Jeff K. Posted February 11, 2012 Posted February 11, 2012 Xander pulls quotes up. He does not provide context for the quotes. We all know the standard operating process of anti Mormons to pull up a quote and have us run willy nilly around to prove or provide context when those self same anti Mormons should provide such context. Some morally weak people might call such behavior ethical. Most know better.I provided a context as an example. I brought up Governor Boggs to show the hostility of the times towards the church. I asked if religious views of other churches towards Mormons could be presented to show context. It was of course unethical for me to raise such concerns. Please anti Mormons, forgive me for daring to question your obviously morally superior cherry picking. I promise to be more tolerant of your empty rhetoric in the future. I apologize for questioning your hate and disdain for what we hold holy. I am sincerely sorry for challenging the obvious bigotry. I bow to the greater good you spew upon us. I won't do it again, really.
LeSellers Posted February 11, 2012 Posted February 11, 2012 (edited) A pity for the Ethiopian eunuch Philip dunked .& the sinful woman in Luke 7:50Philip had the Priesthood. The eunuch was properly baptized.No one said that baptism is the only way to receive a remission of sins. You're reading too much into the words of the Bible when it tells us that baptism remits sins. Jesus, as the Master of death and sin, can do as He will in regard to eitherBut, unless Jesus Himself tells you your sins are forgiven, it would be wise to fiind a legitimate representative who can administer a valid baptism.Lehi Edited February 13, 2012 by LeSellers
Flyonthewall Posted February 11, 2012 Posted February 11, 2012 "the devil could invent no better engine to spread his work that the Christianity of the nineteenth century" JOD volume 6 page 167 (the quote presented by xander which contains this quoted part, is a distortion, civilitation is referred to as corrupt as hell)Apostle Heber C. Kimball once said, "Christians - those poor, miserable priests Brother Brigham was speaking about - some of them are the biggest whoremasters there are on the earth ... JoD volume 5 page 89It is very simple to provide the context of the statement...what was the mesage being taught? what was the point of the whole sermon? What is the history of the interactions between Mormons and the "Christian world" up to that point? If you cannot provide the context then it is a very strong indication that it has been copy and pasted from another source.Now on the flip side, what are some of the statements made in support of other religions by those very same people?
Gervin Posted February 11, 2012 Posted February 11, 2012 But, unless Jesus Himself tells you your sins are forgiven, it would be wise to fiind a legitimate representative who can administer a valid baptism.Jesus does, Himself, tell me that my sins are forgiven. My sins are forgiven.
Mudcat Posted February 11, 2012 Posted February 11, 2012 Philip had the Priesthood. The eunich waas properly baptized.Lehi,Underline mine, normally I am not a grammatical sheriff, but given your propensity for correction I thought it only fair to point out that "eunuch" and "was" would be more intelligible. That being said, in my own view I do agree that Philip had the priesthood. However, I know LDS are more restrictive with such a statement than my view allows. I would ask you, why you feel he qualified for such?No one said that baptism is the only way to receive a remission of sins. You're reading too much into the words of the Bible when it tells us that baptism remits sins. Jesus, as the Master of death and sin, can do as He will in regard to eitherI assume you mean a water baptism as LDS don't seem to believe in spiritual baptism in preference to a bestowal of the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands.Glad to see you are so broad minded on the topic. I assumed when you said...Unless "responding" includes, without fail, baptism by proper Priesthood authority (as demonstrated in Acts 18:24~19:7), salvation cannot come at all, according to biblical scripture... that you meant it literally.
Jeff K. Posted February 11, 2012 Posted February 11, 2012 I may have misread your post...I assume you mean a water baptism as LDS don't seem to believe in spiritual baptism in preference to a bestowal of the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands.Doctrine and Covenants 39 6 And this is my agospel—repentance and baptism by water, and then cometh the bbaptism of fire and the Holy Ghost, even the Comforter, which showeth all things, and cteacheth the peaceable things of the kingdom.Bible Dictionary...The Holy Ghost is manifested to men on the earth both as the power of the Holy Ghost and as the gift of the Holy Ghost. The power can come upon one before baptism, and is the convincing witness that the gospel is true. It gives one a testimony of Jesus Christ and of his work and the work of his servants upon the earth. The gift can come only after proper and authorized baptism, and is conferred by the laying on of hands, as in Acts 8:12–25 and Moroni 2:1–3. The gift of the Holy Ghost is the right to have, whenever one is worthy, the companionship of the Holy Ghost. More powerful than that which is available before baptism, it acts as a cleansing agent to purify a person and sanctify him from all sin. Thus it is often spoken of as “fire” (Matt. 3:11; 2 Ne. 31:17; D&C 19:31). The manifestation on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) was the gift of the Holy Ghost that came upon the Twelve, without which they were not ready for their ministries to the world.
Mudcat Posted February 11, 2012 Posted February 11, 2012 I may have misread your post...No, doesn't seem that way.Doctrine and Covenants 39 gospel—repentance and baptism by water, and then cometh the bbaptism of fire and the Holy Ghost, even the Comforter, which showeth all things, and cteacheth the peaceable things of the kingdom.Certainly we see reference to a baptism by fire but no specificity towards the Spirit. The division between baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost becomes clearer later in D&C 3923 And again, it shall come to pass that on as many as ye shall baptize with water, ye shall lay your ahands, and they shall receive the bgift of the Holy Ghost, and shall be clooking forth for the signs of my dcoming, and shall know me.
altersteve Posted February 11, 2012 Posted February 11, 2012 I assume you mean a water baptism as LDS don't seem to believe in spiritual baptism in preference to a bestowal of the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands.The bestowal of the gift of the Holy Ghost is spiritual baptism.
Jeff K. Posted February 11, 2012 Posted February 11, 2012 I was attempting to convey that. iPads are awkward for the Internet .
Xander Posted February 11, 2012 Posted February 11, 2012 It may not have occured to your narrow mind, but attribution doesn't necessitate hyperlinks. You can provide attribution without a link, and thereby avoid rank hypocrasy. But, I fear that saying this will only invite more of your anti-social bial.Thanks, -Wade Englund-And from which website had I "plagiarized" these citations Wade? Most of these citations I had on file already. I've written enough over the past decade using these same exact citations. But the fact is I attributed these citations to the original speakers, which isn't plagiarism. That these citations appear elsewhere on the web in a compiled format is hardly surprising. Why in the bejeezus would I say, "this is also what (pick your website) says Joseph Smith said" when I am perfectly familiar with these citations already coming from the original source? I had to tackle this problem as an apologist a decade ago when writing the Mormonism 201 project, but couldn't figure out a way to spin it. So I let someone else tackle this particular chapter and all they did was ignore them while asserting the context was being ignored by the critics.The fact is neither you nor Loyd can demonstrate how these numerous citations have been "taken out of context." But you know that all you need to do on this forum is assert. No one, especially the mods, is going to call you to the carpet for falsely accusing a critic of anything. And none of your sheep are going to do the necessary legwork to look up these citations to determine for themselves if the context helps your case.These citations are just a drop in the bucket, and they provide solid proof that Evangelicals have every right to feel offended by Mormonism's teachings. Mormonism's earliest leaders have expressed the same kind of intolerance you folks love to whine about on a daily basis. These citations mean you don't get to play victim anymore, which is why you are desperately trying to move attention away from the citations and start attacking me for "plagiarism."How ridiculous.Xander is out of the thread.
Rinaldo Posted February 11, 2012 Posted February 11, 2012 Why is he out? He was the one being attacked.
Calm Posted February 11, 2012 Posted February 11, 2012 Why is he out? He was the one being attacked.R, mods don't allow discussion of their actions on threads (takes the thread off topic for one). If you have a question about why they did something, best approach is to go back and read the board guidelines to figure it out. And if you think he was attacked, report those attacks yourself. Just mentioning this because you are new, if you have more questions about how things are done, you probably want to contact the mods or start another thread in Social Hall. Not a good idea to respond to me here as it is off topic.
LeSellers Posted February 13, 2012 Posted February 13, 2012 Jesus does, Himself, tell me that my sins are forgiven. My sins are forgiven.I have good reason to doubt that you, like "the sinful woman" of Luke, heard Jesus' own voice tell you your sins are forgiven.Lehi
wenglund Posted February 13, 2012 Posted February 13, 2012 And from which website had I "plagiarized" these citations Wade? Most of these citations I had on file already. I've written enough over the past decade using these same exact citations. But the fact is I attributed these citations to the original speakers, which isn't plagiarism. That these citations appear elsewhere on the web in a compiled format is hardly surprising. Why in the bejeezus would I say, "this is also what (pick your website) says Joseph Smith said" when I am perfectly familiar with these citations already coming from the original source? I had to tackle this problem as an apologist a decade ago when writing the Mormonism 201 project, but couldn't figure out a way to spin it. So I let someone else tackle this particular chapter and all they did was ignore them while asserting the context was being ignored by the critics.The fact is neither you nor Loyd can demonstrate how these numerous citations have been "taken out of context." But you know that all you need to do on this forum is assert. No one, especially the mods, is going to call you to the carpet for falsely accusing a critic of anything. And none of your sheep are going to do the necessary legwork to look up these citations to determine for themselves if the context helps your case.These citations are just a drop in the bucket, and they provide solid proof that Evangelicals have every right to feel offended by Mormonism's teachings. Mormonism's earliest leaders have expressed the same kind of intolerance you folks love to whine about on a daily basis. These citations mean you don't get to play victim anymore, which is why you are desperately trying to move attention away from the citations and start attacking me for "plagiarism."How ridiculous.Xander is out of the thread.Imagine, all this deflective and victimological bluster simply because I said you could provide attribution without a link.Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Gervin Posted February 13, 2012 Posted February 13, 2012 I have good reason to doubt that you, like "the sinful woman" of Luke, heard Jesus' own voice tell you your sins are forgiven.LehiWhat is that reason, or reasons?
LeSellers Posted February 13, 2012 Posted February 13, 2012 normally I am not a grammatical sheriff, but given your propensity for correction I thought it only fair to point out that "eunuch" and "was" would be more intelligible. They are, and I have made the corrections. Thank you.In my defense, I point out that my tablet is not nearly as easy to use fo rthis as my computer.That being said, in my own view I do agree that Philip had the priesthood. However, I know LDS are more restrictive with such a statement than my view allows. I would ask you, why you feel he qualified for such?I assume you mean a water baptism as LDS don't seem to believe in spiritual baptism in preference to a bestowal of the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands.Peter, not a modern Saint, is the one who said "[water] baptism doth now also save us". Take it up with him.The laying on of hands is the ordinance that bestows the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost, so the assumption underlying your assertion is in error: it is not that we should prefer a "spiritual baptism in preference to a bestowal of the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands" because they are one and the same thing. The problem, as I see it, is that evangelicals, in particular, and Protestants in general, reject the ordinance of baptism as salvific, completely in defiance of biblical passages that say precisely that: i.e., that water baptism is the only means by which one can enter into the Kingdom of God. Moreover, bpatism is not valid, according to the Bible, unless it is done by one who holds the Priesthood of God: not just anyone, even in extremis, can perform a valid baptism.Glad to see you are so broad minded on the topic. I assumed when you said...Unless "responding" includes, without fail, baptism by proper Priesthood authority (as demonstrated in Acts 18:24~19:7), salvation cannot come at all, according to biblical scripture... that you meant it literally.I did.The obvious and important question is "Who holds "proper priesthood authority?" It cannot be any Protestant organization (first: none of them even claims to have such a Priesthood, second, none could, if pressed to do so, demonstrate any connection to a universally recognized source of such authority). The various branches of the catholic (note the lack of capitalization) church, Eastern, Roman, Anglican, etc., might have it, providing the links across two millennia are unbroken and uncontestable. They are not, in spite of what "3DOP" and "saemo" might claim.Only one type of faith tradition can claim to have the Priesthood: those claiming to be a restoration of the original Church of Jesus Christ: of the various organizations who make that assertion, only one, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, meets the criteria in the Bible for such a Restoration. The World Wide Church of God (Herbert W. Armstrong) tried it, but his story simply lacks the essential elements. Notably, his restoration didn't restore anything (except doctrine he claimed was lost). The Brooklyn Watchtower doesn't do any better. Ellen G. White loses on the same grounds.Only Joseph Smith tells of angelic ministrants with the mission of Restoring the Priesthood of God. Only he, of all those who claim to have done so, actually brought back, by means of visions and visitations, the doctrine and power of God. Only his organization can demonstrate a link to the ancients: Adam, Abraham, Moses, Elijah. Only he fulfilled prophecies in the Old and the New Testaments. His "theology" connects the Patriarchs, the Apostles, and me to Christ.The others, for all their sincerity, their piety, their strongly held views, simply do not measure up. I am grateful for them. They did great works, but they did not restore the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Catholics preserved the Bible in spite of the errors that crept in. The Protestants weakened the strangle hold on the human spirit once wielded by evil popes (purposefully not capitalized here). Campbell opened many eyes to the necessity of Restoration. But only Joseph Smith, under the direct hand of God, built up The Church of Jesus Christ, a stone cut without hands that will grow to fill the entire earth.Only The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can point to the place where God has told us that we are His children, and that His glory, his purpose, His work is "to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." For the others, we are nothing more than an accident. Only The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has the power of God to perform those ordinances God has established as necessary for us to fill the measure of our creation and which will give Him greater glory.Lehi
LeSellers Posted February 13, 2012 Posted February 13, 2012 What is that reason, or reasons [to doubt that you, like "the sinful woman" of Luke, heard Jesus' own voice tell you your sins are forgiven]?Because, among others, you have never told us you actually heard such a statement from the Savior. You haven't even hinted at it.So, I'll ask you outright, have you had a manifestation of Christ wherein He explicitly told you "your/thy sins are forgiven you/thee"? He didn't even tell Saul/Paul that on the road to Damascus.Lehi
Gervin Posted February 13, 2012 Posted February 13, 2012 Because, among others, you have never told us you actually heard such a statement from the Savior. You haven't even hinted at it.So, I'll ask you outright, have you had a manifestation of Christ wherein He explicitly told you "your/thy sins are forgiven you/thee"? He didn't even tell Saul/Paul that on the road to Damascus.LehiI make it point to discuss as little as possible about my personal life on this board, so that hardly seems a "reason." Taking myself out of the equation, do you think it's possible for someone to hear an audible voice, attributable to Christ, stating that a person's sins are forgiven?
LeSellers Posted February 13, 2012 Posted February 13, 2012 (edited) do you think it's possible for someone to hear an audible voice, attributable to Christ, stating that a person's sins are forgiven?Yes.5 Behold, your [Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery] sins are forgiven you; you are clean before me; therefore, lift up your heads and rejoice.So, have you heard His voice?We Saints, on the other hand, do not need to hear Him speak directly to us on the subject because we have His assurance that, as Peter told us in his first epistle, "[water] baptism doth now also save us", and as many passages in the New Testament (not to mention in the other scriptures of God), that baptism washes away our sins.LehiLe Sellars has left the building because of inappropriate personal comments. Edited February 13, 2012 by Minos
Recommended Posts