Mormons As "blind Followers"

[Doctor Steuss]

3- Nothing. In fact it speaks of things we know of as solidly true today. A round earth, medicine from plants, veggies really are better for you, etc.

Deuteronomy

14:11 Of all clean birds ye shall eat.

14:12 But these [birds] are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,

14:13 And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind,

14:14 And every raven after his kind,

14:15 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,

14:16 The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan,

14:17 And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cormorant,

14:18 And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

Glad to know that a bat is actually a bird and not a mammal.

Leviticus

11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;

How many four-legged fowls are you familiar with?

Numbers

23:22 God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.

I look forward to my next issue of National Geographic where I can read all about the unicorn...

[MorningStar]

You have a few CFR's waiting.

I'll add one.

CFR, ROCMONKEY!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Unlike the Bom, the Bible cannot be shown to have ever changed, by anyone. In spite of the fact that the LDS leaders have always claimed it has been and LDS members blindly accept it as fact.

Ha now this is getting better by the minute. I love the logic here.

[Zakuska]

First- Its in the Young Women's Journal of the LDS church. Surely a 10 year old boy didn't write, print, edit then publish that LDS publication.

2- No. But when they speak of what is impossible to know except from God they do. Unless they're lying and that makes them a false prophet to say it.

3- Nothing. In fact it speaks of things we know of as solidly true today. A round earth, medicine from plants, veggies really are better for you, etc.

Unlike the Bom, the Bible cannot be shown to have ever changed, by anyone. In spite of the fact that the LDS leaders have always claimed it has been and LDS members blindly accept it as fact.

You didn't look up the "Johnainne comma" did you?

The Comma Johanneum is a comma, or short clause, present in most translations of the First Epistle of John published from 1522 until the latter part of the nineteenth century, owing to the widespread use of the third edition of the Textus Receptus (TR) as the sole source for translation. In readings containing the clause, such as this one from the King James Bible, 1 John 5:7–8 reads as follows, the Comma itself here rendered with emphasis:

5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

The resulting passage is an explicit reference to the Trinity (the doctrine that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one God), and for this reason some Christians are resistant to the elimination of the Comma from modern Biblical translations. Nonetheless, nearly all recent translations have removed this clause, as it does not appear in older copies of the Epistle and it is not present in the passage as quoted by any of the early Church Fathers, who would have had plenty of reason to quote it in their Trinitarian debates (for example, with the Arians), had it existed then. Most Churches now agree that the theology contained in the Comma is true, but that the Comma is not an original part of the Epistle of John.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum

These words where added to the bible in 1522, and that is just the TIP of the ice berg!

Might I suggest a few good books which cover the corruption of Scripture:

The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture by Bart Ehrman (Non-LDS)

'Misquoting Jesus' by Bart Ehrman (Non-LDS)

[Doctor Steuss]

3- Nothing. In fact it speaks of things we know of as solidly true today. A round earth, medicine from plants, veggies really are better for you, etc.

One more...

1 Kings

7:23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

If you can explain how these dimensions work, given the value of "Pi," I'll convert to your brand of religion.

"Solidly true" indeed...

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Deuteronomy

14:11 Of all clean birds ye shall eat.

14:12 But these [birds] are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,

14:13 And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind,

14:14 And every raven after his kind,

14:15 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,

14:16 The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan,

14:17 And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cormorant,

14:18 And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

Glad to know that a bat is actually a bird and not a mammal.

Leviticus

11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;

How many four-legged fowls are you familiar with?

Numbers

23:22 God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.

I look forward to my next issue of National Geographic where I can read all about the unicorn...

HAHAHAHAHA

[LifeOnaPlate]

Deuteronomy

14:11 Of all clean birds ye shall eat.

14:12 But these [birds] are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,

14:13 And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind,

14:14 And every raven after his kind,

14:15 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,

14:16 The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan,

14:17 And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cormorant,

14:18 And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

Glad to know that a bat is actually a bird and not a mammal.

Leviticus

11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;

How many four-legged fowls are you familiar with?

Numbers

23:22 God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.

I look forward to my next issue of National Geographic where I can read all about the unicorn...

You fool! Veggies really are better for you!

[MorningStar]

Ha now this is getting better by the minute. I love the logic here.

Which version of the Bible is he talking about anyway?

[Avatar4321]

The fact that another of God's chosen prophets wrote those words at that place is pretty clear on the meaning. And, the facts that its all recorded by a man of God's choosing and that 120 were murdered shows BY was ruthless.

Deny what you will but it only points to blindly following and believing without questioning or researching what you're told.

I at least do research on the church to know what it teaches. Mormons always attack when they can't defend something. Even though your own leaders 'asked' us to show you where you (Mormonism) are wrong and they would thank us, they said. Is an attack a thank you to Mormons? How strange indeed.

There is nothing to defend. You havent given us any references and your statements are completely contrary to any appearance of the truth.

I feel very sad for you. Because if you bothered to do any actually research you would know the reasons you state are untrue. in fact, its not very difficult to show. Numerous people have already demonstrated it to you in this page of the thread alone.

[erichard]

I would first of all question what is "legitimate controversy." Does that mean that the person just doesn't like what is being said because it goes agains their philosophy or the society at large? If it is doctrinal on what basis to they define their interpretation?

...

Hi Deborah,

I have a "revelation" based faith. I do not know if that is the best kind or not.

The revelation says that a trial over a president of the High Priesthood is to be held before the common council of the church. Most have concluded this to mean a Bishop's court-- and in this case why not the Presiding Bishopric court?

Without more revelation on the matter, the BP would be responsible to determine if any charges over the head of the church had merit and to hold such a trial, in connection with 12 counselors from the High Priesthood (probably the 12 Apostles). [However, see the uncannonized revelation to Joseph Smith I insert at the end that allows other options for the trial.]

A bishop court cannot make judgement over a spiritual matter. For instance, if Orson Pratt had brought a trial over President Young for his Adam-God teachings, then such a trial could not have decided directly if the doctrine was true or false-- but the trial would determine if President Young was being truthful when he claimed it was revealed to him. A bishop does have discernment in matters of honesty in claiming spiritual gifts.

I agree that it is undoubtedly true that many issues that members have had and have over the leadership of the church are not really legitimate. But does that mean we close the door, and not allow members to bring their concerns to the Presiding Bishopric?

It may be a burden to live by D&C 107:81-84, but since it is clearly part of the "law of the Gospel as contained in the Doctrine and Covenants", then how can it not be bad faith to refuse to live by it?

D&C 136:31 clearly warns the Saints that they will be tried "in all things" before being led back to set up Zion and its laws. That, to me, virtually guarantees that a some point the church will have to live by this law.

Placing the Head of the church above the law, and above any controversy, may seem like a good and wise idea, but since it directly contradicts the Word of the Lord I remain convinced it is very unwise.

Secondly, anyone has a right to hold to their own opinion on certain matters. I have my own pet theories on many issues. The problem comes when such persons begin to teach others and preach against the leadership, as if they had the answers and not those who are in position to make decisions affecting the church at large. It is all a matter of order and authority. Those in authority are accountable to God not to the disgruntled members.

No, those in authority in the church are NOT just accountable to God. No one is above being brought to trial in the church. After giving instructions on how to hold a trial over a President of the High Priesthood, D&C 107:84 concludes:

Thus, none shall be exempted from the justice and the laws of God,

Was Jesus just a disgruntled Jew as he went about teaching against the ordained successors of Aaron?

There is simply no scriptural guarantee that men in the flesh, with blood in their veins, are above failing-- no matter what office they have. JST Mark 9:40-48 is a second witness to D&C 107:81-84 that the head of the church can fail and need to be removed by the members.

Richard

Here is another revelation that deals with having a trial over the head of the church. I could not find a hyperlink for it:

Revelation Received January 12, 1838

By the Prophet Joseph

(Scriptory Book of Joseph Smith)

At the French Farm near Kirtland, Ohio

A question asked of the LORD concerning the trying of the First Presidency of the Church of Latter-day Saints for transgression according to the item of law found in the 3rd Section of the [1835] Book of Covenants, 37th verse: [D&C 107:82-84]--

2 Whether the decision of such a council of one Stake shall be conclusive for Zion and all the stakes.

3 Answer: Thus saith the LORD, the time has now come when a decision of such a council would not answer for Zion and all her stakes.

4 Question: What will answer for Zion and all her stakes?

5 Answer: Thus saith the LORD: Let the First Presidency of My church be held in full fellowship in Zion and all her stakes until they shall be found transgressors by such an high council as is named in the 3rd Section, 37th verse of the [1835] Book of Covenants in Zion by three witnesses standing against each member of said Presidency.

6 And said witnesses shall be of long and faithful standing, and such also as cannot be impeached by other witnesses before said council.

7 And when a decision is had by such a council in Zion, it shall only be for Zion, it shall not answer for her stakes.

8 But if said decision be acknowledged by the council of her stakes, then it shall answer for her stakes. But if it is not acknowledged by the stakes, then such stakes may have the privilege of hearing for themselves.

9 Or, if said decision shall be acknowledged by a majority of her stakes, then it shall answer for all her stakes.

10 And again, the Presidency of said church may be tried by the voice of the whole body of the church of Zion, and the voice of a majority of all her stakes.

11 And again, except a majority is had by the voice of the church of Zion, and a majority of her stakes, the charges will be considered not sustained.

12 And in order to sustain such charge or charges before said church of Zion or her stakes, such witnesses must be had as is named above;

13 That is, three witnesses to each president, who are of long and faithful standing that cannot be impeached by other witnesses before the church of Zion or her stakes.

14 And all this, saith the LORD, because of wicked and aspiring men, let all your doings be in meekness and in humility before Me.

Even so, Amen.

....

[LifeOnaPlate]

Which version of the Bible is he talking about anyway?

It don't matter; ain't none of them been changed ever.

[bluebell]

Unlike the Bom, the Bible cannot be shown to have ever changed, by anyone. In spite of the fact that the LDS leaders have always claimed it has been and LDS members blindly accept it as fact.

Oh dear...

Do you honestly have no idea that the KJV of the bible we have today has hundreds of changes made compared to the 1611 edition?

Do you always believe every anti-mormon arguement you read or hear?

There ARE examples and evidences that the bible has changed-i'm really surprised in all your research you have not come across any of them.

"One example where clear problems arise is the famous Johannine Comma, where the King James version has a passage (1 John 5:7, with two verses from relatively late manuscripts that are not attested in earlier manuscripts - suggesting a late addition by somebody to buttress the doctrine of the trinity. Most modern translations of the Bible no longer have those two verses because the earliest manuscripts all lack them. Of course, it's hard to be sure on such issues because there are no original manuscripts and many variations in the existing manuscripts. Most is clear, of course, but there are thousands of areas where change and uncertainty exists."

[Avatar4321]

I've never heard mass murder being described as an anomaly before. That's a new one on me.

Well mass murder isnt exactly a frequent occurance.

[Avatar4321]

Actually, if someone can show any place, even one, where the LDS leaders said to do as you're told, especially if they say 'whether its right or wrong' doesn't matter, then the members were following blindly. It only takes once to make it so. I gave three and I'm positive I can find the exact wording some here think needs to be given.

I believe modern Mormons still follow blindly and I gave a couple of examples of that.

If someone could actually show any place, even one where LDS leaders said to do as you're told, they would have given them a long time ago.

Instead, there are about a thousand references saying the exact opposite, that you need to learn for yourself.

[Zakuska]

I always liked this change to the set in cement Bible that rocmonkey ascribes to...

Romans 8:1 (King James Version)

1There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

...

Romans 8:1 (New International Version)

Romans 8

1Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,[a]

Footnotes:

Romans 8:1 Some later manuscripts Jesus, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit,

I can see why the scribes made the change and I happen to agree.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I always liked this change to the set in cement Bible that rocmonkey ascribes to...

I can see why the scribes made the change and I happen to agree.

Quit bringing this stuff up. it makes us look even more blind.

[Pahoran]

Alrighty. Although it is far from evidence BY ordered the massacre just keep pretending it is.

You haven't cited any sufficient evidence.

First, it can't be proven that JS ever said that, as it is a third hand account of a ten year old boys' recollection.

Second: Do prophets have to know everything about science in order to be prophets?

Third: Is there anything in the Bible that is incorrect from our current understanding of science? If so, does the Bible, then, lie?

First- Its in the Young Women's Journal of the LDS church. Surely a 10 year old boy didn't write, print, edit then publish that LDS publication.

No.

But the sole source for that statement was someone recalling a talk he had heard when he was ten years old. Printing such a recollection in a magazine doesn't make it doctrine. Sorry.

2- No. But when they speak of what is impossible to know except from God they do. Unless they're lying and that makes them a false prophet to say it.

Pardon me, your Self-Anointed Importance, but it is not up to you to impose your arrogant, tendentious and hate-impaired judgement upon our leaders, to decide when they speak as prophets. That is a question that remains entirely for us to determine.

3- Nothing. In fact it speaks of things we know of as solidly true today. A round earth, medicine from plants, veggies really are better for you, etc.

The Bible is replete with proven scientific errors. Bats are not birds. Hares are not ruminants. The earth does not have four corners.

But we, the Latter-day Saints, are still able to read it and believe its teachings. We are Christians, not idolaters, and therefore do not expect infallibility from any earthly source.

Unlike the Bom, the Bible cannot be shown to have ever changed, by anyone. In spite of the fact that the LDS leaders have always claimed it has been and LDS members blindly accept it as fact.

Far be it from me to try to disturb your faith, idolatrous though it is. But if you continue to refuse to engage the evidence and arguments that are put before you, then you had better find another bully pulpit. This is not for you; this is a discussion forum.

So start discussing or shut up.

Regards,

Pahoran

[rocmonkey]

False. (D&C:130:14-17)

17 I believe the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time.

He predicted that Christ would not come any sooner than 1890... and he didn't... thus he predicted correctly.

Apostle John not Joseph Smith (Rev 12:1)

Also a member who supposedly heard him say it when he (the member) was 4 years old. Not a very objective source.

Again the Apostle John (Rev. 19: 17)

"Christ died on a Cross... sure seems like Gods Law to me.

IMHO you fell for every Anti-Mormon ploy... hook line and sinker.

"Were I going to prophesy, I would say the end [of the world] would not come in 1844, 5 or 6, or in forty years. THERE ARE THOSE OF THE RISING GENERATION WHO SHALL NOT TASTE DEATH TILL CHRIST COMES." He goes on to say it will be 1890 by quoting Hosea. "And Hosea 6th chapter, After two days, etc.-2,520 years; which brings it to 1890." (emphasis added). Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (tpjs) 286 [Also, Bruce McConkie even gives this one in Mormon Doctrine, under Second Coming- to show its a real prophecy. He tries to justify it beyond imagination, though. see Mor. Doc. 692-3, 1977 ed.]

In the History of the Church (Hoc) 2:182 it says "President Smith then stated that the meeting had been called, because God had commanded it;" It was the will of God that those present were to "go forth and prune the vineyard for the LAST TIME, OR THE COMING OF THE LORD, WHICH WAS NIGH-EVEN FIFTY-SIX YEARS SHOULD WIND UP THE SCENE." (emphasis added) That was given in Feb. 1835. 1835 +56= 1891!

So, which of these two false prophecies is the real date supposed to be? Actually, neither of them but JS was wrong twice on this one issue. God never gives false prophecies and these are most definitely false- unless any of you can show proof that Jesus came back on one of them.

Joseph Fielding Smith wasn't talking about Jesus when he spoke of human sacrifice (blood atonement) in Doctrines of Salvation (Dos) 1:133- 136. He says, "JS taught that there were certain sins so grievous that man may commit, that they will place the transgressors beyond th power of the atonement of Christ. [WHAT!?] If these offenses are committed, then the blood of Christ will not cleanse them from their sins even though they repent. [WHAT!?] Therefore their only hope is to have their own blood shed to atone, as far as possible, in their behalf. This is scriptural doctrine, and is taught in all the standard works of the Church." Dos 1:135.

WOW!! He's saying the precious, priceless blood of Jesus isn't enough. The Bible says His blood is the only reason we have Salvation. Do you believe the Bible or do you blindly follow this prophet of god. Did you notice that God just contradicted himself, too? Which is right the Bible or a man who called himself a prophet and said human sacrifice is in harmony with God's law and is in the standard works. I take the Bible. What about you?

I gotta go, its late but I'll be back.

[Zoidberg]

You also ignore the evidence that lesbian relationships produce radically higher instances of domestic violence, depression, and suicide. I find it fascinating that as a putative beleiver, you are far more concerned about the temporal repurcussions while giving short shrift to the spiritual. Intriguing.......and telling.

oh boy.. Let's become personal. You talked of physical and mental repercussions. I also stayed within that frame. Now I'm the bad guy. I think that there might be higher prevalence of depression and suicide because of descrimination and non-acceptance. Please provide a source that states otherwise. Can't say anything for domestic violence, as I don't know what kind specifically you are talking about. Mental is physical. Depression is a disease that can be treated with medication, much like other diseases I mentioned. If you want to equate mental health and spiritual health, you should have made it clear from the beginning. IMHO, mental health IS physical. Our brain is a part of our body, as are emotions on some level.

I agree- yet only a few posts earlier, you were taking us to task for precisely that.

umm, no, I was taking DHO's position to task. Trying to prevent a certain behavior in all situations would at least be consistent. Quitting your day job and following your son around making sure he doesn't engage in homosexual relations would be the most consistent with your opinion, how I perceive it.

So that's the objective measure of illness, addiction, and anti-social behavior? Whether the person acting out on these impulses beleives himself to be ill, addicted, or anti-social? What an absurd standard!

And yet it is often one of the standards required for diagnosis by the DSM-IV. We all know how absurd they are. Please explain why your standards are not absurd.

The correct phrasing of that scripture is "Judge not unrighteously, lest ye be judged." We will be judged on how we judge others. And that means we will be condemned for calling evil, good and good, evil.

If you want to know the truth, the only thing I believe with 100% certainty is that everything I believe could be utterly wrong. Hence, I consider myself incompetent to judge. I also try to refrain from radical statements such as the one you are attributing to me above. The difference between you and me on this issue is that I believe God would overlook the fact that you are calling homosexuality evil because you sincerely believe it. You are unwilling to make such an allowance for me. I am aware of the LDS claim on how this quote is supposed to be taken. I believe people don't need to be reminded to judge; they'll do it anyway (I'm not exempt from this rule)

I do not condone or encourage a constant barrage or haranguing, and never have. That has never been my position.

By the same token, looking the other way, pretending that they're harming no one while they "play house" provides tacit support. By failing to condemn such behavior, I am offering de facto approval.

Well, then your position is consistent and I never offered any criticism of it in the first place. However, where do you draw the line? How often could you condemn your son's homosexuality without it being barrage and haranguing? And do you really think he would not get tired of hearing it pretty quickly and stop talking to you?

No- I am suggesting that they follow a higher standard than the whims of their genitals.

That genitals can have whims is a news to me.

Human beings are not cattle rutting in the field. Sexuality and lust are facets of human personalities and souls- are not even remotely the sum of who a person is. I object to and resent someone teaching another to say "I am a gay", or "I am homosexual" as though it categorizes their entire being.

I also object to such notion. However, I have never heard it expressed anywhere but the LDS Church. Have any of the gay people you know "taught" that? Now, does you saying "I am LDS" categorize your entire being? Or just a significant part of it? I have never met anyone who considered themselves gay and nothing beyond that.

And no, I would not expect someone to give up a part of their identity "just to please their parents." We are, however, talking about immutable natural laws and commandments given by God. Can you, as a beleiver, accept that his commandments are somewhat higher than the current degredation of the species found so fashionable by Hollywood?

What I, as a believer, accept, is irrelevant. I know from personal experience that it hurts when your family condescendingly extends you their affections despite your supposed "transgression". So I was sharing that experience. Then you for some reason decided I was attacking your personal beliefs by saying that, and now you want to know what I accept as a believer. If you think those "natural laws" are so immutable, look up homosexuality in non-human animals. Are they sinning? There were those two gay zebras at the Hoge Zoo last I checked.

And if their point of view is that copulating with animals or close relatives? Where do you draw the line?

Well, in copulating with animals or pedophilia there is the issue of consent (animal/child is unable to give consent). So these things are clearly in a different category than two consenting adults not hurting anybody (but themselves, according to you, but guess what? they don't think so!).

There is a profound difference between accepting that some people struggle with various issues and handing them a bottle. There is a profound difference between supporting someone who is struggling and pretending that what they are doing is not sinful and self-destructive.

And here we have come to the root of the problem. Yes, some people do struggle with homosexuality. They don't want to be gay. Other people, however, are not struggling and they are perfectly okay with being gay. You are still convinced that your truth is better than theirs (which I don't condemn, it's a pretty commonly held belief). According to you, the only appropriate way that people could handle their predisposition for same-gender attractions is by struggling with them. Some people believe it's not something that needs to be struggled with.

To the contrary, I said nothing of the kind. I agree with the Church's position: that while there may (as in might) be (and the science is still out) matters of genetic or environmental predisposition for homosexual attraction, it remains a behavior that can be controlled and altered.

So they should remain celibate for the rest of their life, if necessary? Isn't that kind of cruel (since the Church is so indignant about religious celibacy for heterosexuals)?

I'm not sure what you mean by having been in their shoes first-hand. If that means you have been attracted to men, that alone makes you a better expert than me, since I have never been attracted to women in the same way I am to men (I did think it would be cool to be a lesbian when I was in my early teens because I thought guys are pigs, but then I made out with a guy and quickly realized I was straight and there is nothing I could do about it). I guess I could understand why your position is so antagonistic if this is true. However, I have met plenty of gay people (my sister being one of them) who have no problem with being gay, but do have a problem with people telling them why they shouldn't be gay. And since I have experienced such treatment for a cause that you would consider right, I will continue to stand by my opinion and position, which I have never claimed to be anything more than just that.

Anyway, I gotta go finish making chili. If there is anything in this world that is an addiction, it's posting on this board

[Doctor Steuss]

rocmonkey,

I wonder if you hold Christ to the same stringent requirements.

Luke 21:32

Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

I wouldn't want to think there's a double standard somewhere.

PS.

Regarding your little "WHAT!"'s about there being sin(s) not covered by Christ. Have you ever read the Bible? Really?

[LifeOnaPlate]

...[a bunch of stuff jacked from an anti-Mormon website about the Second Coming]...

Me thinks you forgot to CFR your stuff with D&C 42: 46, wherein the Lord says those who "die in me" shall not taste of death.

ME also thinks you are calling Christ a "false prophet." Observe:

Matthew 16:28 says

"Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

*gasp!* False prophecy?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Christ can forgive anything, eh? That's odd. I wonder why no one told Him:

Matthew 12-

31

[rocmonkey]

The Bible is replete with proven scientific errors. Bats are not birds. Hares are not ruminants. The earth does not have four corners.

They didn't know science back then. Come on, wise up. I had a Mormon tell me God is a man and he used words from the Bible the opposite of what you just did. LDS twist it to fit their needs at the momenyt. I showed him the rivers have hands. As does the wind and others. Read it right, in context, or admit it when you're not- like now.

But we, the Latter-day Saints, are still able to read it and believe its teachings. We are Christians, not idolaters, and therefore do not expect infallibility from any earthly source.

But if you continue to refuse to engage the evidence and arguments that are put before you, then you had better find another bully pulpit. This is not for you; this is a discussion forum.

So start discussing or shut up.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Zakuska]

"Were I going to prophesy, I would say the end [of the world] would not come in 1844, 5 or 6, or in forty years. THERE ARE THOSE OF THE RISING GENERATION WHO SHALL NOT TASTE DEATH TILL CHRIST COMES." He goes on to say it will be 1890 by quoting Hosea. "And Hosea 6th chapter, After two days, etc.-2,520 years; which brings it to 1890." (emphasis added). Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (tpjs) 286 [Also, Bruce McConkie even gives this one in Mormon Doctrine, under Second Coming- to show its a real prophecy. He tries to justify it beyond imagination, though. see Mor. Doc. 692-3, 1977 ed.]

In the History of the Church (Hoc) 2:182 it says "President Smith then stated that the meeting had been called, because God had commanded it;" It was the will of God that those present were to "go forth and prune the vineyard for the LAST TIME, OR THE COMING OF THE LORD, WHICH WAS NIGH-EVEN FIFTY-SIX YEARS SHOULD WIND UP THE SCENE." (emphasis added) That was given in Feb. 1835. 1835 +56= 1891!

Ppffft!! Well once again you missed it... went RIGHT over your head...

So, which of these two false prophecies is the real date supposed to be? Actually, neither of them but JS was wrong twice on this one issue. God never gives false prophecies and these are most definitely false- unless any of you can show proof that Jesus came back on one of them.

What does "IF I where to Prophecy" mean... Is he Prophecying? No. He's stating his own OPINION on the matter. He prayed to God to know the Time and God blew him off. Didn't even give him a straight answer. Everybody Knows that "nobody knows not even the Son".

Heres the whole prophecy...

D&C 130

14 I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following:

15 Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter.

16 I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face.

17 I believe the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time.

If you'll notice... he didn't know what the answer he got ment... it was the Seventh Day adventists and Millerites who where saying the Lord would return in 1843 and 1844.

Intrestingly they predicted the Prophets demise and the cleansing of the temple with blood quite accurately.

Second... You stated... "God never Gives False Prophecies". This is False as well... For we read...

2 Chr. 18

18 Again he said, Therefore hear the word of the LORD; I saw the LORD sitting upon his throne, and all the host of heaven standing on his right hand and on his left.

19 And the LORD said, Who shall entice Ahab king of Israel, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead? And one spake saying after this manner, and another saying after that manner.

20 Then there came out a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will entice him. And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith?

21 And he said, I will go out, and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And the LORD said, Thou shalt entice him, and thou shalt also prevail: go out, and do even so.

22 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil against thee.

23 Then Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah came near, and smote Micaiah upon the cheek, and said, Which way went the Spirit of the LORD from me to speak unto thee?

24 And Micaiah said, Behold, thou shalt see on that day when thou shalt go into an inner chamber to hide thyself.

25 Then the king of Israel said, Take ye Micaiah, and carry him back to Amon the governor of the city, and to Joash the king’s son;

26 And say, Thus saith the king, Put this fellow in the prison, and feed him with bread of affliction and with water of affliction, until I return in peace.

27 And Micaiah said, If thou certainly return in peace, then hath not the LORD spoken by me. And he said, Hearken, all ye people.

28 So the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat the king of Judah went up to Ramoth-gilead.

God had Ahabs Prophets Lie to him so he would come and be slaughtered.

[Chaos]

I gotta go, its late but I'll be back.

Good because you need to post the sources for things you've asserted that others have asked for references. You need to respond to the "CFRs" (call for references) before you move on and post more unsupported claims.

Failure to comply with the conditions of posting that you agreed to may result in being banned from this mb.

MEMBERS: Please use the "Report" button to report any future perceived violations.