bluebell Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: I think it's the term follow that has us at odds. I don't like the idea of following other people, so much as following ideas no matter from whence they come. Mostly because when it comes down to it, I'm going to disagree with any person about something. I can't follow the person if in some measure I disagree. But I can accept their ideas if I agree. I think i understand what you are saying, and in some ways it makes sense. But in another way, it seems like all you are saying is that you follow yourself (because, you can never disagree with yourself after all) and so for you in your life, you are the 'servant' that Jesus was talking about in those verses already quoted. Whether by the voice of Jesus, or by your own voice, it is the same (for you, in your life. I know you aren't saying that anyone else should follow you). If you agree with a leader, then they are following God. If you don't agree with them, then they aren't. Is that what you are saying?
bluebell Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 10 minutes ago, RevTestament said: A desire to be accepted and liked by the world doesn't translate into truth. The Bible gives us simple truth. Those who deny the Son, deny the Father and are antichrist. The Koran plainly denies the Father has a Son. In fact it says for anyone to claim that God shares His power with others is committing the Sin of Shirk. So you can believe the Koran, or you can believe the Bible and the Book of Mormon, but not both. Just because the Koran spouts off a few truths doesn't make it scripture. It teaches "there is no compulsion in religion" but yet its followers kill anyone esp women who try to leave. If that is not compulsion, what is? Those who follow the Koran follow a false prophet - and if you don't know the penalty for saying that, may I suggest you look it up in the Koran? Then get back with me as to whether Mohammed is "a prophet" of God. The Jews, in large part, deny the Christ. They are still considered part of the House of Israel though, aren't they? And Israel is still God's chosen people, even if they are wayward children at the moment. Likewise, there are Muslims who revere Christ and try very hard to follow His teachings, even if they don't believe He is the Son of God. These issues are complicated and difficult to judge. Thank goodness there is no reason for us to do so. 1
CV75 Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 26 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Read it again. He never said that. Nor did he say it applied in perpetuity. Just ask Kevin Christenson. I read it all the time. He always said that. Are all your paragraphs less than dozen-word sentences? Can you kindly paraphrase Kevin Christenson for me? Are you talking about the Church of the Firstborn replacing the LDS Church? Of course it will—and then comes perpetuity. I’m talking about the instructions in the Book of Mormon and D &C (some of which I’ve quoted throughout this thread) that pertain to the Restored Church, Joseph Smith and his arranging the Church and how she operates under the Lord’s direction, including the mouthpiece/watchman/leader roles and responsibilities of apostles and the members in relation to them, etc. And then we have all the other scriptures about the Lord’s dealings through his servants the prophets, which we are wise to liken unto ourselves and current circumstances.
Russell C McGregor Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 1 hour ago, consiglieri said: I just get tired of the same old dog-eared fallacy that because Jesus said to follow his servants, that automatically means we are supposed to follow the leaders of the LDS Church. That's all. So my terse reply was just short-hand for all that. Given (and it is a given) that actual believing Latter-day Saints -- as distinct from apostates in faux sheepskins -- sustain the leaders of the Church as the Lord's servants, it is entirely proper to apply the Lord's teachings regarding His servants to the living apostles and prophets. Sneering at this correct application of scripture as a "dog-eared fallacy" is merely an attempt to dissimulate your own lack of a cogent response. 2
RevTestament Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 5 minutes ago, bluebell said: The Jews, in large part, deny the Christ. They are still considered part of the House of Israel though, aren't they? And Israel is still God's chosen people, even if they are wayward children at the moment. No, they are not part of the house of Israel. They have been pruned out of the vineyard. They have suffered the death of Adam. When they die, they are unsaved. Isaiah 28:18 18 ¶And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it. Like everyone else they must repent through Jesus to be saved. Jesus/Yahoshuah means Yah saves. Until they accept the Mashiach, they will die in their sins. Quote Likewise, there are Muslims who revere Christ and try very hard to follow His teachings, even if they don't believe He is the Son of God. These issues are complicated and difficult to judge. Not really. The truth is set forth for all to see. Following Jesus teachings means believing that He died for us, which they deny. They deny the atonement. They do not believe Him when He says He is the Son of God. They deny His calling as the Son of God and as our Savior. Therefore, they die in an unsaved state. This does not mean they won't be forgiven, but it does mean they won't go to paradise, and it definitely means no 72 virgins for killing innocents in the name of God. Those who follow His other teachings will certainly be better off though than those who don't as they will probably be guilty of less heinous sins.
stemelbow Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 1 hour ago, CV75 said: But you see it in the various other references, don’t you! So you should see it when I point out for this passage, the Lord has chosen and authorized disciples to go forth, speak His word, warn, and fulfil His word with expectation that we heed them and follow them, just as in 3 Nephi 12:1. Yes follow the words, not the people. 1 hour ago, CV75 said: And as in D&C 124: “And if my people will hearken unto my voice, and unto the voice of my servants whom I have appointed to lead my people, behold, verily I say unto you, they shall not be moved out of their place. But if they will not hearken to my voice, nor unto the voice of these men whom I have appointed, they shall not be blest…” Or D&C 70:1-3, “Behold, and hearken, O ye inhabitants of Zion, and all ye people of my church who are afar off, and hear the word of the Lord which I give unto my servant …by the way of commandment unto them. For I give unto them a commandment; wherefore hearken and hear, for thus saith the Lord unto them—I, the Lord, have appointed them, and ordained them to be stewards over the revelations and commandments which I have given unto them, and which I shall hereafter give unto them…”
stemelbow Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 1 hour ago, bluebell said: I think i understand what you are saying, and in some ways it makes sense. But in another way, it seems like all you are saying is that you follow yourself (because, you can never disagree with yourself after all) and so for you in your life, you are the 'servant' that Jesus was talking about in those verses already quoted. Whether by the voice of Jesus, or by your own voice, it is the same (for you, in your life. I know you aren't saying that anyone else should follow you). If you agree with a leader, then they are following God. If you don't agree with them, then they aren't. Is that what you are saying? I follow myself? That doesnt' make sense to me. But it's true, in my estimation we should accept that everyone on earth will make errors and we need to learn to take in what works for us and push out that which doesn't no matter the source. We should not seek to follow another, but learn to take the good no matter from whence it comes.
Zakuska Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 King Nebuchadnezzar, is called a servant of God. Can I follow him and pray to an idol?
CV75 Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 22 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Yes follow the words, not the people. They are the same thing (John 1:1), and the words come out of the people ("for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh). This is why the Lord's servants as people are persecuted and killed by the wicked for their words (1 Nephi 11:34-35, Jacob 4:14, 4 Nephi 1;31), so are they sustained and followed as people by the faithful for those same words. And haven't you noticed that those who are antagonistic against the Church leaders have far more personal things to say about them than those who do?
Russell C McGregor Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 47 minutes ago, Zakuska said: King Nebuchadnezzar, is called a servant of God. Can I follow him and pray to an idol? King Nebuchadnezzar was the highest civil authority. His decrees were the law of the land. Could a righteous person disobey his decrees?
consiglieri Posted January 20, 2016 Author Posted January 20, 2016 2 hours ago, RevTestament said: A desire to be accepted and liked by the world doesn't translate into truth. The Bible gives us simple truth. Those who deny the Son, deny the Father and are antichrist. The Koran plainly denies the Father has a Son. In fact it says for anyone to claim that God shares His power with others is committing the Sin of Shirk. So you can believe the Koran, or you can believe the Bible and the Book of Mormon, but not both. Just because the Koran spouts off a few truths doesn't make it scripture. It teaches "there is no compulsion in religion" but yet its followers kill anyone esp women who try to leave. If that is not compulsion, what is? Those who follow the Koran follow a false prophet - and if you don't know the penalty for saying that, may I suggest you look it up in the Koran? Then get back with me as to whether Mohammed is "a prophet" of God. http://scottwoodward.org/worldreligions_firstpresidency_godsloveformankind.html Quote The First Presidency (Spencer W. Kimball, N. Eldon Tanner, Marion G. Romney) Based upon ancient and modern revelation, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints gladly teaches and declares the Christian doctrine that all men and women are brothers and sisters, not only by blood relationship from common mortal progenitors but as literal spirit children of an Eternal Father. The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God's light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals. The Hebrew prophets prepared the way for the coming of Jesus Christ, the promised Messiah, who should provide salvation for all mankind who believe in the gospel. Consistent with these truths, we believe that God has given and will give to all peoples sufficient knowledge to help them on their way to eternal salvation, either in this life or in the life to come. We also declare that the gospel of Jesus Christ, restored to His Church in our day, provides the only way to a mortal life of happiness and a fulness of joy forever. For those who have not received this gospel, the opportunity will come to them in the life hereafter if not in this life. Our message therefore is one of special love and concern for the eternal welfare of all men and women, regardless of religious belief, race, or nationality, knowing that we are truly brothers and sisters because we are sons and daughters of the same Eternal Father. (“God’s Love for All Mankind,” First Presidency Statement, Feb. 15, 1978)
consiglieri Posted January 20, 2016 Author Posted January 20, 2016 2 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said: Given (and it is a given) that actual believing Latter-day Saints -- as distinct from apostates in faux sheepskins -- sustain the leaders of the Church as the Lord's servants, it is entirely proper to apply the Lord's teachings regarding His servants to the living apostles and prophets. Sneering at this correct application of scripture as a "dog-eared fallacy" is merely an attempt to dissimulate your own lack of a cogent response. Yadda yadda yadda, Russell. You are too smart not to get what I am driving at. The first century New Testament epistles were not written for us, but for the people of that time to whom they were written. Otherwise we would counsel against marriage as per 1 Corinthians 7. The same goes for all scripture. The revelations given to Joseph Smith and calling him the servant through whom God would reveal his word cannot simply be misappropriated by any Tom, **** or Harry who happens to outlive his fellow apostles almost two centuries later.
consiglieri Posted January 20, 2016 Author Posted January 20, 2016 54 minutes ago, CV75 said: They are the same thing (John 1:1), and the words come out of the people ("for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh). This is why the Lord's servants as people are persecuted and killed by the wicked for their words (1 Nephi 11:34-35, Jacob 4:14, 4 Nephi 1;31), so are they sustained and followed as people by the faithful for those same words. And haven't you noticed that those who are antagonistic against the Church leaders have far more personal things to say about them than those who do? Again I am hearing to follow the prophets no matter what. When the leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When the leaders speak, the debate is over. This was Satan's plan in the grand council. God turned it down. Maybe we should, too. 1
JLHPROF Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 7 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Again I am hearing to follow the prophets no matter what. When the leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When the leaders speak, the debate is over. This was Satan's plan in the grand council. God turned it down. Maybe we should, too. The correct course is to follow God's plan as laid out in the grand council. The one plan. The only plan. If that is what our leaders are teaching we follow it. If that is not what our leaders are teaching we don't. But there's still only one plan, one way, and a relativistic gospel is not it.
busybee Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 On 19/01/2016 at 5:58 PM, consiglieri said: President Nelson said in his now famous YSA address last week: President Nelson did not define what he meant by "servants of Satan." I would like to know what people here think. And try not to make it personal. Okay? Moroni 7 is a good place to start.
busybee Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 On 19/01/2016 at 7:02 PM, consiglieri said: This is a good point, Zak. When loaded language like this is used in such an undefined way, it can lead to mischief in the hands of those who wish to denigrate others with whom they disagree. Like your say when you say that the missionaries, one of whom is my daughter, are servants of Satan. I find that particularly offensive. Hope no-one ever refers to one of your precious children who has dedicated themselves to serving the Lord in such insulting terms. I'm sure I actually respected you when you were first on this forum and was quite happy to see you back. Seeing your constant jibes at the things I hold sacred since you've been back, I'm afraid I can't say the same. 2
RevTestament Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 (edited) Quote The First Presidency (Spencer W. Kimball, N. Eldon Tanner, Marion G. Romney) Based upon ancient and modern revelation, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints gladly teaches and declares the Christian doctrine that all men and women are brothers and sisters, not only by blood relationship from common mortal progenitors but as literal spirit children of an Eternal Father. The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God's light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals. The Hebrew prophets prepared the way for the coming of Jesus Christ, the promised Messiah, who should provide salvation for all mankind who believe in the gospel. Consistent with these truths, we believe that God has given and will give to all peoples sufficient knowledge to help them on their way to eternal salvation, either in this life or in the life to come. We also declare that the gospel of Jesus Christ, restored to His Church in our day, provides the only way to a mortal life of happiness and a fulness of joy forever. For those who have not received this gospel, the opportunity will come to them in the life hereafter if not in this life. Our message therefore is one of special love and concern for the eternal welfare of all men and women, regardless of religious belief, race, or nationality, knowing that we are truly brothers and sisters because we are sons and daughters of the same Eternal Father. (“God’s Love for All Mankind,” First Presidency Statement, Feb. 15, 1978) Yeah, I am aware they said that. But it really doesn't mean a lot - everyone is given "a portion of God's light." That doesn't make us all "prophets" which is the word you used now isn't it? Mohammed didn't prophesy anything which came true after the Koran was written out of its oral history. He is not a prophet, and he is not greater than Christ. Mohammed performed no miracles (even the Koran admits Jesus did) and died at the hand of a Jewish slave woman who poisoned him to relieve the world of his debauchery such as raping captives. Anyone who believes he is a prophet cannot believe the true scriptures. still waiting: "and if you don't know the penalty for saying that, may I suggest you look it up in the Koran? Then get back with me as to whether Mohammed is "a prophet" of God." Edited January 20, 2016 by RevTestament
busybee Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 12 minutes ago, busybee said: Like when you equate the missionaries, one of whom is my daughter, with servants of Satan. I find that particularly offensive. Hope no-one ever refers to one of your precious children who has dedicated themselves to serving the Lord in such insulting terms. I'm sure I actually respected you when I first joined this forum, and was quite happy to see you back. Seeing your constant jibes at the things I hold sacred since you've been back, I'm afraid I can't say the same anymore.
busybee Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 On 19/01/2016 at 7:02 PM, consiglieri said: This is a good point, Zak. When loaded language like this is used in such an undefined way, it can lead to mischief in the hands of those who wish to denigrate others with whom they disagree. Like when you equate the missionaries, one of whom is my daughter, with servants of Satan. I find that particularly offensive. Hope no-one ever refers to one of your precious children who has dedicated themselves to serving the Lord in such insulting terms. I'm sure I actually respected you when I first joined this forum, and was quite happy to see you when you came back. But after seeing your constant jibes at, and twisting of the things I hold sacred since you've been back, I'm afraid I can't say the same anymore.
Zakuska Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 5 minutes ago, busybee said: Like when you equate the missionaries, one of whom is my daughter, with servants of Satan. I find that particularly offensive. Hope no-one ever refers to one of your precious children who has dedicated themselves to serving the Lord in such insulting terms. I'm sure I actually respected you when I first joined this forum, and was quite happy to see you when you came back. But after seeing your constant jibes at, and twisting of the things I hold sacred since you've been back, I'm afraid I can't say the same anymore. Actually consiglieri did no such thing, he used some one else's definition of "servant of Satan" and showed them that under that definition, Mormon missionaries would be considered "servants of satan" from the point of view of a Catholic family. 1
busybee Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 Just now, Zakuska said: Actually consiglieri did no such thing, he used some one else's definition of "servant of Satan" and showed them that under that definition, Mormon missionaries would be considered "servants of satan" from the point of view of a Catholic family. But this isn't a Catholic board. Don't tell me that he didn't post that knowing it would be offensive to LDS. I actually need to learn to not take the bait because that is all he is here to do. Like others have said, good faith discussions are almost impossible to have because he seems to just be here to see how much mud he can fling at the Church and it's leaders. It's getting really old, really fast. 3
Zakuska Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 I never said this was a Catholic board. I did follow his line of reasoning though and did not falsely accuse him. 1
stemelbow Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 2 hours ago, CV75 said: They are the same thing (John 1:1), and the words come out of the people ("for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh). This is why the Lord's servants as people are persecuted and killed by the wicked for their words (1 Nephi 11:34-35, Jacob 4:14, 4 Nephi 1;31), so are they sustained and followed as people by the faithful for those same words. And haven't you noticed that those who are antagonistic against the Church leaders have far more personal things to say about them than those who do? I can't make sense of your last question. But I'm not sure there's much common ground in this discussion if you disagree that people's thoughts and ideas are the people themselves.
consiglieri Posted January 20, 2016 Author Posted January 20, 2016 1 hour ago, busybee said: Like your say when you say that the missionaries, one of whom is my daughter, are servants of Satan. I find that particularly offensive. Hope no-one ever refers to one of your precious children who has dedicated themselves to serving the Lord in such insulting terms. If you want to get off your high horse for a minute, you can go back and see where I have explained twice now what I meant for those in the remedial apologetics class. My daughter also just got her mission call. Berlin, baby!
consiglieri Posted January 20, 2016 Author Posted January 20, 2016 1 hour ago, RevTestament said: Yeah, I am aware they said that. But it really doesn't mean a lot - everyone is given "a portion of God's light." That doesn't make us all "prophets" which is the word you used now isn't it? Mohammed didn't prophesy anything which came true after the Koran was written out of its oral history. He is not a prophet, and he is not greater than Christ. Mohammed performed no miracles (even the Koran admits Jesus did) and died at the hand of a Jewish slave woman who poisoned him to relieve the world of his debauchery such as raping captives. Anyone who believes he is a prophet cannot believe the true scriptures. still waiting: "and if you don't know the penalty for saying that, may I suggest you look it up in the Koran? Then get back with me as to whether Mohammed is "a prophet" of God." Daniel C. Peterson wrote that he is not sure that Mohammed was not a prophet of God. http://blog.mrm.org/2010/11/daniel-peterson-isnt-sure-if-mohammed-was-a-prophet/
Recommended Posts