistencies in the witness of Joseph Smith, that I don’t need to address the consideration of his character, although many of his contemporaries impugned his character. (Including some who were cited as witnesses to the BOM) I have no issues with your character. To this point I find you a dedicated and sincere person. Sadly, I believe your dedication is to a false religion.
So be it. However, as I stated, the inconsistences are not there for me. I guess I am blinded by the light.
After this piece of discussion:
“Back to Abel. It doesn’’t matter. 1/8th or 100%. I discussed the issue. If Joseph Smith was the prophet then the issue is really mute.”
You are the one who brought up the issue of his percentage of negro heritage. You are the one who was trying to address that percentage as insignificant. Now that I’ve pointed out the truth of the matter you go mute. Remember also that you said that whoever granted him the priesthood was probably in error. Here is a very important question that you have yet to answer: How can a man impart the priesthood to Abel and his progeny when it was expressly forbidden by God? Does the authority of the Mormon priesthood supercede God’s authority? The answer to these questions shows that the issue really isn’t moot.
I am sorry, but I did answer the statement. I claim Joseph Smith is the Prophet of God so it is a moot point. It would be his responsibility. However, my original statement was that there is a question as to whether or not he was Negro. I am stating this off the web site claim in the web site you gave earlier. As for his children being ordained, I was not able to locate this information. Additionally, it all stems back to the issue of whether Joseph is or is not the Prophet.
After I responded,
The answer is I determine. I can sit and bold face lie to my Bishop or I can be truthful either way isn’t the effort towards worthiness, not toward the outward appearances? This meeting with the Bishop is an opportunity to reflect on the questions of worthiness to enter the Lord’’s Temple.”
It may be an opportunity to reflect, but the bishop still decides. If you are telling a “bold faced lie” to your bishop, how is this an effort toward worthiness? It is an effort towards the outward appearance, and appearing worthy to a man.
I stated clearly, that we judge ourselves and that we can lie or tell the truth. We may hold a recommend and enter the temple with the recommend but we are either worthy to do so or not it is truly up to us. The Bishop acts as a Judge in Israel in behalf of Christ. We can fool a Bishop but in the end we can not fool Christ. If we have lied, then we have lied not only to ourselves but to His servants and therefore, sought to make an appearance of obedience. We therefore have lied to Christ and entered His temple unworthily.
Look, it is not a mystery. We are not walking around in drone fashion obeying because we are told to. Do you obey the counsel of your minister? I obey Christ. I follow the counsel of His Prophet because I choose to. There is no mystery. I don’t feel like I can’t get out of this Church and they have me so brainwashed I am forever in there spiny grasp. I am free to choose-a very basic tenet of my belief.
This statement from you is 100% correct: “You have said many times that you do good works, and HOPE that that will put you in good standing at the judgement.” However, I do good works for Christ in HOPE that it is enough to provide exaltation. I am motivated by my faith in His great offer (Atonement) and love for me. I will do things to please Him, to glorify His name, to build His kingdom on earth.
You speak of “enduring until the end”.Yes I did, however it does not mean, “The end for you is being glorified to godhood in some celestial kingdom” it actually means enduring to the day of Judgement through the weakness of the flesh, not giving up and assuming I am saved, fight the good fight, live up to the expectations of a royal birth (being a child of God-thus a child of Eternal Royalty).
Now for your conclusion: “If you want to deny that your works are for your glory, you have thrown out essential teachings of LDS.”
After reading what I just claim, I hope you understand now that my works (which I hope are sufficient and acceptable to Christ) are for the Glory of Christ and the benefit of bringing myself and as many others to Him as possible. Will I receive glory, I hope so.
Mormon 210
June 29th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
DH,
You said:
“I agree that baptism is a required ordinance, not for salvation but as an act of obedience. If you are saying that you need the same baptism as Jesus, then your theology is teaching that Jesus needed baptism in order to be saved. Along the lines of following the ordinances of Christ, I’d like to know if you are in the Mormon camp that believes that Jesus was married and fathered children, and had to do so in order to be perfect, or are you in the other camp that believes Jesus was celibate?”
Why do you twist things up? Do you have a personal agenda your trying to meet regardless of the truth? I said that men must follow the example of Christ. That His entering the waters of baptism were for fulfilling all righteousness. That He was perfect and that if He was perfect and was baptized, then we (who are sinners and following that He is the example) must follow His example. We get the additional benefit of receiving a remission of sins however. As well, so what if it is required for salvation or simply required to show obedience it is still required as you and I both stated. So if you don’t get baptized your not obedient and you don’t get salvation. As well who is allowed to offer the ordinance of baptism, John the Baptist, Preacher Bob, your local Sheriff, or is it someone who claims to hold the same authority as John?
You said:
“The purpose of the church’s leverage is to ensure power and financial gain for its leadership. For the average Mormon, the incentive is that you believe you get to become a god. Follow this or do that = becoming a god… I’d say that’s leverage.”
What a freaking joke. We already discussed the notion that if we do things for Christ He benefits. The financial gain for our leadership is absurd. They receive a stipend from serving on the Board of Directors for a few corporations which the Church either owns (Beneficial Life, Deseret Industries) or is a share holder of (Zions First National Bank). The total compensation is extremely small (less than $100K a year). Additionally, these men give large sums of their personal time towards building the Church of God and leading 11,000,000 members. Your “leverage” claim is full of holes. Oh yeah, for normal Mormons we will do good things, help other people, serve in callings at church while holding down a job (all voluntarily of course) and raising a family (hard as heck to do for a life time) all for the benefit of godhood. Think about it numbskull.
You asked for me to answer questions and to “humor you” because this is “…a discussion of Mormon beliefs and theology”. My response is….READ ALL THE RESPONSES FROM MORMON 210 ON BOTH THIS SITE AS WELL AS VOY.COM. Your particular questions (which I can’t currently recall) were lame.
I appreciate your list of questions on works, my discussion was that faith moves one to works. Without works faith is dead and that by their fruits (results of their works) you will know true followers of Christ. However, your long scriptural quote was a side step to my answer. You asked me if I knew when I was perfect enough. I said I would do what it right, repent, and have hope in the end that I have done the works of Christ and met the expectation of His Judgement. I then asked you what you think is the level of “goodness” one must obtain to enter your christs heaven. I even gave you a few examples (you know 51% to 49% etc.). When you pull the mote out of your eye give me a call.
You had asked, “How do you explain the statements made by your prophets calling for absolute segregation? You cannot deny the statements as they are a part of your scripture so please explain them. And then you said, Your leaders state that they are speaking the very words of God. Why don’t you have time to go and read the “words of God?” One of the greatest issues of concern for me is that your leadership makes claims to be speaking as the very mouthpieces of God, and yet what they say are often lies and half-truths that do no represent God or Godliness in any way. If your leadership never claimed to be speaking for God, then I would have no issue with the evilness of their hearts that is being represented in their words. As to the “killing because of their race” accusation, that’s a perverted Mormon spin to allow for a theology filled with racism. God commanded the death of idolators, as He did with His own people, the Jews. For example, those who worshipped the idol in the wilderness saw death instead of the promised land. God did not kill for race sake, that is only LDS wishful thinking.”
OK goofy, who are your leaders speaking for? What are they preaching? How many half truths etc have they spoken? You must be the great wise one, because you can determine through judgement that your leaders are telling the truth and that ours are full of lies. Please read the newspapers in the past 30 years. How many Oral Roberts, Jerry Falwell’s, Farahkans, Jesse Jackson ministers do we need out there.
After I said:
Your statement followed a line of discussion about what a Mormon missionary thinks when he chooses to serve a mission. We have a choice to either serve or not. We are not thought less of.
You said:
What does your church do when someone does not follow a church command, because your leaders have made it clear that you are commanded to go on a mission? What procedure is followed for someone who does not follow a direct command of the church?
If I am a Mormon and I choose to smoke cigarettes after having been commanded not to, I am whipped 200 times with a wet noodle and forced to attend your church for one full year. Also, if I am commanded by God to do something what should be done if I don’t do it? We believe in free agency. You have the responsibility with that agency to do what is necessary to return to live with God. We are given commandments by God, whether by His mouth or the mouth of His servants it is the same.
I said:
Your wrong. You most definitely can prove a negative in an argument. Because in an argument there is no positive until proven negative with an argument.
I meant to say there is no positive in an argument until proven positive in an argument. My bad. As for your assertion that I did not answer the question of proving my feelings. I gave a whole statement on the use of views, feelings etc as evidence. Please read that again.
You ask:
“In a court of law, aren’t there items of evidence that will either support or deny the charge being made?”
YES, but we are presenting facts to prove a case. You asked about my feelings, my personal testimony. Now you need to bring facts against my personal testimony of what I heard, saw, felt, understood, etc.
You also ask:
“When you consider witnesses in a courtroom it is the facts in the statements of the witnesses that are allowed, not their subjective, emotional interpretation of those facts.”
It is the experience of the individual that is questioned. You may ascertain fact or fiction in the questioning. You may bring to question the credibility of the character. You may cross examine the witness to ascertain complexity or errors in the testimony. But you can not brush aside the notion of feelings as a sweep against what is testified to. I will admit that feelings and passions become less valuable than physical evidence. But testimony of any witness is less valuable than physical evidence. As an example, I have the testimony of three men who claim to have seen an angel and held the plates. I also have the testimony of eight men who claimed to see the plates. Of the twelve witnesses I have no proof of recanting their original witness. Most (if not all) of these men chose the flesh and quit the Church for one reason or another, but never (as far as I know) recanted.
Now as for physical evidence, talk to Larry on Voy.com. He likes us to prove to Him physically as well. I am not saying that physical evidence is not available, I claim that when I give physical evidence the evidence is swiftly brushed off to some trumped up notion.
You said:
There are so many inconsistencies in the witness of Joseph Smith, that I don’t need to address the consideration of his character, although many of his contemporaries impugned his character. (Including some who were cited as witnesses to the BOM) I have no issues with your character. To this point I find you a dedicated and sincere person. Sadly, I believe your dedication is to a false religion.
So be it. However, as I stated, the inconsistences are not there for me. I guess I am blinded by the light.
After this piece of discussion:
“Back to Abel. It doesn’’t matter. 1/8th or 100%. I discussed the issue. If Joseph Smith was the prophet then the issue is really mute.”
You are the one who brought up the issue of his percentage of negro heritage. You are the one who was trying to address that percentage as insignificant. Now that I’ve pointed out the truth of the matter you go mute. Remember also that you said that whoever granted him the priesthood was probably in error. Here is a very important question that you have yet to answer: How can a man impart the priesthood to Abel and his progeny when it was expressly forbidden by God? Does the authority of the Mormon priesthood supercede God’s authority? The answer to these questions shows that the issue really isn’t moot.
I am sorry, but I did answer the statement. I claim Joseph Smith is the Prophet of God so it is a moot point. It would be his responsibility. However, my original statement was that there is a question as to whether or not he was Negro. I am stating this off the web site claim in the web site you gave earlier. As for his children being ordained, I was not able to locate this information. Additionally, it all stems back to the issue of whether Joseph is or is not the Prophet.
After I responded,
The answer is I determine. I can sit and bold face lie to my Bishop or I can be truthful either way isn’t the effort towards worthiness, not toward the outward appearances? This meeting with the Bishop is an opportunity to reflect on the questions of worthiness to enter the Lord’’s Temple.”
It may be an opportunity to reflect, but the bishop still decides. If you are telling a “bold faced lie” to your bishop, how is this an effort toward worthiness? It is an effort towards the outward appearance, and appearing worthy to a man.
I stated clearly, that we judge ourselves and that we can lie or tell the truth. We may hold a recommend and enter the temple with the recommend but we are either worthy to do so or not it is truly up to us. The Bishop acts as a Judge in Israel in behalf of Christ. We can fool a Bishop but in the end we can not fool Christ. If we have lied, then we have lied not only to ourselves but to His servants and therefore, sought to make an appearance of obedience. We therefore have lied to Christ and entered His temple unworthily.
Look, it is not a mystery. We are not walking around in drone fashion obeying because we are told to. Do you obey the counsel of your minister? I obey Christ. I follow the counsel of His Prophet because I choose to. There is no mystery. I don’t feel like I can’t get out of this Church and they have me so brainwashed I am forever in there spiny grasp. I am free to choose-a very basic tenet of my belief.
This statement from you is 100% correct: “You have said many times that you do good works, and HOPE that that will put you in good standing at the judgement.” However, I do good works for Christ in HOPE that it is enough to provide exaltation. I am motivated by my faith in His great offer (Atonement) and love for me. I will do things to please Him, to glorify His name, to build His kingdom on earth.
You speak of “enduring until the end”.Yes I did, however it does not mean, “The end for you is being glorified to godhood in some celestial kingdom” it actually means enduring to the day of Judgement through the weakness of the flesh, not giving up and assuming I am saved, fight the good fight, live up to the expectations of a royal birth (being a child of God-thus a child of Eternal Royalty).
Now for your conclusion: “If you want to deny that your works are for your glory, you have thrown out essential teachings of LDS.”
After reading what I just claim, I hope you understand now that my works (which I hope are sufficient and acceptable to Christ) are for the Glory of Christ and the benefit of bringing myself and as many others to Him as possible. Will I receive glory, I hope so.
Mormon 210
June 29th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Peace & Love
The story below details all of my life, contrary to Sinclair Furguson’s writting, that states that the person ‘may believe that he/she may have free will, but in reality, it is not the case’. In my case, I did ,and still have free will, my wife and two daughters being a large part of my later life, that is until May 2000. Below, I will detail contact with who I thought was Jesus, but actually was the father
(Jehovah Elohim) as spelled out in the Bible. Please read the full story below.
First of all,I hold no distinction between churches honouring Jesus. My name, at birth, was Denis. I was born in Ottawa Canada in 1958, and lived initially in lowertown. It was below a rather high cliff, on top of which sat a large church. We didn’t live there too long, and moved to Ottawa’s south end, to a rather large house. This was where the family took in borders to supplement income. Here again, by the time I was seven years old, we moved again. This time, it was not out of necessity, but parental separation. We then moved to where I would finish elementary school, and even high schools. It was here too, that I met my future wife, who moved to Ottawa from Bellville. We eventually had two daughters, and after we moved to a separate house things began to fall apart. Anger, frustration and money being our major concerns. The constant spats caused separation, but at the hand of a daughter, who took it upon herself, to talk to the C.A.S.. So I moved to my mother’s and brother’s house, in Nepean. It was on an occaision, when my wife asked me to look after the house one weekend, where something unusual happened. I went over to spend the night, but the kids did not pack appropriate clothing for the trip, so they too, stayed for that night. It was in the midst of that night, at three thirty a.m., when I first heard someone call my name. It frightened me to think that someone was in my house. I could not distinguish whether the voice was that of a male or of a female. A moment or two later, I checked the doors and windows and found all shut and locked with no strangers in the house. I put the incident aside for a week or two, but thought of it again,a week later, and I decided to pray to ‘God’ and asked ‘Him’ to look after my family, as I could not and if I had inheritted any diseases from my dad’s side, ‘He’ could heal me, but only if ‘He’ wanted to. That night after returning from work at Nepean Hydro, I proceeded to the furnace room, at my mother and brother’s house, where my bed was placed. I was laying on my bed and watching the furnace fire, while up on my arm. It was while I watched the fire, that I noticed a short person standing beside the furnace, and holding a rather large ornate volume over his head. When I had turned my head to see him, he bolted towards the head of my bed. I then turned to see where he had gone, but noticed who I thought was the Lord. ‘He’ picked me up and spun me in the air, and while He did so, I could see my body on the bed and ‘Him’ behind me. ‘He’ wore the jeans with the bib and shoulder straps and had a moustache and beard, but no side burns. At the next instant it was morning. I awakened to a new sense of confidence, in the ‘Lord’. ‘He’ hears prayer! Yeah
The next occurrence was in 2001, during the blues-fest in Ottawa. The festival ran from the third to the eleventh of July 2001, and a time I would never forget. I had forgotten to wear a hat to the event and after two days, I felt a drop of what I initially thought was rain, but the sky was blue. At the same time, I started to notice what appeared like photo-flashes, that followed me, but always on the periphery. These flashes followed me wherever I travelled. This would include my house and my mother’s house too. I mentioned these things to my mother, who suggested I sleep in her room, rather than the basement, and she would sleep on the ground floor on a sofabed. This was because she presumed I had been asleep, but hadn’t been. So, as recommended, I slept on the third floor. It was rather hot that night, so I slept on top of the bedding. The light that I saw that night, was like that of a chopping block that ran from my head, to my toes, two to three times. Then, another light entered the room and ‘He’ stepped out of it, dressed in white this time. ‘He’ looked at me, turned, and stepped back into the light. The light then ran from my toes towards my head. (Please note that none of these lights appeared to harm me, but carressed me) The photo flases continued to follow me, and into this room too, but one day they did not. I thought that would be the end of it. I would not have to worry any more about it, but the next morning found images on my walls. There was daylight in my room, as per usual, but down along the floor, where it is usually a bit darker, there was a lit panel, that measured six inches by six feet long. Beside it was a door that was about a foot wide but six feet high and came to a point. I thought it looked much like the gates of both heaven and hell. The next image was about me and could have been past experience, or future event, as I still can’t figure it out. The image was of four stick figures. There were three black stick figures, and one white one, on a panel that was two feet by four. I initially thought it to be my being forgiven the first time for my father’s disease, but later think it was a warning to wear a hat in the sunlight, but didn’t pay it any heed. That Saturday, at the music festival, I did suffer a heat stroke, and felt a lot of blood flowing. So I quickly layed myself down, from two thirty ’till midnight, when the concert had finished. I did think I would die if I sat up, but when I did so, did not die. So relieved, I drove to my mother’s house, parked, and proceeded to my bedroom. Half way down the stairs, I thought my mother had forgotten my room light on, as the light was flowing from my room. When I got to the room though, found it to be a light that appeared to be like laser. It was bouncing from bed and furniture to the ceiling. This excited me very much, thinking that someone was going to appear or at least talk to me. I waited and waited, but fell asleep, (for the first time in this ordeal). ‘He’ woke me again, at three thirty asked if I had regrets. I did say I wanted to be a better dad and husband. ‘He’ then said “I’m going to send you back, but this time your going to read my book(Bible), and give religion a chance”. “Then I’m going to make sure that you hear me”. At the next instant I was waking, but this time when I opened my eyes, it was like being in a dark closet. When the daylight penetrated, it was like a flashlight to the eyes, while in the closet. It was when I started to move, that I noticed another presence within me, from head to toe. He gave me the hunger to read the Bible, and to get to church. Not just go to church but rather it was also to speak at it too. ‘He’ mentions that the wise walk with the wise. ‘He’ has also shown me so many visions, some of which I think may be relevant. The “utter blackness of the end of the earth” or the one where ‘He’ showed me a group of bells, ten by ten of them, like those of the eucharist, on a highway leading to a gate which had a rounded top, with boards running from top to bottom with one across the other boards. ‘He’ said I had a key for it, but later said that the gate was now opened. I should mention too, that last fall ‘he’ showed me a pitch fork, that came through a very overcast day’s sky, with such speed. The cloud cover remained in that shape for a moment or two, with blue sky, behind this vision. The fork indicated that ‘He’, was drawing all those that were already asleep/or dead in Jesus. The spring of 2000,’He’ called me to gather all sinners. The homeless, drunks and alcoholics first of all as they are closest to death along with those that are sick in hospital etc.. All are to read the Bible, as we are the true church. The building is God’s house as well. ‘He’ also wants me to say ‘Time is fulfilled. Repent now and believe the gospel, or if you do not repent you will perish.’ ‘He’ would also like us all to use ethanol for auto fuels, and that it should be suplied more universally. ‘He’ mentioned too, that all females, are to wear kerchiffs or hats, on their heads while at church, and in any capacity. That is kerchiffs or hats, as a sign of respect. ‘He’ is also, very much an environmentalist, so would have all of us use non fossel fuels or walk more. That would mean ethanol, wind and solar power should be endorsed. A good point would be, that each wind turbine powers about 250 houses, and if supply exceeds demand, the remainder could be sold, back to Ontario Hydro or whichever suplier. A cheaper means of power would be solar panels, but for individual homes. I should mention here that even car pooling too, would help the environment as well. Saying too, that there are far too many automobiles. ‘His’ ideal would be that all peoples would be more willing to share, in this regard as well. People are to be more tolerant and peacable. Forgiveness and turning the other cheek may bring this about. Prayer and love towards all others. Pray for those that are not so, and direct them back to the book. Boys/men, girls/women are to put aside sex, and get to know the other person first. Restraint is to be used before any commital. In other words, know each other so well, that a truer love could flourish. We are to pray in sincerity in cases where, this is not the case. ‘He’ hears and will have one or the other, changed, personality wise, as ‘he’ has done for me. ‘God’s will is to have man and woman in relationships, stating that the two become one flesh. Anything else is an abomination. The action is actually abhored, more than the individual itself, in this regards. They must all ask for forgiveness, in sincerity, for any abhorations. Bible study will reveal many truths, as well, and should become a more popular pass-time. Any evils will be dealt with. Please note: in regards to divorce people are to pray or remain celibate, rather than seeking another partner, as this is called adultry, unless of course you meet a virgin. Given this day and age you may want to stay celibate. Marrying kids could not be sanctioned of course, unless you too are a youngster. This is not to say that youngsters are to marry at all. This is to be taught to all youngsters by all parents versed in the Bible, as well. We have many role models in it, and on earth, from which to learn. Some angels in ‘Gods’ eyes would be Gideons and Christian church volunteers in many, facilities. Giving time to food banks, hospitals, and homes for the aged and missionaries too are angels. If possible, adoption too would qualify. Where difficulies arise in this regard, we are to pray. Prayer and Bible teaching comes as a good source to rely upon. It may be called a book of life itself, and if read often enough, you too may receive the ‘Holy Spirit’. The 10 commandments are the law that all must follow. ‘He’ has called me ‘Jesus’. This is the Good News that the gospel has so often preached about. I have been forgiven, and I have been made well, from a family disease and have been raised from the dead even. No I don’t have a death certificate, but know without a doubt. ‘God’ himself is the insperation, and is totally love. ‘He’ has blessed me so much, I couldn’t possibly start to even explain. ‘He’ has given me a new heart, ‘His’ own. ‘He has also given me eyes to see the suffering, that people in sin suffer daily. They think it is a life not worth living, in many cases, given drug use etc., but do not know ‘God’. Do they not think, there is no penalty for sin. On repentance, I could forgive these and more. Repentance would include the reading of the Bible and giving religion a chance. It would also include the putting aside of things causing sin. See the ten commandments for guidance. I have been made well, from a family disease. Those closest to death, drunks, dope addicts, the elderly, and the depressed. Abortion will only be sanctioned when it is a tubal ligation, there-by saving the female, but ONLY then. A new morality is necessary. Mentioned in the Bible, fathers that are versed, are to teach their kids. Kids on the other hand, are to put aside all violent games. All idolitry is to stop. Molded images of ‘Jesus’ and ‘Mary’, or each seperatly, should not be ever bowed to. The cross too, is made of human hands and nailed to the wall and should not be bowed to. The cross itself, is only a good sign, of a Christ centred church, and should not be bowed to otherwise. Tithing is to be given to the church or for the good of the community. Some good causes would be the Gideons, hospitals, food-banks , hospitals etc., or donating time to some of these causes. You can also donate time in food banks, hospitals, homes for the elderly or Please do not talk to others, about someone else negatively, as it is called back sliding. Note: the names that he gave me were ‘Jesus,Yeshua, Emmanuel Yamshea.’ Also, say no to any and all war. Within 6 generations we all are related statisticly. Any monies lent, should be forgiven and or interest free.
Sincerely
Jesus
June 30th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
WHAT is your and your number to can I have
it.
September 2nd, 2008 at 1:51 am
Jesus was baptised out of an act of obedience to his Father. This does not mean that he was not perfect. Jesus was perfect his whole human life. Show me where it says that he wasn’t. THe Book of Mormon also says that in order for one to be saved he must endure to the end. 2 Nephi 11:25. I am sorry, but that idea is not biblical. The Bible says that by believeing and confessing we are saved.