Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bernard Gui

Would You Vote For A Mormon?

Recommended Posts

Of course, you are not a bigot, we apologize for that.

Oh, give me a break! I understand you're trying to be nice, TAO, but honestly, herestonewbeginnings will not vote for Mormons because they're Mormons, not because he disagrees with their political positions. That makes him a bigot. Let's call a spade a spade.

herestonewbeginnings, I'm not trying to be mean. Just calling it like I see it. If you do not vote for Obama because you disagree with his policies, that's fine. If you don't vote for him because he's black, then you're a racist. It's that simple.

Whether or not Joseph Smith was a false prophet, and whether or not the "Mormon Jesus" is the same as your Jesus is irrelevant for determining a person's qualifications for public office. The real question is, would the person do a good job in that office?

DH

Share this post


Link to post

HTNB is the prototypical evangelical. Mormons are mentally deficient, so they are unfit for public office. He likely thinks the same about Catholics. I would also be interested in seeing the rest of his list of "undesirables."

Responding to his too-oft repeated drivel is a wasted effort.

Share this post


Link to post

Oh, give me a break! I understand you're trying to be nice, TAO, but honestly, herestonewbeginnings will not vote for Mormons because they're Mormons, not because he disagrees with their political positions. That makes him a bigot. Let's call a spade a spade.

I understand... it's just that the word 'bigot' is a strong label, if you know what I mean. I really don't like strong labels. I could say he is incorrectly biased though, and probably be fine with it... it isn't as 'strong', so to say. I prefer less strong words in general for most things... it makes people much more amiable, which is a nice thing =).

Perhaps I just don't like 'racist', 'homophobic', 'sexist', and all the other strong labels that get thrown around, but yah, that's just how I view it, I guess. =P

Best Wishes,

TAO

Edited by TAO

Share this post


Link to post

I would vote for a mormon but not an evangelical..

I converted at the age of 17 and when my baptism date was set somehow, they(EVs) got wind of it and let loose the heavy artillery against the mormons upon me.

They took me proselyting door to door. When it came my turn to witness I felt the Spirit reprimand me and teach me that I did not have authority yet to represent God nor to speak for Him. As it happened the woman that answered the door was LDS. I smiled and told her I was going to join her church. That really miffed the EVs.

They wouldn't leave me alone. Finally they switched tactics and stopped trying to convince me that baptism wasn't necessary and offered to baptize me pre-empting the mormon baptism by a couple of weeks.

I was tired of the verbal bashing and the thought occurred to me, why not? I could eat meat offered to idols with a clear conscience..

So after the baptism they forgot about me and left me alone..

So I enjoyed a couple of weeks respite to meditate and ponder without the strife before my real baptism..

Edited by shalamabobbi

Share this post


Link to post

I would vote for a mormon but not an evangelical..

I would say that's bigoted, too. (I may not be "nice," but at least I'm consistent!) If an evangelical ran for office who shared my political values, I'd have no problem voting for her.

Sure I've had bad experiences with EVs, but I've also had bad experiences with Mormons. That doesn't mean that all EVs or all LDS are bad, just that there are some bad apples in every group.

Edited by DH

Share this post


Link to post

thesometimessaint

You don't like the facts I've shared, thus, that makes me a "bigot". I apologize for hurting your feelings, but Hmmm, where do we see this type of dodging in our culture today? Let's see, if you don't agree with homosexuality, you are a "homophobe", a "hater", "intolerant", etc... Or, if you don't like the policies of this current administration, you are considered a "racist". When millions of Americans will clearly not vote for a Mormon, that makes them all "bigots"??? Nevermind all the reasons WHY people are so uncomfortable voting for a Mormon.

Don't get me wrong. Mormons are some of the nicest people one could hope to meet. Part of that may be due, in part, to the heavy emphasis on works oriented salvation vs. trusting that the work Christ did on the cross was MORE than ENOUGH. Thus, your good works will come out of a response to Christ's goodness, vs. doing good works to earn your savlation. See the difference?

50,000 Christian "religions" in the U.S.? Really? Do tell. There are many denominations, but "religions"? You lost me on that one.

Mormon Jesus vs. Biblical Jesus: The Jesus of Mormonism is not the Jesus of the Bible: Was Jesus born out of a physical sexual relationship that God had with Mary? OH LITTLE TOWN OF BETHLEHEM must drive you nuts because Mormons believe he was not born there as clearly stated in the Holy Bible (Alma 7:9-10 says Jerusalem). Jesus is out of the lineage of DAVID, not BENJAMIN. Mormon Jesus is the brother of SATAN, contrary to scriptures. Mormon Jesus was/is married to many wives. Not Biblical Jesus, nor are we married in Heaven. Mormon Trinity is <EM>3 seperate gods</EM>, not all being one God as scripture makes clear. Mormon Jesus was created and has a beginning, not Biblical Jesus, he always has been.

One of the biggest issues with the Mormon Jesus is really an insult to Christ. Read Journal of Discourses Vol 3, pg.247, 1856. Jesus atoned for our sins on the cross, only partially. He was unable to atone for all our sins. Wow! Saying that the Son of God was unable to achieve what God asked him to do... blasphemy, unbiblical, want no part of it my friend. Also, saying that salvation is only achieved by believing also that Joe Smith was God's prophet (Doctrine of Salvation Vol 1, pg. 188) contradicts Christ saying I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH, THE LIFE. NO MAN COMES TO FATHER EXPCEPT THROUGH....who?......CHRIST JESUS. The Mormon Jesus never mentioned the critical passover. Biblical Jesus told his disciples of the passover. Mormon Jesus' church failed, but was restored by Joe Smith. Biblical Jesus built his church and it would exist FOR ALL TIME. (Matt 16:18) Why don't Mormons worship Jesus, and pray to Jesus, instead to "god", "heavenly father", thus again minimizing who the Jesus of the Bible truly is. GOD.

No evidence of Christs existence outside of the Bible? Ancient writings and artifacts of the following would beg to differ: Flavius Josephus (Jewish Historian AD 70), Plenius Secundus(Govenor in Asia Minor AD112),Cornelius Tacitus (Gov of Asia aD 116), Gius Setunious Tranquillus, Lucian (AD 170), or The Talmud (collection of Jewish history/traditions from that era). The Talmud also noted Jesus was trying to lead Isreal astray with his "sourcery". i.e. Christ's unexplanable miracles are mentioned outside of the Bible.

"There is absolutely no archaelogical evidence for anyone or any event prior to the kingship of David..." Hmmm, did the great flood happen before the time of David? Mesopotamians, Egyptians, and Greeks all report a flood in primordial times. A Sumerian king list from c. 2100 divides itself into two categories: those kings who ruled before a great flood and those who ruled after it. Even the Epic of Gilgamesh notes the great flood. What about the Nuzi Tablets? The some 20,000 cuneiform clay tablets discovered at the ruins of Nuzi, east of the Tigris River. 1500 reveal institutions, practices, and customs remarkably congruent to those found in Genesis. These tablets include treaties, marriage arrangements, rules regarding inheritance, adoption, and the like. Also, all the chariot pieces that were found in the Red Sea, just a coincidence of course. ;)

Also, in 1906, archeologists found evidence to support the Genesis mention of Hittites. Which, later in history king DAVID slept with Bathsheba, wife of a Hitite. In addition to Jericho, places such as Haran, Hazor, Dan, Megiddo, Shechem, Samaria, Shiloh, Gezer, Gibeah, Beth Shemesh, Beth Shean, Beersheba, Lachish, and many other urban sites have been excavated, quite apart from such larger and obvious locations as Jerusalem or Babylon. Too much Biblical Archeological evidence to place in this forum my friend. Shoot, I remember hearing on the news just a year or two ago about an aqueduct that was discovered that was in the Bible, but thought to be non-existent.

Some of the false prophecies of Joseph Smith: (Keep in mind that Duet. 18:20-22 says if what a "prophet" says does not come to pass, that prophet is not of the Lord.)

1.) Read in full context the History of the Church Vol 2, page 189. He claimed Jesus would return within 56 years. When 1891 passed, his prophecy was proven false.

2.) Joe aslo said the temple would be built within his generation in the western boundaries of Missouri (Independence area).(Doctrines and Covenants 84:2-5;31) Oops, they were driven out in 1833.

3.) Joe prophecied on 12/27/1832 that the earth with tremble and the sun go dark in just a few days. Ooops.

4.) Pearl of Great Price says that Joe said that Isaiah 11:6-9 was about to be fullfilled. Last I noticed, this has not yet been fulfilled. The wolf is not dwelling with the lamb, the calf and the lion are not together, nor are the cow and bear grazing together. The lion is not eating straw like an ox. Nursing children are not playing in the dens of cobras.

This is quite the lengthy response, and I apologize for my unpatient attitude at the beginning of this reply. As I lay out these details, it's actually heart breaking to realize how many have been deceived by the father of lies. None of what I have to say will probably change your beliefs, nor is that the objective. The pride of man often prevents his heart from being open. Only the work of the Holy Spirit can soften a man's heart towards the good news of the inspired word of God. I can't do that, but I can rely upon doctrine that is built upon a firm foundation, vs. one that contradicts scripture, minimizes Christ, and just arrived on the scene less than 200 years ago via a controvertial figure with questionable character (according to accounts of those that knew Joseph Sr. and Jr., and recorded affidavits).

All this was meant to originally help shed some light on why many Americans and most Christians are uncomfortable with a Mormon as the head decision maker for our nation.

You are not telling us anything that has not been told before. This is a typical response to be expected from someone who believes in an apostate religion. If you have something new to bring to the table, let's hear it; otherwise your posts are getting extremely boring. You are wasting your time around here I can assure you. -_-

Share this post


Link to post

I would say that's bigoted, too. (I may not be "nice," but at least I'm consistent!) If an evangelical ran for office who shared my political values, I'd have no problem voting for her.

Sure I've had bad experiences with EVs, but I've also had bad experiences with Mormons. That doesn't mean that all EVs or all LDS are bad, just that there are some bad apples in every group.

Just trying to add some perspective for the benefit of a certain new poster in this thread. I actually might vote for an evangelical though I'm glad I didn't vote for the last one, W, *cough*

Share this post


Link to post

Just trying to add some perspective for the benefit of a certain new poster in this thread. I actually might vote for an evangelical though I'm glad I didn't vote for the last one, W, *cough*

You mean you didn't take Dubbers at his word that God called him to run for President? :shok:;)

Share this post


Link to post

I didn't think you'd be able to counter the evidence. That's ok. Many occults teach that you should not give time or credence to those who challenge you on an intellectual level because it will only legitimize them in the eyes of your peers. Until the Holy Spirit softens your heart, Joe Smith himself could come back from the dead and plead with you in tears of the deception of this occult, but it would not matter. It's like the doctor telling you that you have a lethal sickness, but you've been told all these years that you don't need a doctor or medicine, so you go blindly off to your own death believing you know the way.

That doesn't mean that believers can't be continuing to pray for you and others in LDS, because TODAY is the day of salvation. If you call upon the Lord, he will hear you. You can indeed be saved by the only who possibly can save. Christ ALONE. His work on the cross was sufficient. To say it was not is minimizing Christ, and really quite a convenient story by someone who wanted to exalt himself as a "prophet" (i.e. "you need Christ, AND me." Hello....McFly!). So many holes in the LDS foundation. If it were a wine skin, it would hold wine for less than a milisecond.

Hopefully you are better able to understand, even just a smidgen, why millions will not vote for a Mormon. Do you have any idea how it is viewed by people? Almost like an Arian occult, save for the few token "colored people" in the aggressive ad campaigns aimed at changing public perception. "I'm black, and I'm a Mormon..." Quite offensive, really. I've been to Salt Lake, the temple tours, been to many mormon "churches" locally as well. Aside from noting the absence of a cross on the building, the lack of any color reflects the original sentiment of Joe & LDS doctrine, who said dark skins are cursed. If he was truly a prophet, he would declare things that reflect the character of God, who is unchanging. (same yesterday, today, tomorrow) So, to later make doctrine more PC, and delete the racist text, is quite revealing. The canonized scriptures remain, however....

May the grace of God open your heart.

Peace.

You are not telling us anything that has not been told before. This is a typical response to be expected from someone who believes in an apostate religion. If you have something new to bring to the table, let's hear it; otherwise your posts are getting extremely boring. You are wasting your time around here I can assure you. -_-

Share this post


Link to post

HTNB: It would be appreciated if you answered questions put to you by readers of this thread. If you are just going to put up laundry lists of anti-Mormon gripes, please start your own discussion on a new thread.

Bernard

Share this post


Link to post

I didn't think you'd be able to counter the evidence. That's ok. Many occults teach that you should not give time or credence to those who challenge you on an intellectual level because it will only legitimize them in the eyes of your peers. Until the Holy Spirit softens your heart, Joe Smith himself could come back from the dead and plead with you in tears of the deception of this occult, but it would not matter. It's like the doctor telling you that you have a lethal sickness, but you've been told all these years that you don't need a doctor or medicine, so you go blindly off to your own death believing you know the way.

That doesn't mean that believers can't be continuing to pray for you and others in LDS, because TODAY is the day of salvation. If you call upon the Lord, he will hear you. You can indeed be saved by the only who possibly can save. Christ ALONE. His work on the cross was sufficient. To say it was not is minimizing Christ, and really quite a convenient story by someone who wanted to exalt himself as a "prophet" (i.e. "you need Christ, AND me." Hello....McFly!). So many holes in the LDS foundation. If it were a wine skin, it would hold wine for less than a milisecond.

Hopefully you are better able to understand, even just a smidgen, why millions will not vote for a Mormon. Do you have any idea how it is viewed by people? Almost like an Arian occult, save for the few token "colored people" in the aggressive ad campaigns aimed at changing public perception. "I'm black, and I'm a Mormon..." Quite offensive, really. I've been to Salt Lake, the temple tours, been to many mormon "churches" locally as well. Aside from noting the absence of a cross on the building, the lack of any color reflects the original sentiment of Joe & LDS doctrine, who said dark skins are cursed. If he was truly a prophet, he would declare things that reflect the character of God, who is unchanging. (same yesterday, today, tomorrow) So, to later make doctrine more PC, and delete the racist text, is quite revealing. The canonized scriptures remain, however....

May the grace of God open your heart.

Peace.

You will get your answer when the time comes to elect a new President. In the mean time, you ought to know that I am allergic to long rambling posts. I get bored quickly, and don't bother to read them.

Share this post


Link to post

I am allergic to long rambling posts. I get bored quickly, and don't bother to read them.

LOL, here is a conversation I have one occasion

Person W: Did the email from so and so

Me: Yes.

Person W: Did you read it?

Me: No, too many words.

Share this post


Link to post

"There is no homosexual gene, nor is there any proof that homosexuality is genetic. This is a falsehood. Please provide your evidence. "Lady Gaga" is not considered evidence just so you know. (please submit evidence on another thread so as not to anger the Mods"

Don't have a clue what your reference to 'Lady Gaga' means.

You ask me to 'provide my evidence'. Certainly. First, tell me where I might find those elusive 'Golden Plates'.

And if I live as Christ teaches me- I don't need to know why gay people are gay. It is my task to love them as much as I love Jesus Christ. That is what HE wants from me.

Salvation and forgiveness are the same.Only my condemnation injures me. Only my own forgiveness sets me free.

And as for the issue of people of color- yes, I am offended Joseph Smith said the BOM was an accurate history of the people of the Americas (and claimed it was the TRUEST BOOK ON THE EARTH') and meanwhile he disrespects my ancestors since his stories about the Lamanites and the way they lived sound more like Roman culture than any Meso American culture. I don't have to remind you the Smithsonian and several other historical/ archeological bodies view the BOM as fiction (exept of course those few who are LDS and build careers on championing their prophet).

Why am I not suprised you don't see why I am upset about the way Jospeh Smith labeled black people. RACISM and discrimination IS AN OFFENSE TO ANY TRUE CHRISTIAN. I don't have to be black to be hurt by the awful and condescending way the 'Lamanites' are written about. Obviously the church itself saw this as an embarassment and changed the wording. Wait a minute, I thought the BOM was supposedly the most truthful book on the planet. If that is true, why would it need to be changed?

I shant provide you with written proof' of anything. For if my information is derived from a source which isn't 'sanctioned' by your church you won't believe it anyway.

Share this post


Link to post

herestonewbeginning:

I listed and gave a list of well known LDS in high public office. Being a LDS sure didn't slow them down with their electorate.

I have no problem with facts. So you didn't hurt my feelings. A bigot you are and will remain until you grow up and smell the coffee.

What was it that Jesus said about people merely prefess his name but don't feed the hungry, cloth the naked, and don't visit the imprisoned? Oh that's right they condemn themselves to h***.

They claim they're a religion. Go ask them. Lutherans and Catholic are both denominations of the same religion, and they don't agree with each other. Go figure.

Mormons believe Jesus was born of a virgin. We don't delve into how his conception worked beyond what is in the Bible

I was born in a little town in the North Western US. Would it be incorrect to say I was born in Washington state? Bethleham is a small town about three miles outside of Jerusalem. The land of Jerusalem is a perfectly acceptable way to tell a group of people a thousand years removed, and on the other side of the world where their savior was to be born.

Yes Jesus is the brother of Lucifer. So what? We are all sons and daughters of God. Including the Devil and his followers. So that makes you a brother of Lucifer too. Which is better? To have God as the father of us all, or have God make a Satan?

I don't have a problem with Jesus being married. Maybe even polygamously. He was big on marriage. It is just we have no Scripture claiming such. It is not part of our doctrine.

The Bible talks of a Godhead. Three distinct individual Gods. In LDS theology all of God the Fathers' children are eternal, without beginning and without end.

The Journal of Discources is not a source for LDS doctrine. There is only one sin that can not be forgiven. Sin against the Holy Ghost, and that is in the Bible. All other sins must be repented of for Jesus to forgive us of them.

His first name was Joseph. That is the name he used through out his entire life, and what his family and friends called him. Looks like you don't know as much about the LDS as you claim. Nice to see you are ignorant as well as a bigot.

There is no archaelogical evidence for The Flood as described in the Bible. Undoubtedly there have been many big floods in Mesopotamia. I never said there was wasn't.

There is no archaeolgical evidence for a Moses or for the Hebrews campinng in the Siani for forty years. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/world/africa/03iht-moses.4.5130043.html

Those works are not considered archaelogical evidence. Further Josephus wasn't even born until 37 CE, and began writing many years after the death of Jesus.

Hittites yes. Joshua and the fall of Jericho not so much.

So much for your alledged false prophecies.

http://www.shields-research.org/General/LDS_Leaders/1stPres/Joseph_Smith/56_Year.htm

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_prophets.shtml

This is one of the few attacks on Joseph Smith's prophetic ability that has any merit - and I say that simply because it has the distinction of being based on a statements from an official source, the Doctrine and Covenants, rather than hearsay evidence recorded by a third party. The source is Doctrine and Covenants 84:2-5, which critics use to say that Joseph was a false prophet. Here are the relevant verses:

2 Yea, the word of the Lord concerning his church, established in the last days for the restoration of his people, as he has spoken by the mouth of his prophets, and for the gathering of his saints to stand upon Mount Zion, which shall be the city of New Jerusalem.

3 Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jun., and others with whom the Lord was well pleased.

4 Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation.

5 For verily this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be built unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the Lord, which shall fill the house.

This prophecy was given while Joseph Smith was in Kirtland in 1832. Latter-day Saints typically accept the premise that the prophesied temple was not built and offer reasons why construction of the temple had to be delayed, and why the delay does not invalidate Joseph as a prophet. Before I offer that discussion, let me first turn to insight from D. Charles Pyle who suggests that there may not be a problem at all, and the prophecy regarding the temple may actually be fulfilled already.

Surprise Answer: The Temple Prophecy May Have Already Been Fulfilled

In an email discussion on this topic in 2009 (cited with permission), Brother Pyle made this comment regarding verse 5:

Indeed, this verse was fulfilled--in Kirtland. Here is what was recorded for that event in 1836:

George A. Smith arose and began to prophesy, when a noise was heard like the sound of a rushing mighty wind, which filled the Temple, and all the congregation simultaneously arose, being moved upon by an invisible power; many began to speak in tongues and prophesy; others saw glorious visions; and I beheld the Temple was filled with angels, which fact I declared to the congregation. The people of the neighborhood came running together (hearing an unusual sound within, and seeing a bright light like a pillar of fire resting upon the Temple), and were astonished at what was taking place. (History of the Church, 2:428)

See also Section 110 of the Doctrine and Covenants. Most people who read the above verse in the above section of the Doctrine and Covenants assume that verse 5 has to refer only to the temple that was to be built in the center place of that time. However, all that is required is that a temple be built and that certain events happen in order to meet the conditions of this portion of the prophecy.

This is a fair point. The Church did make efforts in Missouri that can count as a beginning, and did complete a temple in that generation - in Kirtland, Ohio. There was obviously a desire to make the temple in Missouri, but the Church's presence and success in Missouri was not a foregone conclusion but a conditional event dependent on the faithfulness of the members. A variety of mistakes were made that violated their part of the bargain and resulted in being driven out, delaying the building of Zion in Missouri and making a temple there impossible at the time. But a temple - not the desired Missouri temple - was built shortly after this prophecy was given, arguably fulfilling the demands of the prophecy.

Brother Pyle had more to say about this episode and the conditional aspects of the Saints' presence and success in Missouri:

Trouble with [anti-Mormon] argumentation is that the prophecy was fulfilled, even if the location of the fulfillment was moved due to the conditional nature of prophecy and of the Doctrine and Covenants. The Bible is filled with such contingent prophecies. However [many] critics of the Church . . . take the Doctrine and Covenants out of context. Building a temple there would require the Saints to remain there in the center place. However, remaining in the center place was contingent by nature. Reading a number of sections of the Doctrine and Covenants shows the conditional nature of their stay there. The Saints failed to live up to the expectations and requirements to stay there. Therefore, they were driven out. . . .

The Saints were building the city. The temple site had already been dedicated and foundational cornerstones laid the year previous. Note also the past tense of the latter part of verse 3. However, verse 2, as already noted, was to be tempered by the contingent nature of sections of the Doctrine and Covenants surrounding Section 84, particularly Section 58 and the Sections numbering in the 100s. Note the following verses from Section 58:

6 Behold, verily I say unto you, for this cause I have sent you--that you might be obedient, and that your hearts might be prepared to bear testimony of the things which are to come;

7 And also that you might be honored in laying the foundation, and in bearing record of the land upon which the aZion of God shall stand; . . .

19 For verily I say unto you, my law shall be kept on this land. . . .

30 Who am I that made man, saith the Lord, that will hold him guiltless that obeys not my commandments?

31 Who am I, saith the Lord, that have promised and have not fulfilled?

32 I command and men obey not; I revoke and they receive not the blessing.

33 Then they say in their hearts: This is not the work of the Lord, for his promises are not fulfilled. But wo unto such, for their reward lurketh beneath, and not from above.

44 And now, verily, I say concerning the residue of the elders of my church, the time has not yet come, for many years, for them to receive their inheritance in this land, except they desire it through the prayer of faith, only as it shall be appointed unto them of the Lord.

45 For, behold, they shall push the people together from the bends of the earth. . . .

50 And I give unto my servant Sidney Rigdon a commandment, that he shall write a description of the land of Zion, and a statement of the will of God, as it shall be made known by the Spirit unto him;

51 And an epistle and subscription, to be presented unto all the churches to obtain moneys, to be put into the hands of the bishop, of himself or the agent, as seemeth him good or as he shall direct, to purchase lands for an inheritance for the children of God.

52 For, behold, verily I say unto you, the Lord willeth that the disciples and the children of men should open their hearts, even to purchase this whole region of country, as soon as time will permit.

53 Behold, here is wisdom. Let them do this lest they receive none inheritance, save it be by the shedding of blood.

54 And again, inasmuch as there is land obtained, let there be workmen sent forth of all kinds unto this land, to labor for the saints of God.

55 Let all these things be done in order; and let the privileges of the lands be made known from time to time, by the bishop or the agent of the church.

56 And let the work of the gathering be not in haste, nor by flight; but let it be done as it shall be counseled by the elders of the church at the conferences, according to the knowledge which they receive from time to time.

Note the words concerning "many years" in the afore-cited revelation? As can be seen, this above revelation shows some interesting things concerning this land and even was prescient concerning what would come in this region as well as what people would say when the Lord revokes and takes blessings away due to failure to keep the law of God. Did this not indeed happen? Had not it indeed been seen in those days by those who left the Church? And, is not it now being fulfilled by every single critic who has written concerning Section 84 and the land of Zion?

D&C 84:4 Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation.

The Saints did begin gathering to this location and building the city. They were driven out before the city could be completed because they had failed to live up to expectations for remaining there as a people. Again, see the context of the Doctrine and Covenants sections preceding and succeeding Section 84, particularly those numbering in the 100s. The Saints did not keep the conditions and were driven out. They were told to keep quiet of these things and not to boast, as well as keep the law of God concerning this land. They failed in all these things and were driven out as promised in a following revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants. See, for example, Section 97:26. This forced a move of locations for the building of a temple in that generation. . . . Suffice it to say, that it still was in the Lord's plan to build a temple within that generation.

Thus, the Kirtland Temple may have contributed toward fulfillment of that prophecy.

More Common Answer: The Temple Prophecy Was Conditional and Will Yet Be Fulfilled

If we assume that the prophecy requiring a temple absolutely required that it be the temple in Missouri, as many people do (probably unnecessarily), the conditional aspects of prophecy in general must be considered.

The critics almost always overlook the related revelation in Doctrine and Covenants 124:49-51, in which the Lord explains why the work in Missouri is on hold and not required of his servants at the moment:

49 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings.

50 And the iniquity and transgression of my holy laws and commandments I will visit upon the heads of those who hindered my work, unto the third and fourth generation, so long as they repent not, and hate me, saith the Lord God.

51 Therefore, for this cause have I accepted the offerings of those whom I commanded to build up a city and a house unto my name, in Jackson county, Missouri, and were hindered by their enemies, saith the Lord your God.

The critics also overlook Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30, and Luke 21:32, where Christ makes prophecies that are still not fulfilled which involved "this generation" - very similar to the wording that critics condemn in Doctrine and Covenants 84:2-5. The standard used to make a false prophet out of Joseph Smith would also reject Jesus Christ. My advice: be careful about whom you condemn and how you reject possible messengers of God.

Doctrine and Covenants 84:2-5 can also be viewed as a command rather than prophecy because of its use of the word "shall." In the scriptures, "shall" often but not always conveys an imperative or conditional sense, as in "Thou shalt not kill." If someone kills, they aren't destroying prophecy, but breaking a commandment. While verse 5 is clearly a prophecy, speaking of the generation that shall not pass away until the house shall be built, verse 4 with its phrase "which temple shall be reared in this generation" may be viewed as a command to build the temple. Doctrine and Covenants 124 refers to that passage as a past command which was being lifted for the time. Yet Church leaders then and now, as far as I can tell, typically still feel that the command will ultimately need to be fulfilled. A similar situation is found in the command for the Israelites to take possession of Canaan. Weak efforts to keep that command failed, at which point the Lord put the command on hold and required a waiting period of 40 years before His people would be prepared to keep it and gain their lands of inheritance.

Shall a temple be built in Missouri? I believe so. In fact, there is a Temple in St, Louis and one will soon be built just a few miles from Independence in Kansas City, Missouri (announced in 2008). The original command to build this temple was put on hold, but when we do build it, you will be able to say that the command or the prophecy has been fulfilled. Delayed fulfillment does not invalidate the Lord's prophets!

The Lord has the right to adjust the timing of His statements and decrees. The prophet Jeremiah established a similar principle, namely, that the fulfillment of God's promises to bless or punish a nation depends on the righteousness or wickedness of that nation. Just as with Jonah's prophecy of Ninevah's destruction, which was withdrawn by the Lord when Ninevah repented, much to Jonah's distress, so also modern prophecies can be put on hold or changed depending on how humans exercise their free agency. This may take away the clear-cut, black-and-white world that our critics want, but that's not the world of the Bible. Listen to the words of the Lord in Jeremiah 18:7-10:

7. At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;

8. If that nation , against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.

9. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;

10. If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good wherewith I said I would benefit them.

God has the right to change his plans in response to human actions. His purpose is not to be inflexible, but to bless His children. In applying Jeremiah 18:7-10 to the issue at hand (though I'm not sure it should be applied), one could argue that the Latter-day Saints in Missouri did not repent of their transgressions (as a community, anyway, though many individuals did) and lost the privilege of building the temple at the time (see D&C 105:2-6). However, the Lord later said to those who had sought to build it that their offering had been acceptable in the face of opposition from others and that it was not then required to attempt to build the temple at that time (see D&C 124:49-51). Different groups appear to be addressed in these two passages from the Doctrine and Covenants, so both may be compatible if we wish to apply D&C 105:2-6 to the issue of the temple. But I think the best approach is just to consider the issue of delayed fulfillment. Be patient - we'll yet see a temple reared in Jackson County, Missouri.

None of this will satisfy the critics, of course, and I'm sure they would have enjoyed ridiculing Jonah and Jeremiah had they been there at the time. If they are interested in understanding whether Joseph was a prophet or not, the issue to consider is not how to weight the various issues concerning the command to build a temple. The real meat is with the Book of Mormon, where Joseph's claim to prophetic gifts can be tested much more readily and logically.

If you are going to quote Isaiah please include: for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea.

The Restored Gospel is penetrating every nation, kindred and people. We are in nearly every country on earth, and the Book of Mormon is publuished in nearly every language.

It is true many have been decieved by the father of lies. But we're working hard to remedy that situation.

I've already told you that we believe in Christ, and it is a fact that there are many many Christian religions that are far younger than we. The Southern Baptists for one.

22% is hardly a majority, and being a LDS is no impediment to high political office as I have already demonstrated.

Share this post


Link to post
Also, the founder of the the Archeology Dept. at BYU, Professor Thomas Ferguson, spent 25 years researching topography, history, people, coins, settlements, etc... claimed by mormon history. His conclusion, in his final paper, he said Mormon history is "fictional".

CFR (call for references)...ignore if you've already provided the evidence or admitted you got your 'facts' wrong.

PS: this actually would work better in another thread, I will decide whether or not I will start one (seeing that herestone probably doesn't have enough posts yet to do so) once I finish reading the thread as I don't want to take this one off topic.

Edited by calmoriah

Share this post


Link to post

I understand... it's just that the word 'bigot' is a strong label, if you know what I mean. I really don't like strong labels. I could say he is incorrectly biased though, and probably be fine with it... it isn't as 'strong', so to say. I prefer less strong words in general for most things... it makes people much more amiable, which is a nice thing =).

Perhaps I just don't like 'racist', 'homophobic', 'sexist', and all the other strong labels that get thrown around, but yah, that's just how I view it, I guess. =P

Best Wishes,

TAO

I think "prejudiced" is a good midlevel word for describing over the top bias.

Share this post


Link to post

Joe Smith

You need to reread the board's guidelines for a variety of reason including supporting your claims when asked to do so. If you get banned, it will not be because of what you posted, but because you wouldn't follow the rules which you agreed to follow when you signed up for the board.

Share this post


Link to post

Bigot is a perfectly good word.

big·ot

   [big-uht] Show IPA

–noun

a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion

Share this post


Link to post

meanwhile he disrespects my ancestors since his stories about the Lamanites and the way they lived sound more like Roman culture than any Meso American culture.

If this truly bothers you, you should read some of Brant Gardner's materials as well as other experts in the field of MesoAmerican culture that believe the BoM context can be fitted quite well into a MesoAmerican one.

Why am I not suprised you don't see why I am upset about the way Jospeh Smith labeled black people.....I don't have to be black to be hurt by the awful and condescending way the 'Lamanites' are written about.

First off, the Lamanites if they are Native Americans wouldn't be classified as "black". If the Book of Mormon is actual racist, then it is not those of black skin colour as defined today that are described within.

Second, the "white"*** Nephites were allowed to be conquered and eventually destroyed because they were worse than the Lamanites. The group that is held up to be the ones most devout in their covenants to God are Lamanites. Samuel the Lamanite is called to preach to the Nephites because of their wickedness. Many times the Lamanites become the enemy of the Nephites because of Nephite political manipulation. Often it is the Nephite pride and sense of superiority that leads them into sin.

***"Black" and "white" could be spiritual references and not actual skin colour (as is often used in the Bible), the text itself has the two overlapping quite a bit, intermingling and even having the 'curse' whatever that is specifically removed and at one time saying there were no "ites" among them meaning no community separation. "Ites" becomes a political designation by the recorders (those against are defined as "Lamanites" no matter their ethnic makeup, those for are defined as Nephites)

Share this post


Link to post

calmoriah:

You might find this interesting.

http://maxwellinstit...16&num=1&id=531

Hopefully herestone will find it even more interesting (I don't mind people disagreeing or even discounting our faith, just wish they do it for the right reasons and not madeup and false ones.)

Share this post


Link to post

a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion

But he thinks Mormons are nice....:air_kiss:

:mega_shok:

Share this post


Link to post

I didn't think you'd be able to counter the evidence.

My friend, you have not dealt with my post. Before criticizing his post, please deal with mine. It'll be better. I'm pretty sure he felt like the defending had already been done, so why repeat it, if you know what I mean. But I could be wrong. Anyways, please deal with my post first. Thanks =).

That's ok. Many occults teach that you should not give time or credence to those who challenge you on an intellectual level because it will only legitimize them in the eyes of your peers.

Again, please deal with my post first. I have challenged you on an intellectual level with my responses, so please respond before you try challenging other people. It will result in a more friendly forum, and better people overall =D.

Until the Holy Spirit softens your heart, Joe Smith himself could come back from the dead and plead with you in tears of the deception of this occult, but it would not matter. It's like the doctor telling you that you have a lethal sickness, but you've been told all these years that you don't need a doctor or medicine, so you go blindly off to your own death believing you know the way.

My friend, I have no idea who Joe Smith is. I know who Joseph Smith is. But not Joe Smith. Please call him by his full name. After all, it would not due for me to call you a nickname based on your name. So please use his full name so that way I can respect you. I cannot respect you when you mock his name by calling him something silly. And respect is important for coversations to occur - it is the basis for friendships =).

Second of all... God has told me personally that I need to be in the LDS church. So why are you bothering to tell me he's doing something different... because I know what he said to me. It is important to realize that people have ultimate control over their own lives... and they make the choices they will make. The other day, I tried to help someone, but it ended up going awry. You can only help so far, and then it is up to the person. In addition, the person may be right over you, in certain circumstances. It is important to view it from their perspective as well. It will lead you to being better able to understand them, and help them, so that way things can go well =).

That doesn't mean that believers can't be continuing to pray for you and others in LDS, because TODAY is the day of salvation.

That sounds ironically similar to Alma 34:31. It says, "Yea, I would that ye would come forth and aharden not your hearts any longer; for behold, now is the time and the bday of your csalvation; and therefore, if ye will repent and dharden not your hearts, immediately shall the great plan of redemption be brought about unto you."

The Book of Mormon is really awesome like that =). I highly recommend it, it is a very wonderful book indeed, I do believe so until the end =D.

If you call upon the Lord, he will hear you.

I do this alot, already =). He had me go to church today - I've missed the past two or three weeks today, and going to church was wonderful =D. The blessings given there were great, indeed, and I appreciate him making me go =D.

You can indeed be saved by the only who possibly can save. Christ ALONE.

Of coruse Christ is the only one who can save =).

His work on the cross was sufficient.

This, on the other hand, is not true. You do not get verbatim saved by faith. See 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 for example. "Know ye not that the aunrighteous shall not binherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither cfornicators, nor idolaters, nor dadulterers, nor eeffeminate, nor fabusers of themselves with mankind,..."

No, your work is required for him to save you. You are not just 'saved'. You must do what Christ asks too. That is his requirement on the part of you in order to receive it. And it is free.

To say it was not is minimizing Christ, and really quite a convenient story by someone who wanted to exalt himself as a "prophet" (i.e. "you need Christ, AND me." Hello....McFly!). So many holes in the LDS foundation. If it were a wine skin, it would hold wine for less than a milisecond.

If you want to disagree with Paul, as he stated in Corinthians, that is your choice. I do not think it is a minimization of Christ when Christ requires some works on our part to receive the things he would give to us. In fact, I think that increases his justice, and shows us how merciful he is, and what he expects us to be like.

Also, I appreciate the prophet Christ has given to us. It is Christ's gift to us as a people, a prophet to help lead us to do what he wants us to do. If you don't believe in it, that is your choice, not mine, but as for me, I believe Christ sent us a prophet.

Hopefully you are better able to understand, even just a smidgen, why millions will not vote for a Mormon.

Again, you have not demonstrated this very well. Why are you so insistent on this? It is not very accurate you see, and the more people who get to know Mormons as friends, the less accurate this statement will be. I am already working on it myself, and there are several million other Mormons who are probably working on it too, showing what great people Mormons are. I think that it will take time, but eventually, I am hoping that people can see better that Mormons are good people.

Continued in next post =).

Edited by TAO

Share this post


Link to post

Continuation from previous post. =)

Do you have any idea how it is viewed by people? Almost like an Arian occult, save for the few token "colored people" in the aggressive ad campaigns aimed at changing public perception.

Nah, this isn't true. Actually... I don't know any person in real life that has this opinion. Maybe they don't speak up, but nah, they don't look at it this way. They wonder 'huh, he doesn't drink caffeinated drinks', and stuff like that, but not like the stuff you are emphasizing. So sorry, I must say your statement is a bit off =|.

"I'm black, and I'm a Mormon..." Quite offensive, really.

You are saying ChristKnight is offensive? 0.o

You should talk to him, that you should... he would give you a different opinion.

He is an awesome guy, that he is =D.

I've been to Salt Lake, the temple tours, been to many mormon "churches" locally as well.

Yay =).

Aside from noting the absence of a cross on the building, the lack of any color reflects the original sentiment of Joe & LDS doctrine, who said dark skins are cursed.

My friend, God has said alot of things are cursed. Sometimes not for a bad reason. I wouldn't worry so much about what he said was cursed, but about why he said it was cursed. There are some very good reasons I have heard about why this was cursed. I remember hearing something on these forums about Jacob 2... or something like that.

Bottom line... you shouldn't be judging God for why he does things. That is between God and the people themselves, and I'm sure God knows what he needs to do, when he needs to do it.

Also, did ya' know that Joseph Smith also wanted to free all the slaves? Interesting bit of trivia, just if you wanted it =).

If he was truly a prophet, he would declare things that reflect the character of God, who is unchanging. (same yesterday, today, tomorrow)

Have you looked at the difference between the Levitical Law and Modern Law? They are quite different. That doesn't mean God changes - it means he is using something different to help us better understand him. He is using what is best for us.

It is why we don't circumcise ourselves. If God had not changed the Modern Law to deal better with the people who live today, we would still practice it. Instead, these days, circumcision goes on in our hearts, in the covenants we make. It is a new conversion, a new law, a new thing, not to destroy the old law, but to fulfill it, bringing upon the new law. =)

So, to later make doctrine more PC, and delete the racist text, is quite revealing.

My friend, applying a secular argument to God doesn't do any good. In order to see it from our perspective, you must look at it as revelation.

The canonized scriptures remain, however....

Good thing it's only in one very obscure place in the canonized scripture, which refers to very ancient times anyways. I do not worry about it at all =).

May the grace of God open your heart.

Peace.

You too. =)

Best Wishes,

TAO

Edited by TAO

Share this post


Link to post

I think "prejudiced" is a good midlevel word for describing over the top bias.

Yeah, but even that one gets thrown around too much.

I am not prejudiced against homosexuals, even though I disagree with their lifestyle for example.

Thus, I will give him the benefit of the doubt... rather than say prejudiced... it would be more along the lines of not knowing enough about the subject to make a strong opinion, sorta, kinda =P. Hard to say precisely what I mean =/.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...