zerinus Posted July 27, 2011 Posted July 27, 2011 Not going to be a surprise, but I HIGHLY disagree with this assessment. And I'd also guess a great number of General Authorities - if not all of them - would also disagree with this.You are free to disagree; but not free to act as spokesman for the General Authorities. I think they can do without your help with that one.If being a lot less likely to happily assign those who come to different conclusions than me (or zerinus) to h e l l is a sign of soft-peddling apostasy and being a conniving servant of Satan, then whatever. I'll take the label. Zerinus probably already believes me to be an apostate minister of Satan, anyway."Thy mouth has testified against thee!" I speak no further.
Skylla Posted July 27, 2011 Posted July 27, 2011 We also have some blunt speaking to do if you want to go down that road. The blunt message is that the church you believe in is apostate. It is in fact the church of the devil. And that makes you, a self-proclaimed proponent of that religion, a minister of Satan. That is the blunt truth in case you wanted to know it.Zerinus:This is your last warning. Call anyone a minister of Satan on this board again and you are done.Skylla
Calm Posted July 27, 2011 Posted July 27, 2011 (edited) We also have some blunt speaking to do if you want to go down that road. The blunt message is that the church you believe in is apostate. It is in fact the church of the devil. And that makes you, a self-proclaimed proponent of that religion, a minister of Satan. That is the blunt truth in case you wanted to know it.lds.org would disagree with you: Well-intentioned churches would thus not qualify as the mother of abominations described in 1 Nephi 13. They do not slay the saints of God nor seek to control civil governments nor pursue wealth, luxury, and sexual immorality.http://lds.org/ensign/1988/01/warring-against-the-saints-of-god?lang=eng&noLang=true&path=/ensign/1988/01/warring-against-the-saints-of-god Edited July 27, 2011 by calmoriah
zerinus Posted July 28, 2011 Posted July 28, 2011 lds.org would disagree with you: http://lds.org/ensign/1988/01/warring-against-the-saints-of-god?lang=eng&noLang=true&path=/ensign/1988/01/warring-against-the-saints-of-godThat does not apply to those churches, organizations, or individuals who “fight against Zion,” as Rob and his organization does, or as Evangelical churches generally do. Those ones are definitively identified in the Book of Mormon as the church of the devil:2 Nephi 10:16 Wherefore, he that fighteth against Zion, both Jew and Gentile, both bond and free, both male and female, shall perish; for they are they who are the whore of all the earth; for they who are not for me are against me, saith our God.“Whore of all the earth” is a euphemism for the church of the devil. Thus those organizations (or individuals) who “fight against Zion” are the church of the devil, according to that scripture. That does not contradict the article you found on the Church’s website. I didn’t say all churches are the church of the devil.The church of the devil is not a “denominational” church—although some denomination churches may be part of it. It is bigger than being denominational, and its membership consists only of those who “fight against Zion,” regardless of what religious (or non-religious) persuasion they may be.I wouldn’t identify the Catholic Church as the church of the devil for example, because it doesn’t have a history of “fighting against Zion”. But there are some denominational churches who do have that history, and thus by their own actions they have unfortunately identified themselves as the church of the devil. I don’t think that one should be embarrassed or afraid to admit that.
PacMan Posted July 28, 2011 Posted July 28, 2011 Bowman,You seriously need to get a hobby. Making some crazy correlative conclusion based on an unfounded premise with poor, collateral evidence is not becoming of someone dutifully busy doing...anything. 1
cdowis Posted July 28, 2011 Posted July 28, 2011 (edited) Okey dokey, let's be blunt.I think your continual ranting and raving has spoiled the general positive spirit of this discussion. Nothing personal, but if you want to shout in a bullhorn, please find somewhere else to do it. Edited July 28, 2011 by cdowis
shalamabobbi Posted July 28, 2011 Posted July 28, 2011 Matt 22:32God referring to Himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is idolatrous?How could He thus praise these three men?Better get that cross out so it'll be ready should the Son of Man return during your lifetime..
zerinus Posted July 28, 2011 Posted July 28, 2011 (edited) Zerinus:This is your last warning. Call anyone a minister of Satan on this board again and you are done.SkyllaThank you Skylla, but I also have a question I would like to ask.Why is it okay for him to “use some blunt language” to me, but I am not allowed to send an equally “blunt message” to him? Why is it okay for him to insinuate that I am an “idolater” and “blasphemer” because I sing a hymn of praise to Joseph Smith (in spite of all the reasonable explanations that have been given to him), but I am not allowed to tell him where I think he is getting his wages from?After all, it is not as though there are not enough Mormons here who are willing to stick up for him and give him their support; so why is it necessary to tilt the playing field in their favour as well? They are free to speak their minds, so let them come here and speak on his behalf. Why favor one side over another? Your judgement doesn't seem to me to be evenly balanced. Edited July 29, 2011 by zerinus
Scott Lloyd Posted July 29, 2011 Posted July 29, 2011 Okay. Funny that no one suggested that the hymn used hyperbole when, in a thread started by a Mormon, several Mormons expressed misgivings about its content. Only when a non-Mormon questions the content and a Mormon with decidedly non-traditional views resorts to comparing the hymn to supposedly hyperbolic language in the Psalms do we find out that some other Mormons are comfortable characterizing "Praise to the Man" in this way.Surely you understand that the prevailing, orthodox position in the Church of Jesus Christ is to embrace the hymn as an appropriate expression of tribute to Joseph Smith and an affirmation of his divinely directed mission. Those who express "misgivings about its content" are no more normative than would be a group calling itself Republicans for Obama.
Recommended Posts