-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
LDS More False Doctrine Right There in LDS Scripture!
- Thread starter Rescued One
- Start date
- Sep 4, 2015
- 3,592
- 510
- 72
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
WWA, your definition of "short" makes me smile
Well I've done much longer ones.
Upvote
0
Matt 5:48 is a commandment not a promise that we will be God or a deity right? Is this your understanding?
Tell me what you think john 17:22-23 means or the word one in its context?
Upvote
0
How does this show the BoM?
What does 'mouth' mean? Spoken and witnessed?
Paul was giving the Church a warning here, try using the whole verse and look at the verse before. This about Paul administering discipline in the correct way according to the Jewish law as he quotes Deuteronomy!
Again how on earth do you get the BoM from this verse of chapter or book?
Even if you could (which you can't) it could mean any book or any witness at any point in time or several times. This point is irrelevant though until we can see how it does not relate to its context I.e Paul's plans for discipline.
Upvote
0
Jane why when looking at Ezekiel 37 did you stop at verse 20? If you continue reading till verse 28 guess what happens?
The bible explains (I did say the bible) what the sticks mean.
I am going to be honest I and I don't believe anyone can do a better job here than the bible itself so I will let you read it and then ask is it really anything to do with the BoM.
Do you really think the bible is referred to as a stick? Have a look where else the word stick is used and compare it with the titles for the word of God.
It makes no sense for one to write Israel and Judah on the bible and put them together does it? Stick means stick the same stick that is thrown into the fire as mentioned earlier in the chapter.
There must be a reference to the BoM in the bible unless of course the BoM is an invention by man.
Maybe find the strongest and clearest example of reference to the BoM and provide than. Eziekial provides the commentary on this passage surely the lds must have something on their website?
Upvote
0
The Bible is the testimony of Israel.
The Book of Mormon is the testimony of Central America.
Upvote
0
- Mar 18, 2003
- 47,577
- 27,116
- 76
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
So the Garden of Eden is not in Missouri? Brigham said to Orson Hyde (1857) ...
(Journal History, March 15, 1857)
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2015
- 3,592
- 510
- 72
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
See Jane, I tried not to go into to much detailed but......
There are 3 parts to this chapter, we don't know if the prophecy was give all at once or if Ezekiel combined them together himself but they do fit nicely. The first part is about the gathering of Israel using a resurrection metaphor, there is one line which is particularly important to the rest of the Chapter.
" Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel.....And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land"
And then we go into the writing of two different ets or scriptures and then the third part starts
' Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land:....And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all:..And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers (Jacob and Joseph) have dwelt, (to cause to be inhabited or to settle , strongs) ...
Not the land given to Abraham but the land given to Jacob
Now going back to Joseph's blessings
"Joseph is a fruitful bough/son, even a fruitful bough by a well; whose branches/daughters run over the wall:.....
This word ‘wall’ according to strongs means beyond boarders of Egypt and Palestine, beyond where the Suez now stands.
"The blessings of thy father/Jacob have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills: they shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him that was separate from his brethren."
Jacob was promised something more, another land would be added to the land of Israel.
When Lehi left Jerusalem he traveled right passed that point and along the Red Sea. When they reached what we called Yemen they stayed at a place called Nahom which is a very real place that Joseph Smith could not have known existed. They turn 'eastward' following the old spice trails which again Joseph would not have known about. When they reach the sea they find a place they call bountiful a place where they can rest and prepare to build the ship.
The Book of Mormon fulfills this prophecy given as a blessing. Now you might not believe Joseph story about how he was given the plates but then you have to explain how this uneducated young man did it, how did he write a story about a land he knew absolutely nothing about.
Upvote
0
Are you trying to show how in Eziekial 37 it refers to another book or are you looking at another scripture? What is your main point from chapter 37?
We can not see anywhere in the chapter any reference or hint to the BoM can you spell it out please?
Or let's make a conclusion from the chapter and see if we can find another scripture just one that hints of Smith, lds, boM etc...
Upvote
0
Mountain meadows massacre, but to be honest the list goes on and on. I am not sure which is worse the words or the deeds of the early lds. Rather then admit these were wrong the lds defends them and tries to justify them. Some of the arguments presented on forums like this are instantly dismissed as 'anti Mormon lies'
What is the clear evidence for the lds/Smith being a prophet/true church?
Taking James 1:5 out of context can not be clear evidence to anyone, we need scripture, or signs of miracles, or prophecy being fullfilled?
What is the clear evidence against?
Failed prophecy, immoral behaviour, contradictory teaching to the bible, blatant lies....
If we dismiss everything as anti Mormon and all lies and taken out of context then we need to check out the sources and see if they are lies.
There is a mountain of evidence against with direct quotes and sources from the lds, so let's move on to the evidence for firstly with any bible scriptures (let's take them one by one and accept or reject them as proof of the BoM in their context)?
Upvote
0
fatboys
Senior Veteran
Lol. It doesn't matter that all your supposed questions you try to ask have been answered thousands of times over the years. The answers mean nothing to you. Like phoebe you would change your mind that is already made up if your u were walk along the road one day and a personage appeared to asking why you are persecuting him and his followers.
Upvote
0
Have you never looked at the bloody WARS conducted by Christians, some specifically in the name of God? DJItalianspur, cast the bean out of your own eye.
??? Read something actually official:
CFR.
If you want it, go ask God. Thus far, you have refused to do so, suggesting you're not really interested in it.
No contributions with the Bible. As far as all men being sinners, that's 100% with the Bible too.
DJItalianspur: you're repeating the same untruths and straw man arguments over and over again. And they are the same ones people have spouted for decades. We have repeatedly assured you of the research and sources behind things, and presented you with the information. You have blatantly ignored it in favor of your mischaracterizations.
James 1:5. Quit ignoring it.
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2015
- 3,592
- 510
- 72
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
JOSEPH SMITH DID NOT HAVE A STRONG'S CONCORDANCE OR ANY OTHER HEBREW DICTIONARY WHEN HE WAS TRANSLATING THE PLATES!
He did not know anything about the word ets, not with in his realm of knowledge at the time. He was not well versed in Hebrew traditions, he didn't even know Jerusalem had a wall around it.
The stick of Judah is the Bible, the stick of Ephraim is the Book of Mormon. The gathering of Israel would not begin until these two were united in our hands, meaning they are both used in tandem, together as one voice of God. It's a symbol of the uniting of the two tribes back into one. The last part of the prophecy speaks of the lands promised to Jacob which were greater than his fathers, these he promised to the descendants Joseph. Adding Gen 49 we learn that this land lies beyond the boarders of Israel somewhere beyond Suez. The Book of Mormon story fits this to a tee, in the second chapter Lehi is told that he "shall be led to a land of promise; yea, even a land which I have prepared for you" it was a land promised to Jacob.
Think about it for a moment, if in the resurrection the Lord will bring back every single member of the house of Israel to the land of Israel do ya really think they will fit in. What maybe a billion or two?
Now the following comes from myself, I was once asked why Lehi would be preforming sacrifices if he wasn't a Levite and how could a Israelite not know his own genealogy? Seemed like two good questions. So I prayed about it and found the answer.
In that blessings it speaks of the branches, not the trunk but the branches which would go over the wall. In strongs the word translated branches means daughters. The daughters were branches of the family tree.
In Ezra 2 there are a group of men who lay claim to being Levites yet they are "the children of Barzillai; which took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai ". Barzillai was a Ephraimite, following the story back there is a man who only had daughters and by their tradition if these daughters married out of the tribe and into another their children would be named as children of Ephraim on the records rather than under the husband's tribe. These men in Ezra where descendants of Levi through their father but Ephramites through at least one line on a grandmothers side however their genealogy could not be found.
In our story of Lehi he sends his sons back to Jerusalem to obtain a record from Laban and on it he finds his own genealogy. Lehi is surprised to find out that he is a descendant of Joseph. Throughout the story Lehi acts as a Levite priest, he preforms sacrifices so we have to assume he thought he was a Levite like these other men in Ezra. Yet he was also a branch of Joseph through one of the daughters and thus fulfilling the prophecy in Joseph's blessing.
Once more these men in Ezra could not find their genealogy, that's because Lehi had it.
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2015
- 3,592
- 510
- 72
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Joseph Smith had nothing to do with Mountain Meadow, he had been dead for years.
There is a very good book called Massacre at Mountain Meadow where they take all of the information the Church had and put it together with many journals. Some years after Young died the Church sent out a historian with orders for all those who knew anything to tell him so it could be recorded. Much of these was published in a book called The History of Utah but the author did not add an index or indicate here he got his info from so where it came from became lost, all the while it was sitting on a shelf in the church's archives. President Hinckley gave all of these papers to the three authors of this book. It is very depressing to read, it lays the blame on the heads of four men, a Stake president and a couple of Bishops.
It's also a study in war hysteria, isolation and having to much authority in the hands of one man. This Stake president simply had to much power as head of their army (to defend against the Indians and the coming US army), as the head of the Iron mine and as a religions leader. You have to also understand they were living in isolated communities and had very little contact with the outside world, they only knew what was told to them through rumors.
About six months before the massacre happened and while speaking at a priesthood meeting Br. Young made a dire warning, he quoted John the Baptist warning to the Jews.
"Brother Cummings told you the truth this morning with regard to the sins of the people. And I will say that the time will come, and is now nigh at hand, when those who profess our faith, if they are guilty of what some of this people are guilty of, will find the axe laid at the root of the tree, and they will be hewn down. What has been must be again, for the Lord is coming to restore all things."
Technical the men who participated in this massacre as priesthood holders qualify as sons of perdition, in the lest they have lost their eternal life, they shed innocent blood and can not be forgiven. Not one stepped forward to ask for forgiveness or to admit fault. John B. Lee had to be taken screaming and kicking to his execution and never seemed to feel guilty for his actions. Even the women behind them raised their hands in agreement of what had to be done, so they are not completely innocent.
However many of them were lied to and their decision to be there was not their own. One man said that the day after the massacre he saw two different Stake presidents have a very loud argument, it wasn't tell then that he understood this did not come down from Br. Young.
The men from the town of Parowan did not participate, they had argued that we were to love our enemies. They were under the impression that word had been sent to Young and were waiting to act on that. Just a few days before they had saved a wagon train from some angry Indians.
If you want to read a very depressing yet interesting book you should read it.
Upvote
0
If you *really* want to understand what happened with this one, you need to understand 35+ years of history leading up to it.
Are you willing to do that?
If so, here goes the nutshell rendition:
In the 1830s, the church was headquartered in Missouri, a state which allowed the ownership of slaves. The church, however, was by and large opposed to slave ownership, and so this became a critical flashpoint between the church and the locals. Couple this with the church's collective and collaborative living environment that resulted in a powerful economy, a theological system that few outside of the church understood, and a massive population increase that threatened to make the church the majority population within the state, and the locals were terrified of the prospect that the church would one day come to dominate the ballot.
To this end, several mobs formed to attack Mormon settlements in the state. When neither the state nor federal government proved willing to intervene, the church was left to defend itself. This led to the Battle of Crooked River, where a group of Mormon militia met a mob that had gone to ground. One member of the mob was a Missouri state militiaman who had deserted his post to join in the carnage.
When the deserter was killed in the fighting, Governor Boggs was given a false report that the church had attacked a unit of actual state militia. Boggs responded by signing the infamous "Extermination Order" that called upon the state militia to kill or expel every Mormon in the state. Just days after this, Missouri militia rode into the settlement of Haun's Mill and killed 19+ people, including a 10-year-old boy who was executed in front of his mother as a show of force.
In the 1840s, the church tried again in Illinois, once again quickly establishing the most successful city in the state. However, after a few years of relative piece, a rogue newspaper emerged that made a number of wild allegations against the city leadership. The city council appealed to the Illinois Common Law, which permitted the shuttering of "nuisance" publications. The council ordered Joseph Smith, who was acting as mayor, to deal with matters. However, some sort of confusion reigned during this period, as while the law allowed for the seizure of the press the order was given for the press' destruction.
Newspapers across the state called for mobs to form and exterminate the church, to which Joseph responded by readying the town militia, a militia provided for by the town charter and approved by the state government. When this only made things worse, Smith and his brother Hyrum tried a few diversionary tactics before ultimately surrendering to authorities... who then charged them with an assortment of high crimes once they were in custody, rather than the smaller single crime of destroying the press.
A local militia group known to be hostile to the church was assigned the task of guarding the jail where the two were being held. When a mob descended upon the jail, the guards only put up a token level of resistance before either fleeing or joining the mob, which then stormed the building. Hyrum and Joseph were both gunned down, while their two visitors were injured and left for dead.
The church tried once again, this time in Utah. Unfortunately, a federal posting to Utah offered little in the way of pay or prestige, so in due time the federal government was forced to rely on increasingly unfit individuals to serve appointments. Tensions between the membership and the officials quickly grew, with insults and barbs being traded so freely that one local newspaper even declared that one official's drunken carcass was a frequent navigational hazard for anyone wandering the streets.
The final spark came when a servant in the employ of a particularly unpopular federal judge bushwhacked a local who was openly critical of the man. The servant was captured, and the judge was run out on a rail alongside his buddies. The judge knew it would be the end of him if a report got back to Washington before he did, and so he sent a false report claiming open rebellion. For reasons that have never been settled, President Buchanan took this report at face value and sent in 1,000+ soldiers (then a full third of the American military) to forcibly appoint a new governor. In his haste, he failed to send notice of intent, let alone anyone to actually investigate, and so when the church heard the news from mail couriers the general populace feared that the military was there for the purpose of genocide.
That popular leader Parley P. Pratt had recently been lynched in Arkansas after winning a controversial court case didn't help matters.
In the midst of it all, we had the Francher Party, a mixed group of settlers from... Missouri and Arkansas. The group had bet that by carrying only a limited amount of supplies, they could make faster time to California. But their gamble left them stuck in Iron County without the means of going any further. The group quickly made a nuisance of themselves to the locals, such that between this and the general paranoia the only people willing to trade with them were the local Paiutes.
...And then a mysterious disease swept through the Paiutes, leaving one dead.
A local religious leader and the head of the local militia were already wanting the Franchers silent by whatever means necessary. This just gave them the excuse. A local mayor sent message back to Brigham Young asking what was to be done since the Franchers stood accused of trying to poison the Paiutes. Young sent orders back that the locals were to remain neutral; they weren't to lift a finger either way.
Unfortunately, the letter arrived a day too late, as members of the local militia had joined in with the Paiutes in giving slaughter.
Brigham Young didn't believe the allegations, and so offered to use his authority as head of the church to compel the locals to assist the government during their initial investigation in 1859, just months after it happened. But the largely failed invasion of Utah had done so much damage to the administration that the matter was quickly dropped. It would be 20 years before anyone would re-open the investigation.
And there you go.
Actually, the church leadership published an essay on the matter some years back recognizing that the involved parties acted out of fear and paranoia.
Imagine a long-running television series. You started watching it during season 19. You've seen that season, and have your complaints about it. But you end up discussing it with people who've seen the entire series start-to-finish, and so they have a larger, more complete perspective on matters. What you think is one thing, the general opinion is contrary.
That's what's going on here.
Many of the people who you're speaking to have been at this for a decades or even generations. We've seen self-professed "Good Christians" of all stripes break every commandment and then some, either in their efforts to destroy the church or their efforts to seek their own pleasure. Some did it because they felt justified in doing whatever they saw fit, while others did it because it was all about themselves and not God.
If you were to examine the Christian counter-cult movement, you'd see things that would likely shake you.
Upvote
0
Not sure what your point is, I would say that obviously the questions asked (and one should ask them according to scripture) have been answered by Mormons. The issue is the answers do not stand up against scripture. Look at the responses to James 1:5 and Ezekiel 37:16 do you think the lds has correctly applied these? We don't, let's have another look shall we?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
