Why I Know

[IloveaMormon]

That was Alexander Campbell's complaint back in 1831 or so, when he wrote his critique. It has not dated well with respect recent research regarding the roots of New Testament concepts and a realistic appreciation of what can and should appear in a translated text.

I see the convergence of Book of Mormon contents with reconstructed First Temple teaching as being one of the most exciting developments in modern scholarship.

You did notice that I posted a links and a summary of 28 Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets? While I can accept that opinions differ, I personally like to see some demonstration of how a person should go about identifying a true prophet according to a Biblical standard. Not objecting just that a prophet-candidate says things I don't think, and displays values of which I do not approve. That is simply judging a prophet against one's personal preconceptions and desires. Not the most reliable standard of judgment, I think. Everyone approaches a prophet candidate with preconceptions and desires. Can we all assume that a prophet would never do or say anything different than what we already think and want? It happens that of over 70 arguments given by Biblical peoples in justifying their own rejection of Biblical prophets, all their arguments boil down that those two things. Not what I think, not what I want. No contrite spirit, no broken heart.

Let's see what constitutes doctrine:

"And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me. And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God. And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned" (3 Nephi 11:33-34).

When has that doctrine changed in LDS history, or for that matter since the New Testament?

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

I believe in baptism.

In your query about what constitutes a prophet... i am still studying the bible and want to become more aqainted with the prophets of old.

My criteria for a modern day prophet would be the character of that individual and the validity of his claims.

I look at Jospeph Smith and the only 'evidence' I see about him being a prophet of God is ultimatley, his claim to be so.

I do not believe God would have chosen such a flawed person. Now before you go on about how flawed the prophets of the Bible were ,save it. I already know no-one is perfect but come on... Joseph Smith changed his story about his visions too many times, there are too many flaws in his character and the way he coerced women to be with him, his treatment of the history of my people (I'm Mexican American) and the Book of Mormon just doesn't ring true to me and to others as well like archeologists, linguists, Egyptian scholars, etc... Joseph Smith was charismatic and had a great imagination (not the innocent country boy who out of nowhere recieved revelation from God) Fine. He was a leader of a church which has grown into a very powerful church today. Very true.

when I contemplate the character of Jospeph Smith with another leader say Ghandi... Joseph Smiths theology, the structure of his church seemed self serving and self aggrandizing more than anything else that has to do with the teachings of Christ. That's my feeling.

[Nemesis]

I believe in baptism.

In your query about what constitutes a prophet... i am still studying the bible and want to become more aqainted with the prophets of old.

My criteria for a modern day prophet would be the character of that individual and the validity of his claims.

I look at Jospeph Smith and the only 'evidence' I see about him being a prophet of God is ultimatley, his claim to be so.

I do not believe God would have chosen such a flawed person. Now before you go on about how flawed the prophets of the Bible were ,save it. I already know no-one is perfect but come on... Joseph Smith changed his story about his visions too many times, there are too many flaws in his character and the way he coerced women to be with him, his treatment of the history of my people (I'm Mexican American) and the Book of Mormon just doesn't ring true to me and to others as well like archeologists, linguists, Egyptian scholars, etc... Joseph Smith was charismatic and had a great imagination (not the innocent country boy who out of nowhere recieved revelation from God) Fine. He was a leader of a church which has grown into a very powerful church today. Very true.

when I contemplate the character of Jospeph Smith with another leader say Ghandi... Joseph Smiths theology, the structure of his church seemed self serving and self aggrandizing more than anything else that has to do with the teachings of Christ. That's my feeling.

I don't think playing the race card is helping you here, there are Mexican American posters here that are LDS that I can almost bet would not agree with you. So stop the baiting and stay on topic, I suggest you read the board guidelines before you continue on the path you are on. You are entitled to your opinion but I suggest if you want to play here you back up your assertions.

Nemesis

[IloveaMormon]

2 Nephi 25:23

23 For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.

Define: after all we can do... Does the Lord expect the same "all we can do" from someone with Down Syndrome? Someone with depression? Someone missing a limb?

What harm is there in striving?

That's a bit like Racebaiting, don't you think?

There is a difference between loving someone, and allowing them whatever they want. You can love a two year old, but still not allow him to eat his fill of candy just because he wants to.

There are many biblical verses to backup the LDS (an many other religions) policy on homosexuality.

You can love the sinner, but abhor the sin.

More race-baiting and silliness.

So you are comparing a two year old wanting candy to a homosexual living as God made them. Hmm. I guess since you 'abhor the sin' you'd rather our gay brothers and sisters commit suicide which I hear is a problem in the LDS church in particular (or are you going to call that statement 'gender identity baiting?)??

Not sure what you mean by racebaiting. Perhaps it is a term used by white folks to dismiss or minimize people of colors questions about the LDS church doctrine. Mormons hate when this topic is brought up just like polygamy and yet it was YOUR 'prophet' who claimed his words were directly from God himself. It was the arrogance of Joseph Smith's claims to be a revelator which has caused these discussions in the first place. I'm trying to find answers- find a way I can relate to the LDS church and being called 'silly' only strengthens my opinion that LDS people can't see outside their own experience.

[Nemesis]

So you are comparing a two year old wanting candy to a homosexual living as God made them. Hmm. I guess since you 'abhor the sin' you'd rather our gay brothers and sisters commit suicide which I hear is a problem in the LDS church in particular (or are you going to call that statement 'gender identity baiting?)??

Not sure what you mean by racebaiting. Perhaps it is a term used by white folks to dismiss or minimize people of colors questions about the LDS church doctrine. Mormons hate when this topic is brought up just like polygamy and yet it was YOUR 'prophet' who claimed his words were directly from God himself. It was the arrogance of Joseph Smith's claims to be a revelator which has caused these discussions in the first place. I'm trying to find answers- find a way I can relate to the LDS church and being called 'silly' only strengthens my opinion that LDS people can't see outside their own experience.

You have serious race issues that I think you need to resolve before you continue to embarrass yourself and your culture. So read my above post and see it as guidance for your success here.

Nemesis

[altersteve]

I believe in baptism.

In your query about what constitutes a prophet... i am still studying the bible and want to become more aqainted with the prophets of old.

My criteria for a modern day prophet would be the character of that individual and the validity of his claims.

I look at Jospeph Smith and the only 'evidence' I see about him being a prophet of God is ultimatley, his claim to be so.

I do not believe God would have chosen such a flawed person. Now before you go on about how flawed the prophets of the Bible were ,save it. I already know no-one is perfect but come on... Joseph Smith changed his story about his visions too many times, there are too many flaws in his character and the way he coerced women to be with him, his treatment of the history of my people (I'm Mexican American) and the Book of Mormon just doesn't ring true to me and to others as well like archeologists, linguists, Egyptian scholars, etc... Joseph Smith was charismatic and had a great imagination (not the innocent country boy who out of nowhere recieved revelation from God) Fine. He was a leader of a church which has grown into a very powerful church today. Very true.

when I contemplate the character of Jospeph Smith with another leader say Ghandi... Joseph Smiths theology, the structure of his church seemed self serving and self aggrandizing more than anything else that has to do with the teachings of Christ. That's my feeling.

The Book of Mormon doesn't ring true to you because you're not reading it with the influence of the Spirit. Are you reading it to find flaws? If you are, then that's what you'll find. But if you read it to find true insights with true intent, and put its teachings into your own life, then the Spirit will tell you loud and clear that the book is true. It really is that simple. As for all the arguments given by archaeologists, linguists, and Egyptologists, I have found that none of the ones I have heard cannot be explained, refuted, and dismissed. And from what I can see, almost every single one of them has. No, Joseph Smith was not perfect. But if the Book of Mormon is true, then he was a prophet, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God's authorized institution on this earth, and all of your arguments about how he "coerced women to be with him," etc. can be given a sound explanation that only further testify of his prophetic calling. In other words, it all comes down to one question: Is the Book of Mormon true? And the only way that question can be answered is by asking God. Only he has the answer that will satisfy you.

[ELF1024]

So you are comparing a two year old wanting candy to a homosexual living as God made them.

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)

Hmm. I guess since you 'abhor the sin' you'd rather our gay brothers and sisters commit suicide which I hear is a problem in the LDS church in particular (or are you going to call that statement 'gender identity baiting?)??

No, I'm going to call it baloney, and ask you to site your source. CFR (please submit evidence on the same thread as above so as not to anger the Mods)

Not sure what you mean by racebaiting. Perhaps it is a term used by white folks to dismiss or minimize people of colors questions about the LDS church doctrine.

There has never been a Priesthood ban on Mexican Americans. So what church doctrine are you referring to? The one that states that some of your ancestors may have been Jews?

Mormons hate when this topic is brought up just like polygamy and yet it was YOUR 'prophet' who claimed his words were directly from God himself. It was the arrogance of Joseph Smith's claims to be a revelator which has caused these discussions in the first place.

There have been people of all races in the church from the beginning of the church.

I'm trying to find answers- find a way I can relate to the LDS church and being called 'silly' only strengthens my opinion that LDS people can't see outside their own experience.

Perhaps your questions should be addressed in a more civil manner. The way you phrase your questions seems to indicate a large amount of disrespect. Please answer the CFRs that have already been sent your direction.

Edited June 24, 2011 by ELF1024

[altersteve]

Seriously, IloveaMormon, your accusations of homophobia and racism have got to stop. They are unsupportable, completely false, and somewhat insulting.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Q "Which doctrines changed? I know of some practices that have changed. Are you confusing the 2?"

"

A If you can't even acknowledge how the wording has changed in the BOM (Lamanites becoming white and delightsome just one example) I'll leave that alone.

So tell me please what doctrine has changed? The fact that you cannot tell me says something about your claims.

It would help for you to understand the ancient context for skins of blackness and "white and delight some".

The wording change reflects those ancient ideals better. But they were always there.

Q "Who told you that you needed to recite the ramblings of a prophet"

A : Your church tells its members exactly what to say... "I know this church is true, I know Joseph Smith was a prophet....." In church every Sunday the Book of Mormon is read and quoted and discussed. Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon... personal ramblings pasted together with portions of the Bible, with writings from other books of his day...thoughts of an interesting individual who claimed to be a prophet.

I am sorry where am I told I must say any of this stuff? I say only the things I genuinely believe. I have never once been told what to say. CFR that JS wrote the BoM. That is claim that is slung around more than I can count and it has never once been substantiated.

You are right. Nowhere in the BOM does it actually say being human is awful but that is the underlying message I hear.

So I am right in that humans are not "diseases" as you claim, but that message is still there. CFR please. So far you have acknowledged that you were wrong but you still persist in this? Why?

Sin, repentance, suffering and 'measuring up'. The fear of 'natural man'. Natural man is what God made us. Your church does not teach empowerment. It teaches dependence.

Sin. Yes. Suffering, yes. Measuring up? I am not familiar with that term any were in the gospel.

I am not familiar with "fear of the natural man". We are to turn from the natural man no fear it. Um is not the gospel message one of dependence? Don't you depend on Christ for salvation. I know I do.

I don't doubt anyone you know 'fears their own thoughts' because they do not question their faith.

Huh? This is incoherent.

The church teaches when 'unspiritual thoughts' arise to immediately sing a hymn or read your scriptures to stop the thought.

And you are using this as a pejorative? I mean really, we should think and act on all unspiritual thoughts? Is that really what you are advocating here?

I don't think LDS members are mindless rubes. I think people do the best they can to reason in most situations.

I myself am in love with a faithful LDS man who is extremely intelligent. I wouldn't want to be with him if he wasn't.

Then stop portraying the idea that you are so enlightened that non of us have though about the church or had questions. It is insulting.

[Ares]

This topic is not about gay marriage or homosexuals. There are other threads dealing with that.

Seconded!

Please get back on the OP topic or this thread will be closed.

[Hughes]

It is a “wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it” (Matthew 16:4).

I don’t believe it. I have quoted you enough of the “word of God” to convince anyone; but you turn a blind eye to them. Therefore forgive me for being a little sceptical of your declared “love” for the word of God.

I have demonstrated to you by the Bible what the Lord’s true Church looked like in ancient times, and why the LDS Church today is the only Church that comes anywhere close.

That is because I am demonstrating to you that the very Bible you rely on contradicts your beliefs. I am trying to find common ground with you by quoting exclusively from the Bible. But it is evident from your responses that you no more believe in the Bible than you do in Modern revelation.

That is quite true. I am privileged to be a witness to the truth of modern revelation given to the Church Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints in our day. I testify that I know it is true.

I don’t believe it. I have quoted you verse after verse form the Bible, and you have turned a blind eye to every one of them. That proves that your theological thinking is not based on the Bible.

Not true. The Apostasy is demonstrable from Bible. But there would be little point in quoting them to you, because you have demonstrated that you pay lip service to the Bible, but you are not interested in what it actually says. You have a certain set of beliefs that you have formed outside of the Bible, thinking that they conforms to the Bible. But you haven’t really proved to yourself that it is; and those sets of beliefs are more important to you than what it says in the Bible. That is why you tenaciously stick to them even when it is demonstrated to you beyond reasonable doubt that they do not conform to the Bible. You are willing to close your eyes to the truth, and to what the Bible teaches, in order to hold on to your false beliefs. It is obvious that it would be a waste of time trying to prove to you the Apostasy from the Bible.

First, it doesn't matter to me if you believe me or not.

Second, it is mine, and all of non-LDS Christianity understanding that no apostasy occurred for which JS restored.

What is happening, and I'll use this as an example. Your first scriptural quote above, Matthew 16:4. What is the context? Who was that statement said to? Did Peter's miraculous signs occur after or before this statement?

You see, I have an understanding of the context of scripture. I'm not here to try and twist it into saying something different than what was originally intended. I'm interested in the truth. For me, it doesn't matter if I'm wrong. I'm ok with that. I love to learn. And if JS was actually a prophet, I'd listen to his teachings, but it's clear to me he's not. And this isn't meant as an insult, simply the truth as I see it.

However, I'm not a pharisee, and I'm not demanding a sign as they were. So, your labels and miss applied scriptural texts and then dogmatic pronouncements ("you have turned a blind eye...") about me are almost laughable.

The fact is no, you've not quoted one verse that demonstrates that only one organization run by men is to be the only church. Nor have you demonstrated that evangelical beliefs, such as mine, are contradictory to the bible.

Edited June 24, 2011 by Hughes

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I am definatley having a fun spiritual journey. Ok so I am totally wrong about having kids.

Mormons don't believe its their job to have as many kids as possible to give the spirits waiting in line in the spirit world a body. Ok. My mistake!

That is not all you were wrong about.

But at least you are willing to admit an error, or are you?

About perfection- obviously the church does not come out and say 'Hey kids if your not 100% perfect your lost'

but it does constantly emphasize striving for perfection and becoming worthy to live in 'Gods presence' in exaltation.

Then why portray the idea that it does? Perfection is what we are commanded to be. Do you disagree with Christ's command to be perfect? You act like this is bad to follow the Saviors counsel. I don't get it.

.Prop 8 tells you God is leading your church. Wow! Homophobia at its best.

This is laughable. Prop 8 was not about being afraid of gay people. It was about protecting traditional marriage. If you want to be gay and have all the same rights as me I have fine we will call those civil unions. But there is no such thing as a gay marriage.

My God wants me to love and embrace everyone.

So does mine. Marriage per the bible is between a man and a woman, not a man and a man.

And trying to enforce that is not hate. What non-sequitur you have set up.

Good luck on your journey of seeing God in such a small way- that He - the Creator of the Universe is not great enough to embrace all his children- not just heterosexuals.

I don't see God in such a small way. Quite being so shallow. God has commanded that no unclean thing can enter the kingdom of God. Do you believe that God will save people in their sins?

I guess your belief works for you- especially if you are heterosexual. Just like my LDS white brothers and sisters can't comprehend why a Mexican American (myself) would take issue with how people of color in the LDS doctrine.

What are you talking about? There is nothing about people of color exepct in your own mind.

As for the parable about the 10 virgins... what I take from this is life should be lived well and joyfully (celebrating while being wise about needs to be done). Celebrating and 'being merry' doesn't have to be the antithesis of being smart and prepared. The joy is having balance. Work hard play hard because there is joy in both.

I am sorry but in the parable nothing is mentioned about "Celebrating and 'being merry' ". Being prepared is one important thing. What about the talents? What about teh sheep and the goats. I think you don't want to respond because I have destroyed your argument about a list. There are thing in this life that we must do. We cannot just confess Jesus and sit idle by "Celebrating and 'being merry'" and expect to be saved.

Keep hatin on our gay brothers and sisters and everyone else who is too different from you. Not Christ like but as you said, nobody is perfect.

I don't hate gay people. Stop bearing a false witness. You are projecting on to me. Stop it.

I will assume you were composing and posting this before you saw my last message. Now get back on topic! -Ares

[Kevin Christensen]

I believe in baptism.

In your query about what constitutes a prophet... i am still studying the bible and want to become more aqainted with the prophets of old.

Excellent. Study is good.

My criteria for a modern day prophet would be the character of that individual and the validity of his claims.

Mine are 28 Biblical tests, all neatly paired with both true and false references (most with multiple verses behind them). My FAIR study also surveys Biblical passages that describe how a person should go about seeing truth. And it surveys Biblical examples of those who rejected true prophets, as examples of what not to do. I notice that when considered against all 28 Biblical tests, Joseph Smith stands alone in modern times. I also notice that there is an organic relationship between the Biblical recommendations for seeing truth and the kinds of arguments people use when looking at a prophet. Those who follow them notice and value different things than those who don't.

I look at Jospeph Smith and the only 'evidence' I see about him being a prophet of God is ultimatley, his claim to be so.

Perhaps because I've been looking for a long time, I see a lot more evidence than just his claim. He comes along with many witnesses to the plates, the formal 3, 8, and others. And witnesses like Ridgon to section 76, and Cowdery to the visions at the Kirtland Temple. Plus, he actually produced several volumes of scripture. They didn't come from nowhere, they also have witnesses, and they are testable in many ways.

I've personally made several original tests. This for instance:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=2&chapid=35

I do not believe God would have chosen such a flawed person.

I take comfort from it. As Lorenzo Snow put it, "I personally saw Joseph Smith do things of which I did not approve... yet I thanked God... for then I knew there was hope for me."

And there is the "mote eye" rule. I've not found any criticism of Joseph Smith that also does not correspond to issues with Bible prophets and people.

Joseph Smith changed his story about his visions too many times,

I've got and have read all of his vision accounts, and have read many studies on the topic. I recommend Matthew Brown's recent and excellent, A Pillar of Light. On a budget, one can read his, and other essays at FAIR.

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2006_Joseph_Smiths_Foundational_Stories.html

there are too many flaws in his character and the way he coerced women to be with him,

Which women? Do you have first hand accounts from the women making any such complaints? Nancy Ridgon famously said "No." Which tells me Joseph's power of coercion was extremely limited. Indeed, the reports typically amount to Joseph asking. The woman not happy. Him leaving them alone. Them praying on their own, and then having a spiritual experience. Sarah Pratt stayed unhappy, but she was also free to leave, which she did.

Have you read this, which looks directly at charges of coercion?

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2009_Everything_You_Always_Wanted_to_Know_About_Plural_Marriage.html

his treatment of the history of my people (I'm Mexican American) and the Book of Mormon just doesn't ring true to me and to others as well like archeologists, linguists, Egyptian scholars, etc...

Which archeologists and scholars have you read? I've read Coe's dismissals, but also trained archeologists Sorenson, Gardner, John Clark, and Mark Wright. Are you away that the husband and wife archeologists in charge of the site of Teotihuican are LDS converts? Do you know something they don't?

Have you read this?

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2001_Social_History_of_the_Early_Nephites.html

Have you read this?

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2002_Gadianton_Robbers_in_Mormons_Theological_History.html

Joseph Smith was charismatic and had a great imagination (not the innocent country boy who out of nowhere recieved revelation from God) Fine. He was a leader of a church which has grown into a very powerful church today. Very true.

when I contemplate the character of Jospeph Smith with another leader say Ghandi... Joseph Smiths theology, the structure of his church seemed self serving and self aggrandizing more than anything else that has to do with the teachings of Christ. That's my feeling.

When I contemplate Joseph Smith being tarred and feathered, preaching to the same people who did it the next day, and losing the twin babies to illness indirectly caused by the mobbers, and then sitting in the dark, cold, straw covered stone floor of the unheated Liberty Jail, month after month, with the news of his people being violently driven from Missouri for comfort, I find myself unable to to imagine him thinking, "Isn't this grand? Haven't I done well for myself?"

But when I read the letters he wrote from that situation, I see his dependence on and closeness to Christ.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

nm

Edited June 24, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I will assume you were composing and posting this before you saw my last message. Now get back on topic! -Ares

Roger. Getting back on topic.

Edited June 24, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Ares]

I will assume you were composing and posting this before you saw my last message. Now get back on topic! -Ares

Roger. Getting back on topic.

Thank you. I wasn't in the mood to smite anyone today.

[Deborah]

When I contemplate Joseph Smith being tarred and feathered, preaching to the same people who did it the next day, and losing the twin babies to illness indirectly caused by the mobbers, and then sitting in the dark, cold, straw covered stone floor of the unheated Liberty Jail, month after month, with the news of his people being violently driven from Missouri for comfort, I find myself unable to to imagine him thinking, "Isn't this grand? Haven't I done well for myself?"

Likewise. Furthermore those scriptures that came from the Liberty Jail experience are powerful testimonies of his dependence on Christ and how he took comfort in the Savior. Sections 121 and 122 of the D&C are alone enough testimony of the power of God in his life.

[ELF1024]

First, it doesn't matter to me if you believe me or not.

Second, it is mine, and all of non-LDS Christianity understanding that no apostasy occurred for which JS restored.

You must be Catholic then... Otherwise there was an apostasy, or you just believe that Luther, or Calvin cleaned up the mess.

What is happening, and I'll use this as an example. Your first scriptural quote above, Matthew 16:4. What is the context? Who was that statement said to? Did Peter's miraculous signs occur after or before this statement?

You see, I have an understanding of the context of scripture. I'm not here to try and twist it into saying something different than what was originally intended. I'm interested in the truth. For me, it doesn't matter if I'm wrong. I'm ok with that. I love to learn. And if JS was actually a prophet, I'd listen to his teachings, but it's clear to me he's not. And this isn't meant as an insult, simply the truth as I see it.

However, I'm not a pharisee, and I'm not demanding a sign as they were. So, your labels and miss applied scriptural texts and then dogmatic pronouncements ("you have turned a blind eye...") about me are almost laughable.

The fact is no, you've not quoted one verse that demonstrates that only one organization run by men is to be the only church. Nor have you demonstrated that evangelical beliefs, such as mine, are contradictory to the bible.

Edited June 24, 2011 by ELF1024

[Hughes]

You must be Catholic then... Otherwise there was an apostasy, or you just believe that Luther, or Calvin cleaned up the mess.

Since the biblical text remained as it was, completely reliable, all that was needed was the reformation.

Edited June 24, 2011 by Hughes

[ELF1024]

Since the biblical text remained as it was, completely reliable, all that was needed as the reformation.

Really? Completely reliable? Why are there differing Bibles some containing Jubilees and Maccabees and some not.

What about the books that are missing from the Bible...

Is that really completely reliable?

Edited June 24, 2011 by ELF1024

[Ares]

Really? Completely reliable? Why are there differing Bibles some containing Jubilees and Maccabees and some not.

What about the books that are missing from the Bible...

Is that really completely reliable?

Sounds like a new topic. - Ares

[ELF1024]

Sounds like a new topic. - Ares

Likewise. Furthermore those scriptures that came from the Liberty Jail experience are powerful testimonies of his dependence on Christ and how he took comfort in the Savior. Sections 121 and 122 of the D&C are alone enough testimony of the power of God in his life.

Deborah, as you are the thread owner;

May I ask what the topic is currently. I seem to be confused. My apologies.

ELF1024

[Deborah]

Why I know that Joseph Smith was a true prophet.

[ELF1024]

Why I know that Joseph Smith was a true prophet.

Ahh, Thank you.

[zerinus]

First, it doesn't matter to me if you believe me or not.

Second, it is mine, and all of non-LDS Christianity understanding that no apostasy occurred for which JS restored.

"All of non-LDS Christianity" is Apostate, along with you. Apostate religions have always denied, opposed, and contradicted true restored religions. So they along with you are acting true to form by opposing and obstructing God's true and restored religion in our day. Whenever God has established a new dispensation of the gospel, it has always started off as a minority. Then it has grown to become a majority. No true religion ever started off as a majority. Therefore your argument that there are more of them than there are of us is a false argument. The truth of a religion is not determined by its number.

What is happening, and I'll use this as an example. Your first scriptural quote above, Matthew 16:4. What is the context? Who was that statement said to? Did Peter's miraculous signs occur after or before this statement?

You don't really know what you are talking about, do you. Matthew 16:4 occurred when Jesus' critics demanded a sign form him as proof of his prophetic mission. Jesus gave them that answer, the meaning of which is that it is wrong to demand a sign of a prophet as evidence of his prophetic calling. You just don't do that. It is wrong whether you demand it of Jesus, or of Peter, or of Joseph Smith. That is what that scripture means. It looks like your problem is more serious than I had thought. You seem to lack the most basic, elementary understanding of the Bible. That may be the real reason behind your turning a blind eye to my scriptural quotes.

You see, I have an understanding of the context of scripture. I'm not here to try and twist it into saying something different than what was originally intended. I'm interested in the truth. For me, it doesn't matter if I'm wrong. I'm ok with that. I love to learn. And if JS was actually a prophet, I'd listen to his teachings, but it's clear to me he's not. And this isn't meant as an insult, simply the truth as I see it.

Your words are a maze of contradictions. To learn something new you have to be humble and teachable, not have an “already know it” attitude that kills all learning and communication.

However, I'm not a pharisee, and I'm not demanding a sign as they were. So, your labels and miss applied scriptural texts and then dogmatic pronouncements ("you have turned a blind eye...") about me are almost laughable.

Well, in your previous post you were demanding a sign, which puts you in the same league as the Pharisees. Even if we did produce those kinds of signs, you would still not believe. Faith does not come by signs, but signs follow those that believe.

The fact is no, you've not quoted one verse that demonstrates that only one organization run by men is to be the only church.

I have quoted you enough verses that demonstrates that only one organization run by men who were appointed by God which constituted God’s only true Church. That is how it was in ancient times, and that is how it is today.

Nor have you demonstrated that evangelical beliefs, such as mine, are contradictory to the bible.

I wouldn’t say that all of it is contradictory; but a lot of it is.

Edited June 24, 2011 by zerinus

[Ares]

ELF1024 you and Hughes seem to have branched off into the need for the restoration vs. reformation. A separate or sub-topic of Joseph Smith's calling as a prophet.

No formal warning- just an invitation to expand on those ideas on another topic or to focus back on central idea of the OP.

Thanks