LDS Joseph Smith's Claim of an Apostasy is a Lie

[Peter1000]

I see...think I'll go with the official numbers given by the LDS church last month instead of whatever is said in that video (does it actually mention the number, or is it speculating on what the peak number of missionaries after "the surge" would be? I'll listen later).



So you don't know, but what is the basis for your estimation? The church doesn't given out that number of part time missionaries, and when I search "lds part time missionaries", it looks like this is in reference to church service missionaries, who are non-proselytizing.



See above.



Yes, I was a ward missionary.



I won't belabor the point further, but the point is that you seem to be conflating a lot of types of missionaries, some that are non-proselytizing, to reach your 120,000 estimate (again, part of that number isn't even based on actual data, but your speculations). Suffice it to say, the LDS church gives the number of full-time missionaries (which is generally what is being referenced when "the missionaries" are being discussed), which includes young males, females, and elderly couples, and also gives the number of church-service missionaries in the same links I provided earlier.

Thank you for checking up on me. I won't belabor the point further either.

 

[fatboys]

I see...think I'll go with the official numbers given by the LDS church last month instead of whatever is said in that video (does it actually mention the number, or is it speculating on what the peak number of missionaries after "the surge" would be? I'll listen later).



So you don't know, but what is the basis for your estimation? The church doesn't given out that number of part time missionaries, and when I search "lds part time missionaries", it looks like this is in reference to church service missionaries, who are non-proselytizing.



See above.



Yes, I was a ward missionary.



I won't belabor the point further, but the point is that you seem to be conflating a lot of types of missionaries, some that are non-proselytizing, to reach your 120,000 estimate (again, part of that number isn't even based on actual data, but your speculations). Suffice it to say, the LDS church gives the number of full-time missionaries (which is generally what is being referenced when "the missionaries" are being discussed), which includes young males, females, and elderly couples, and also gives the number of church-service missionaries in the same links I provided earlier.

My wife was called on a mission to work at the employment center. In our area there is about fifty or more called one year to three years. There many called down to temple square and the conference center as guides. There are older couples that are called to historic church sites all over the world.

 

[Peter1000]

You may have to follow your own advice. The LDS church's official number of full-time missionaries, from a month ago, is a lot less than what you claimed, including with the link to a video from 2 years ago.

I'm not just claiming just full time missionaries. There are a lot of people that do missionary work for Jesus Christ that are not full time missionaries. They count too, whether you like it or not. Regardless of what number you have or what number I use, we have a magnificant, almost world-wide missionary program.

 

[NYCGuy]

I'm not just claiming just full time missionaries. There are a lot of people that do missionary work for Jesus Christ that are not full time missionaries. They count too, whether you like it or not. Regardless of what number you have or what number I use, we have a magnificant, almost world-wide missionary program.

My post that you were responding to was specifically on full-time missionaries. You had said:

For missionaries, just google "how many mormon missionaires". I got my # by adding full time missionaries 85,000-90,000 + older couples/part time missionaries 30,000-40,000.

For temples go to www.ldschurchtemples.com/chronological/

You then said:

This is where I got my number of full time missionaries.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/...re-to-use-and-pay-for-digital-devices.html?pg

Now, I haven't yet listened to the video to hear whether it does claim "85,000-90,000" full time missionaries, as you claim, but it was curious that you criticized someone for using outdated information, when that link you provided is from 2 years ago. I have previously posted the current number of full-time missionaries, as provided by your church a month ago, as being 74,079 (which apparently includes young men, young women, and senior couples). So, that was the point I was responding to in my last post.

Anyway, this will be my last post on the matter.

 

[BigDaddy4]

LIVING Apostles and prophets, not dead ones, were the foundation of the Church of Christ in the first century.
As soon as they were gone from the Earth, as soon the Church did NOT have THIS KIND of FOUNDATION ON EARTH, there was no more the Church of Christ on Earth. Sad, but true.
This is why God had to restore His Church on Earth. Wonderful, marvelous, and true.

So the Apostles that spent all the time with Jesus, and all the prophets that came before them, are no longer the foundation? The foundation is replaced by "living prophets"?

Sounds like your foundation is built on sand. No thank you.

 

[Sophrosyne]

So the Apostles that spent all the time with Jesus, and all the prophets that came before them, are no longer the foundation? The foundation is replaced by "living prophets"?

Sounds like your foundation is built on sand. No thank you.

sand is something real, I would say more like pixie dust

 

[ArmenianJohn]

I would like to ask you a question about the Armenian chruch.

The Armenian church was founded around 301ad. It continued until around 450ad and at that time there was a hot debate about the nature of Jesus. The Nestorian view was that Jesus had a duel nature, both human and divine.
The monophysite view was that Jesus was divine only.

So around 450ad the monophysite group split from the Armenian church and started their own Monophysite Church.
It is obviously a split based on an essential doctrine, the nature of Jesus Christ.

So tell me what happened to the Monophysite Church? It was obviously teaching false doctrine now. Was the Monophysite group in apostasy, or partail apostasy?

The Armenian Church was actually founded in 40-60 AD; the 301 AD date is when Armenia became a Christian Nation, i.e. Christianity became the state religion of Armenia with the conversion of King Tiridates.

The term "monophysite" was inaccurately applied to the non-Chalcedonian churches, which were basically all the Oriental Orthodox Churches like the Armenian Church. In reality, the non-Chalcedonian churches held a miaphysite view, like St. Cyril of Alexandria taught. Today, it is recognized by most (if not all) churches on both sides of the schism that the view of both Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Churches is really the same although the wording is slightly different.

So there was no monophysite church among the non-Chalcedonian churches nor were they teaching any false doctrine. There was no apostasy. It was a misunderstanding which was not reconciled back then due to other factors, primarily geo-political reasons in that the Oriental Orthodox were cut off geographically and politically from Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches and closer to each other so they remained more isolated.

 

[Peter1000]

So the Apostles that spent all the time with Jesus, and all the prophets that came before them, are no longer the foundation? The foundation is replaced by "living prophets"?

Sounds like your foundation is built on sand. No thank you.

If you read in the bible, Eph. 4:11-14 you will know that Jesus needed living apostles and prophets in the foundation of his true church.

Now that you have read Ephesians 4:11-14, what do you think would be more valuable. Choose 1 or 2:

1) Living apostles and prophets who have the words of earlier apostles and prophets as a guideline, but can also receive information directly from Jesus Christ by revelation, that can focus on the problems of their day, so they can continue to perfect the saints, continue the work of the ministry, and continue to edify the body of Christ. Until we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ. That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cuning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.

OR

2) 1/500 of the words of earlier apostles and prophets as a guideline.


Let me know which one you choose. Which one is a foundation made of sand? Which one is a foundation made of solid rock?

 

[Peter1000]

The Armenian Church was actually founded in 40-60 AD; the 301 AD date is when Armenia became a Christian Nation, i.e. Christianity became the state religion of Armenia with the conversion of King Tiridates.

The term "monophysite" was inaccurately applied to the non-Chalcedonian churches, which were basically all the Oriental Orthodox Churches like the Armenian Church. In reality, the non-Chalcedonian churches held a miaphysite view, like St. Cyril of Alexandria taught. Today, it is recognized by most (if not all) churches on both sides of the schism that the view of both Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Churches is really the same although the wording is slightly different.

So there was no monophysite church among the non-Chalcedonian churches nor were they teaching any false doctrine. There was no apostasy. It was a misunderstanding which was not reconciled back then due to other factors, primarily geo-political reasons in that the Oriental Orthodox were cut off geographically and politically from Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches and closer to each other so they remained more isolated.

I have heard and read about monophysite, but not miaphysite. Tell me about miaphysite. Explain the difference between mia and mono, thank you.

 

[Peter1000]

sand is something real, I would say more like pixie dust

Read post #290 and tell me which of the 2 foundations do you choose?

 

[Peter1000]

Not that impressive for such a large amount of missionaries but then probably 90,000 of them are 17 year old boys as that is all I've ever seen running around here. My church has over 1500 bible schools in nearly 100 countries and you have about 110,000 more missionaries than we have members.
I agree with him that mormonism is a sex cult.... after all doing all you can do you get to be a god and have sex with your wives tons of times to create enough to fill your own little world up with people where as Christians say there is no sex in heaven and no marriages other than to Christ as a group (bride of Christ is the church). Come to think of it Mormonism sort of mirrors Islam a lot in the sex bit... as the reward for "good" muslims in the next life is a lot of virgins to have sex with in the and some of them are also polygamists in some parts of the world.

That is a wonderful accomplishment. I love to hear those kinds of stories about people spreading the word of Jesus Christ. 1500 bible schools in nearly 100 countries is how the word gets out. Thanks for that.

 

[Peter1000]

No, your faith as a mormon must rest in Mr. Smith as he has replaced the "Christ" of Christianity with his own religion.

Silly statement. JS, with his interview with God and Jesus has brought you more truth about Them in that few minutes of time, than all the scholars and doctors and thousands of book writers for centuries could even concieve of the nature of God and Jesus. It is beyond measure, that when JS walked out of that grove of trees in 1820, that he knew there was really a Godhead, with 3 members, God the Father, who introduced His Son Jesus Christ, and the HS inside of JS so he could withstand the presence of the Godhead. (BTW that sounds exactly what Stephen saw when he saw the Father and the Son standing next to each other (see Acts 7:55-56)).

Stephen told us that the Godhead had 3 members just like JS, but the Christian world went away from that description and tried for centuries to figure it out, until JS comes along over 1800 years later and confirms Stephens testimony.

Both JS and Stephen died with the testimony of Jesus Christ on their lips. It is the centerpiece of the early church and is the centerpiece of the latter day church also. Don't ever mistake that we follow Jesus Christ, but we look to JS just like the early church looked to Peter and the apostles.

 

[BigDaddy4]

If you read in the bible, Eph. 4:11-14 you will know that Jesus needed living apostles and prophets in the foundation of his true church.

Now that you have read Ephesians 4:11-14, what do you think would be more valuable. Choose 1 or 2:

1) Living apostles and prophets who have the words of earlier apostles and prophets as a guideline, but can also receive information directly from Jesus Christ by revelation, that can focus on the problems of their day, so they can continue to perfect the saints, continue the work of the ministry, and continue to edify the body of Christ. Until we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ. That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cuning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.

OR

2) 1/500 of the words of earlier apostles and prophets as a guideline.


Let me know which one you choose. Which one is a foundation made of sand? Which one is a foundation made of solid rock?

Lds = shifting sand of "living prophets"
Christian = Rock of Jesus Christ

I chose to ROCK!

 

[Goatee]

Yet another mormon bashing thread!

 

[Sophrosyne]

Read post #290 and tell me which of the 2 foundations do you choose?

There is no need for living prophets, so far they only seem to want to rewrite the bible to suit their own agenda and exalt themselves to a position of power over others that profits them.

 

[Sophrosyne]

That is a wonderful accomplishment. I love to hear those kinds of stories about people spreading the word of Jesus Christ. 1500 bible schools in nearly 100 countries is how the word gets out. Thanks for that.

Especially when none of these people become mormons due to their biblical education.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Silly statement. JS, with his interview with God and Jesus has brought you more truth about Them in that few minutes of time, than all the scholars and doctors and thousands of book writers for centuries could even concieve of the nature of God and Jesus. It is beyond measure, that when JS walked out of that grove of trees in 1820, that he knew there was really a Godhead, with 3 members, God the Father, who introduced His Son Jesus Christ, and the HS inside of JS so he could withstand the presence of the Godhead. (BTW that sounds exactly what Stephen saw when he saw the Father and the Son standing next to each other (see Acts 7:55-56)).

Stephen told us that the Godhead had 3 members just like JS, but the Christian world went away from that description and tried for centuries to figure it out, until JS comes along over 1800 years later and confirms Stephens testimony.

Both JS and Stephen died with the testimony of Jesus Christ on their lips. It is the centerpiece of the early church and is the centerpiece of the latter day church also. Don't ever mistake that we follow Jesus Christ, but we look to JS just like the early church looked to Peter and the apostles.

Mr. Smith didn't have an interview with God and Jesus he had an interview with a false angel who hoodwinked Mr. Smith into making up a big lie so he could be the big shot of a bunch of lemming followers who bought into his fairy tale. The fact that Mr. Smith cannot come up with at god that matches the Bible is proof to me he is a fraud and his writings are not worth the paper they are written on and according to Jesus he should have a millstone put around his neck and tossed into the ocean for leading children astray.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Yet another mormon bashing thread!

More like a Mr. Smith bashing thread.

 

[Jane_Doe]

The Bible has enough prophesy and didn't predict other prophets would come to write new books that supercede it.

Actually, it does prophets currently (Ephesians 4:11-14 for example) and predict future prophets (see for example: Rev 11:3). The Bible also doesn't say anywhere in it that there shall be no more books of scripture, and instead references many books of scripture which are not contained in the modern Bible.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Not to mention the topic of the thread IS Mr Smith.