Family proclamation founded on irrevocable doctrine: President Oaks

[CV75]

6 hours ago, Orthodox Christian said:

My answer here was not complicated, I don't feel it necessary to provide points. I have learned through these boards how many on here play with words, and make a simple statement complicated through the complicated use of semantics, and before you know the whole conversation is hijacked onto a tack that you are comfortable with. Those of us who are not LDS begin to look very warily upon LDS responses.

Your answer, however uncomplicated (as it should be) is still incomplete until you address -- even for yourself -- the underlying facts of when the gospel was first written, how this writing remained unchanged, and who are covered under the term "every generation". 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Orthodox Christian said:

But if we interpret according to our own thinking, surely that is according to our own philosophy and is a phylosophy of men, or women? Is it really just words? Can we just dismiss it like that? That, to me is like building a house on shifting sands.

Why do we believe ANY religion??

Because we were raised in it? Because generations of my family were raised in it?

Because we were taught it as children?

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Your answer, however uncomplicated (as it should be) is still incomplete until you address -- even for yourself -- the underlying facts of when the gospel was first written, how this writing remained unchanged, and who are covered under the term "every generation". 

Including what books got picked to be "The Bible" and what was thrown out!

How is it that some "council" can determine that OR design doctrine, OR pick a new leader without the prejudices of men coming in?

Edited May 9, 2022 by mfbukowski

[Navidad]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

This is not the first time we have had a discussion on "if-then" statements,  if I recall correctly.

THIS is what I wrote, with bolding

And also note that the person to whom I wrote this response had no problem understanding it:

"So your objection is reasonable until you understand us a little more and realize that IF the Holy Ghost has not spoken to YOU directly that Joseph WAS INDEED what he claimed to be, (THEN) it will all be nonsense, and you will not have the standing to criticize anything.  "

It was not s "corollary" of anything, it is a hypothetical.

It says that if you do not believe the church is true, then all the doctrine will be nonsense to you.

So let's talk about Our Lady of Fatima?

Look it up, it's a Catholic belief.

If you do not believe it, if the Holy Ghost has not testified to you that is true, you will think it's nonsense and not be able to even fathom its significance to a believer. 

And you therefore will have no standing to criticize their own understanding, because you already find it to be nonsense .

I had no problem understanding your statement. I made the corollary to it that made sense to me. I understand if-then statements. I posed a corollary hypothetical back to you. Is not the corollary of your original statement the following: "If the Holy Ghost has not spoken to YOU directly that non-LDS Christianity is indeed what it claims to be, (then) it will all be nonsense, and you will not have the standing to criticize anything." I disagree with both your statement and my corollary.

Let's talk about our Lady of Fatima? OK. Talk to me about it. I don't need to look it up. In no way do I think it is a nonsensical belief. I don't think the first vision is a nonsensical belief. I don't think the Virgin of Guadalupe is a nonsensical belief. I don't think Martin Luther's vision in the choir loft was nonsensical. Why do you tell me what I think?

Living in a 77% Catholic country I fully understand the significance of Catholic visions and beliefs to a Catholic believer. I also believe I understand the significance of the First Vision to an LDS believer. I would never call it nonsense. That is your term. Not mine. Your final sentence is a conclusion, not a question. You are telling me what I find something to be (nonsense). I completely reject that conclusion. I find your conclusion to be nonsense, not your belief in the First Vision, or the Book of Mormon, or ongoing revelation.

I fully acknowledge I am not a fan of exclusivity in religious claims. That, by its very nature requires me not to consider other's beliefs to be nonsensical. Might I disagree with them? Of course. Does that disagreement make me right and them wrong? Of course not. It will all be sorted out some day; but that day is not today (or might it be?)!

One of the challenges you and I face in our discussions is that you have no confirmation of my faith, therefore you find my faith to be less than yours. I guess for you the Mennonite faith is indeed nonsense for that reason. Perhaps you don't think both it and yours can be, at the same time equally true (as distinguished from correct), ergo one must be nonsense. Please don't project that on me. We have faithfully attended, participated, and done our best to minister in an LDS ward for five years - day in and out. Would we do that if we thought the LDS faith to be nonsense? 

A week ago Saturday I fell, experiencing a concussion, broken and missing teeth. I have a terrible black eye, infection, swelling, and nerve damage. Jeanne mentioned it to the RS ladies and we were inundated with prayers, concerns, kindnesses, and offers of help. Those are ten-thousand times more important to me than whether the First Vision was indeed a theophany or not. The truth of the matter is in the heart - the kindnesses - the outreach. No nonsense in that!
 

Edited May 9, 2022 by Navidad

[Tacenda]

43 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I had no problem understanding your statement. I made the corollary to it that made sense to me. I understand if-then statements. I posed a corollary hypothetical back to you. Is not the corollary of your original statement the following: "If the Holy Ghost has not spoken to YOU directly that non-LDS Christianity is indeed what it claims to be, (then) it will all be nonsense, and you will not have the standing to criticize anything." I disagree with both your statement and my corollary.

Let's talk about our Lady of Fatima? OK. Talk to me about it. I don't need to look it up. In no way do I think it is a nonsensical belief. I don't think the first vision is a nonsensical belief. I don't think the Virgin of Guadalupe is a nonsensical belief. I don't think Martin Luther's vision in the choir loft was nonsensical. Why do you tell me what I think?

Living in a 77% Catholic country I fully understand the significance of Catholic visions and beliefs to a Catholic believer. I also believe I understand the significance of the First Vision to an LDS believer. I would never call it nonsense. That is your term. Not mine. Your final sentence is a conclusion, not a question. You are telling me what I find something to be (nonsense). I completely reject that conclusion. I find your conclusion to be nonsense, not your belief in the First Vision, or the Book of Mormon, or ongoing revelation.

I fully acknowledge I am not a fan of exclusivity in religious claims. That, by its very nature requires me to not to consider other's beliefs to be nonsensical. Might I disagree with them? Of course. Does that disagreement make me right and them wrong? Of course not. It will all be sorted out some day; but that day is not today (or might it be?)!

One of the challenges you and I face in our discussions is that you have no confirmation of my faith, therefore you find my faith to be less than yours. I guess for you the Mennonite faith is indeed nonsense for that reason. Perhaps you don't think both it and yours can be, at the same time equally true (as distinguished from correct), ergo one must be nonsense. Please don't project that on me. We have faithfully attended, participated, and done our best to minister in an LDS ward for five years - day in and out. Would we do that if we thought the LDS faith to be nonsense? 

A week ago Saturday I fell, experiencing a concussion, broken and missing teeth. I have a terrible black eye, infection, swelling, and nerve damage. Jeanne mentioned it to the RS ladies and we were inundated with prayers, concerns, kindnesses, and offers of help. Those are ten-thousand times more important to me than whether the First Vision was indeed a theophany or not. The truth of the matter is in the heart - the kindnesses - the outreach. No nonsense in that!
 

The bold is what I miss about being active in the LDS church. When a member is handed on a silver platter these experiences...service opportunities, talking in front of others by giving talks, callings that enlarge learning and growing, comradery with the other members through class involvement, callings, ministering and service. Instant friends! Who wouldn't love this. The hard part about returning back to attending is the belief situation. But you and your wife seem to have made it work! 

I'm so sorry about your fall, that's a lot to have to go through with having a concussion and broken and missing teeth.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Orthodox Christian said:

David was not commanded to practice polygamy. The wives of his enemy were given to him as spoils of war with other spoils. What David did with them was up to him but he wasn't commanded to marry them.

I actually cited the source at 2 Sam 12:7-8, wherein the Prophet Nathan spoke the words of the Lord God:  "Thus saith the Lord God of Israel: I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee from the hand of Saul, And gave thee thy master's house and thy master's wives into thy bosom."  What part of that is unclear to you?

The same applies to Levirate marriage, which requires polygyny.  It is a commandment from God.  Even a Pope in the Middle Ages allowed a Jew in Italy to practice polygyny due to the inability of his first wife to have a child.  Even Martin Luther and John Calvin both admitted that this principle was fully biblical.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Orthodox Christian said:

The Jews were favoured by God through Abraham. After Noah and the Flood there was a new start and God declared that He would not destroy the world again by flood. The covenant made with Abraham subsequently I believe initiated or brought in an era of God's forbearance in which He could, through His mercy and patience,choose to overlook certain behaviours that He did not institute. The Mosaic Law given later by Moses is naturally still practiced because they rejected their Saviour, so they are still under the Old Covenant having rejected the new. However, they are no longer exclusively favoured by God since through Christ that favour is extended to Gentiles, to all in fact.

If that is so, then why did St Paul so emphatically declare in Romans 11 that the promise to the Jews remained, and that they would yet come into their own -- after the times of the Gentiles?  You do understand that the Abrahamic Covenant is absolute and unconditional?  The Gentiles have not replaced the Jews.

[smac97]

9 hours ago, Orthodox Christian said:

Quote

Why was David ordered to practice polygamy by God?  2 Sam

David was not commanded to practice polygamy. The wives of his enemy were given to him as spoils of war with other spoils. What David did with them was up to him but he wasn't commanded to marry them.

First, I appreciate you coming here and sharing your thoughts.

Second, Robert is pointing to 

Quote

2 Sam 12:7-8, wherein the Prophet Nathan spoke the words of the Lord God:  "Thus saith the Lord God of Israel: I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee from the hand of Saul, And gave thee thy master's house and thy master's wives into thy bosom."  What part of that is unclear to you?

To that I would add 1 Kings 15:5:

Quote

Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.

To be clear, I am not a big fan of prooftexting scriptures.  I think context, languistics, etc. can have a significant impact on how we approach fundamental and important issues.  For me, polygamy is "important" only in an abstract kind of way.  We are not called upon to live it, nor are we called upon to judge those that were.  Instead, Mormon 9:31 carries the day: "Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been."

So I seek to neither ignore nor condemn David (or, for that matter, Abraham, or Isaac, or Jacob).  Instead, I want to understand whether A) God was indifferent to David's polygamy, B) God prohibited his polygamy, or C) God commanded his polygamy.

As to Option A, I can't get on board with the idea that God is indifferent to polygamous marriage.  It is too important an issue for the Lord to be indifferent about it.  So for me, Option A is out.

As to Option B, I have a hard time with that idea given that 2 Sam 12:7-8 seems to say that the "Lord God of Israel" gave to David his (David's) "master's wives."  I'm not fully comfortable with the wording, as it seems to treat these women as possessions more than persons, but I think that's where context and further study comes into play.  In any event, this passage posits that God was involved in David having more than one wife.  And the later passage in 1 Kings 15:5 states that David was obedient ("David did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life") except for one thing: "save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite."  So these passages make it difficult for me to go along with Option B.

That leaves . . . Option C.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited May 9, 2022 by smac97

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

One of the challenges you and I face in our discussions is that you have no confirmation of my faith, therefore you find my faith to be less than yours. I guess for you the Mennonite faith is indeed nonsense for that reason. Perhaps you don't think both it and yours can be, at the same time equally true (as distinguished from correct), ergo one must be nonsense.

So sorry about the fall.

Get a blessing from the Elders.

Regarding your above quoted comments: false, but imaginative.

I know nothing about Mennonites, you have not mentioned what you believe that I recall except for the constant fiction that I believe we are "superior".

We are not, all are equal in the eyes of God.

Praying for you and hope you feel better.

[Navidad]

48 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So sorry about the fall.

Get a blessing from the Elders.

Regarding your above quoted comments: false, but imaginative.

I know nothing about Mennonites, you have not mentioned what you believe that I recall except for the constant fiction that I believe we are "superior".

We are not, all are equal in the eyes of God.

Praying for you and hope you feel better.

Hi Mark: Thanks so much. Thanks for your prayers. I appreciate that. I really don't believe you think you are "superior." I do believe you think you are the exclusive holders of God's priestly authority in this dispensation. Hence I do believe you claim exclusivity in that regard. Therefore I do believe you are exclusive, especially in the efficacy and administration of ordinances. I plead guilty to that. At this point however I prefer to dwell on the kindness and concern I have received from the members of our ward. As I said, that is ten thousand times more important to me than doctrinal issues. Best wishes to you.

[Peacefully]

9 hours ago, Navidad said:

I had no problem understanding your statement. I made the corollary to it that made sense to me. I understand if-then statements. I posed a corollary hypothetical back to you. Is not the corollary of your original statement the following: "If the Holy Ghost has not spoken to YOU directly that non-LDS Christianity is indeed what it claims to be, (then) it will all be nonsense, and you will not have the standing to criticize anything." I disagree with both your statement and my corollary.

Let's talk about our Lady of Fatima? OK. Talk to me about it. I don't need to look it up. In no way do I think it is a nonsensical belief. I don't think the first vision is a nonsensical belief. I don't think the Virgin of Guadalupe is a nonsensical belief. I don't think Martin Luther's vision in the choir loft was nonsensical. Why do you tell me what I think?

Living in a 77% Catholic country I fully understand the significance of Catholic visions and beliefs to a Catholic believer. I also believe I understand the significance of the First Vision to an LDS believer. I would never call it nonsense. That is your term. Not mine. Your final sentence is a conclusion, not a question. You are telling me what I find something to be (nonsense). I completely reject that conclusion. I find your conclusion to be nonsense, not your belief in the First Vision, or the Book of Mormon, or ongoing revelation.

I fully acknowledge I am not a fan of exclusivity in religious claims. That, by its very nature requires me not to consider other's beliefs to be nonsensical. Might I disagree with them? Of course. Does that disagreement make me right and them wrong? Of course not. It will all be sorted out some day; but that day is not today (or might it be?)!

One of the challenges you and I face in our discussions is that you have no confirmation of my faith, therefore you find my faith to be less than yours. I guess for you the Mennonite faith is indeed nonsense for that reason. Perhaps you don't think both it and yours can be, at the same time equally true (as distinguished from correct), ergo one must be nonsense. Please don't project that on me. We have faithfully attended, participated, and done our best to minister in an LDS ward for five years - day in and out. Would we do that if we thought the LDS faith to be nonsense? 

A week ago Saturday I fell, experiencing a concussion, broken and missing teeth. I have a terrible black eye, infection, swelling, and nerve damage. Jeanne mentioned it to the RS ladies and we were inundated with prayers, concerns, kindnesses, and offers of help. Those are ten-thousand times more important to me than whether the First Vision was indeed a theophany or not. The truth of the matter is in the heart - the kindnesses - the outreach. No nonsense in that!
 

I wish you a speedy recovery!

[Orthodox Christian]

17 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I actually cited the source at 2 Sam 12:7-8, wherein the Prophet Nathan spoke the words of the Lord God:  "Thus saith the Lord God of Israel: I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee from the hand of Saul, And gave thee thy master's house and thy master's wives into thy bosom."  What part of that is unclear to you?

The same applies to Levirate marriage, which requires polygyny.  It is a commandment from God.  Even a Pope in the Middle Ages allowed a Jew in Italy to practice polygyny due to the inability of his first wife to have a child.  Even Martin Luther and John Calvin both admitted that this principle was fully biblical.

As I stated above, the principle established by God was one man and one woman. God, in his forbearance did not codemn it, but did not command it. The commandment is of the original principle. As Christians, surely we should follow what Christ taught when He reiterated God's will for marriage which was one and one woman. I stand by what I posted.

[Orthodox Christian]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

to Option A, I can't get on board with the idea that God is indifferent to polygamous marriage.  It is too important an issue for the Lord to be indifferent about it.  So for me, Option A is out.

I think that you see polygamous marriage as so important because it is according to LDS theology. If it had been that important there would me more to support it than vague texts. If it were an eternal principle then I would have expected it to be commanded somewhere in the Bible.

[Orthodox Christian]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

to Option B, I have a hard time with that idea given that 2 Sam 12:7-8 seems to say that the "Lord God of Israel" gave to David his (David's) "master's wives."  I'm not fully comfortable with the wording, as it seems to treat these women as possessions more than persons, but I think that's where context and further study comes into play.  In any event, this passage posits that God was involved in David having more than one wife.  And the later passage in 1 Kings 15:5 states that David was obedient ("David did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life") except for one thing: "save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite."  So these passages make it difficult for me to go along with Option B.

That leaves . . . Option C.

Option B the women were treated as possessions, and in this case were given as the spoils of war. God have them into David's care, He did not command him to marry them. David was free to do with them as he pleased. As I have stated before, polygamy, or for that matter the keeping of slaves was not condemned by God, in His forbearance He chose to overlook it. That is His prerogative, it is also His mercy. He also chose to overlook the murder commited by Moses, a capitol crime, although Moses was not allowed to enter the promised Land through it. But was obviously favoured by God as he was there at the transfiguration. 

Option C

Out of the depths have I cried to thee O Lord.

Lord hear my voice: let thine ears be attentive to the voice of my supplications.

If thou , Lord,should mark our iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand.

But there is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared. Psalm 130

And again: But You, Lord are a compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness. Psalm 86

In our liturgy we ask God to despise not the works of His hands for He is the only lover of mankind. I think that that the forbearance if God comes from His love and compassion, which are sometimes beyond comprehension to us, but I believe that is what we must rest on. For me that's option C

[Orthodox Christian]

20 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Why do we believe ANY religion??

Because we were raised in it? Because generations of my family were raised in it?

Because we were taught it as children?

Sorry I don't see what point you are making. 

[Orthodox Christian]

18 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

If that is so, then why did St Paul so emphatically declare in Romans 11 that the promise to the Jews remained, and that they would yet come into their own -- after the times of the Gentiles?  You do understand that the Abrahamic Covenant is absolute and unconditional?  The Gentiles have not replaced the Jews.

The promise of the Jews remained through Christ as it does to all of us. David's line is eternal through Christ. It behoves Jews to accept Christ as their Saviour as it does the rest of us. We have become the new Israel,  neither Jew, nor Greek but all of us saved in Christ. All who accept Christ are grafted in , God has no partiality. Christ is our temple, He is the salvation of the Jews, and since Christ the Gentiles too. The Jews will come into their own when they now the knee to their Saviour, as is the case for everyone.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Orthodox Christian said:

The promise of the Jews remained through Christ as it does to all of us. David's line is eternal through Christ. It behoves Jews to accept Christ as their Saviour as it does the rest of us. We have become the new Israel,  neither Jew, nor Greek but all of us saved in Christ. All who accept Christ are grafted in , God has no partiality. Christ is our temple, He is the salvation of the Jews, and since Christ the Gentiles too. The Jews will come into their own when they now the knee to their Saviour, as is the case for everyone.

Yes.  The false doctrine of supersessionism (replacement theology) is commonly believed among most Christians, and even among most Latter-day Saints -- nonsense which St Paul does not tolerate in Romans 11.  In our own day, Professors Epperson and Chadwick make short work of it as well:

Steven Epperson, “Some Problems with Supersessionism in Mormon Thought,” BYU Studies, 34/4 (1994):125-136.  A review of Robert L. Millet and Joseph F. McConkie, Our Destiny: The Call and Election of the House of Israel (SLC: Bookcraft, 1993).

Jeffrey R. Chadwick, “The Great Jerusalem Temple Prophecy – Latter-day Context and Likening Unto Us,” BYU Sperry Symposium paper delivered Oct 26, 2013, video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSvLpebaBN0.  -- transcript in David Rolph Seely, Jeffrey R. Chadwick, and Matthew J. Grey, eds., Ascending the Mountain of the Lord: Temple, Praise, and Worship in the Old Testament (BYU Religious Studies Center, 2013), online at  https://rsc.byu.edu/ascending-mountain-lord/great-jerusalem-temple-prophecy-latter-day-context-likening-unto-us .

 

Edited May 10, 2022 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Orthodox Christian said:

As I stated above, the principle established by God was one man and one woman. God, in his forbearance did not codemn it, but did not command it. The commandment is of the original principle. As Christians, surely we should follow what Christ taught when He reiterated God's will for marriage which was one and one woman. I stand by what I posted.

Of course you do.  That is understandable simply because that is the normative theological view in mainstream Christianity, but it is not biblical.  Moreover, nearly all of normative Christian doctrine is antithetical to the Bible, based as it is on secular Greek philosophy.  That is one of the major reasons why Latter-day Saints say that normative Christianity is apostate. 

II Tim 4:3 "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;"

[mfbukowski]

On 5/9/2022 at 4:09 AM, Orthodox Christian said:

But if we interpret according to our own thinking, surely that is according to our own philosophy and is a phylosophy of men, or women? Is it really just words? Can we just dismiss it like that? That, to me is like building a house on shifting sands.

You did not understand my point before, so now I put it into context, I was answering this question.

So how did you find your faith?

Were you just following your ancestors?   How did they know they were right?

Surely everyone has to " interpret according to our own thinking, surely that is according to our own philosophy and is a phylosophy of men, or women?"

YOU have to have SOME basis for understanding YOUR devotion to your faith that is YOUR INTERPRETATION, right?  Most atheists and agnostics have looked for a reason to believe and haven't found one.

I've been there, done that, thought about it, nearly finished my master's in doing so, and here I am

James 1:5 says we SHOULD do that !!

And get ready for the upcoming apostasy: 2 Thes 2

 

^""3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;....

 

^....7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.""

Edited May 10, 2022 by mfbukowski
Add quote

[smac97]

7 hours ago, Orthodox Christian said:

Quote

to Option A, I can't get on board with the idea that God is indifferent to polygamous marriage.  It is too important an issue for the Lord to be indifferent about it.  So for me, Option A is out.

I think that you see polygamous marriage as so important because it is according to LDS theology.

I see marriage and sexual behaviors and procreation as important because they important according to the Bible and other scriptures.  

7 hours ago, Orthodox Christian said:

If it had been that important there would me more to support it than vague texts.

Latter-day Saints do not believe that the Bible represents the sum total of all revelations from God.  "{T}here are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God."  (1 Nephi 13:28.)

And as it happens, we do have "more to support it than vague texts."  We have passages in the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine & Covenants, and guidance from past and present prophets and apostles.

I understand and appreciate that you do not operate within this paradigm, but we do.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

7 hours ago, Orthodox Christian said:

Option B the women were treated as possessions, and in this case were given as the spoils of war.

I'm not sure about that.  

7 hours ago, Orthodox Christian said:

God have them into David's care, He did not command him to marry them.

Alas, the debate about polygamy in Christianity has a long and storied pedigree.  Plenty of room for reasoned and principled disagreement here.

7 hours ago, Orthodox Christian said:

Option C

Out of the depths have I cried to thee O Lord.

Lord hear my voice: let thine ears be attentive to the voice of my supplications.

If thou , Lord,should mark our iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand.

But there is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared. Psalm 130

And again: But You, Lord are a compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness. Psalm 86

In our liturgy we ask God to despise not the works of His hands for He is the only lover of mankind. I think that that the forbearance if God comes from His love and compassion, which are sometimes beyond comprehension to us, but I believe that is what we must rest on. For me that's option C

I respect that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

II Tim 4:3 "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;"

The irony there is that Moroni tells us we should have "itching ears" in one sense  but then we have James 1:5 and Moroni who teach us how to let God "scratch" them for us!

I quoted 2 Thess 2 above that there MUST be a "falling away" before Christ comes

THAT is of course what we term the "apostasy".  Just pointing it out for readers- you know that better than I do!

Heck, really you know everything about the gospel better than I do!!

 

Edited May 10, 2022 by mfbukowski

[Orthodox Christian]

18 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And get ready for the upcoming apostasy: 2 Thes 2

 

Don't you think we are living through the foretold apostacy now? I mean with various kinds of punishments through the law if people adhere to their Christian principles. In all honesty Britain can't really be described as a Christian country, that is widely acknowledged, and if it were so described somebody would complain about being offended. Then on an individual basis; most do not go to any church, neither are they baptised nor confess any belief. Is it like this in the US? 

[Orthodox Christian]

On 5/10/2022 at 11:46 AM, Orthodox Christian said:

also chose to overlook the murder commited by Moses, a capitol crime, although Moses was not allowed to enter the promised Land through

I have to apologise. Even when I first wrote this I had a sneaking feeling that it was wrong. It kept niggling at me, so I looked it up. 

The correct reason for Moses being denied entry into the Promised Land is here: Numbers 20:11-12. I don't know wher I read what I posted before, but it is clearly wrong. So I humbly apologise for my error. 

Edited May 11, 2022 by Orthodox Christian