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.
There are a lot of academic people that have worked at the BYU. Remember that Judas worked with Jesus. He still betrayed Jesus. I am also working with primary documents that I know to be true and not second hand.It's strange that BYU would allow him to be an academic fellow there, then...hmmm.
Also, he's working with primary source documents. What are you working with?
It is based on both His righteousness and ours:Yes, there are a few who don't, so you can pick the ones that you can agree with. Of course God always existed---nothing else did. I know you will not believe anything different than what JS has said.
Salvation is not based on our righteousness---it is based on the righteousness of Jesus.
There are a lot of academic people that have worked at the BYU. Remember that Judas worked with Jesus. He still betrayed Jesus. I am also working with primary documents that I know to be true and not second hand.
None of which answers the question. If the sheep and shepherd are figurative, why is "hear my voice" literal? Matthew 24:14 kinda shoots down the literal in that, unless you also believe Jesus will literally be doing that as well??Jesus was being specific when He said:
(New Testament | John 10:16)
16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.
He did not say all nations will hear my voice, but He said:
(New Testament | Matthew 24:14)
14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
That is not the story of Mormonism. If any of that was true do you think there would be a church of 20,000,000 people who revere a man that would have done this? No. Your anti-Mormon slant on plural marriage is dishonest at best and disgusting at its worst.This would be a lot less hilarious if you had posted it without subsequently posting a bunch of gobbledy-gook about the conservation of mass. Is it science's fault that the Mormon religion was founded by a sexual predator, and continues in some ways to espouse his theologized sexual obsessions? If not, then I don't see how this has anything to do with anything.
Yep! Nothing about Joseph Smith in the entire thing.
Yep again! Sometimes they even start parasitic pseudo-Christian religions based on visions they supposedly had in groves when they were children...talk about sidetracked!
That why He gave us His Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ, the author and finisher of our faith, and the perfect, blameless, and holy lover of mankind.
Amen. And I would submit that it is not loving to subject young women to pressure to enter into elicit relationships with a supposed prophet, with spiritual threats and promises dangling as carrots and sticks, but that is the story of Mormonism. It is so different than the agape love preached throughout the Gospels.
That is not the story of Mormonism. If any of that was true do you think there would be a church of 20,000,000 people who revere a man that would have done this? No. Your anti-Mormon slant on plural marriage is dishonest at best and disgusting at its worst.
That is not the story of Mormonism. If any of that was true do you think there would be a church of 20,000,000 people who revere a man that would have done this? No.
Your anti-Mormon slant on plural marriage is dishonest at best and disgusting at its worst.
It is based on our righteousnes. If the Holy Spirit tells you to go do something for the Lord and you either do not hear it or do not do it, you are not going to be going to where Jesus lives for eternity. Jesus even says that your righteousness must be greater than the righteousness of the scribes and the Pharisees you will not enter into eternal life. (Matthew 5:20)Yes, there are a few who don't, so you can pick the ones that you can agree with. Of course God always existed---nothing else did. I know you will not believe anything different than what JS has said.
Salvation is not based on our righteousness---it is based on the righteousness of Jesus.
All I am saying is that if JS had done such horrible things, we would not be following him. So because we are, I suggest to you that all the anti-Mormon literature is going the wrong direction, not my father and mother.And there are 1.7 BILLION Muslims---does that make them not deluded and right? It is plural marriage, which they also advocate, that is disgusting. The NT says one wife, that ends it.
He didn't say hear the voice of my sheep. He did not say read my words. He said hear MY voice. It is plain enough to me.None of which answers the question. If the sheep and shepherd are figurative, why is "hear my voice" literal? Matthew 24:14 kinda shoots down the literal in that, unless you also believe Jesus will literally be doing that as well??
Tell me what your sources are? I know immediately if it is anti-Mormon or not. If it was a disgruntled Mormon, I am not interested. If it is a disgruntled non-Mormon that had a Mormon wife, I am not interested. If it is a charlatan non-Mormon looking to make some money off of his book, I am not interested. If it is a non-Mormon period, I am not interested. Did I cover my bases on what sources I look to for information?Actually, yes. There are over a billion Muslims in the world who revere the sexual predator Muhammad, so why wouldn't or couldn't there be 20,000,000 people in the Mormon religion who revere the sexual predator Joseph Smith?
Did you listen to the podcast which goes into depth on this issue? The slant is coming from the Mormon organization itself, not from those who point out the reality that the Mormon organization tries so desperately to justify, hide, or equivocate about.
"The happiness letter" is not really what they tell you it is; when you look at it with the historical background in mind it is very obviously a piece of manipulative, disgusting drivel, meant to pressure a woman into an elicit relationship with Joseph Smith. And that is but one of several such examples.
If anything is "disgusting", it's the real history of Mormonism! No wonder your leaders try to make it into something it isn't. But you are only deceiving yourself by not allowing yourself to see the truth, and instead saying I'm being anti-Mormon. That is a cop out. At least engage with the sources, as the non-Mormon and honest Mormon academics do. If you're unwilling to do that, then you don't really have room to say anything about anyone, since none of us made Joseph write the letters that he did, make the passes that he made at his associates' young daughters, and so on. That's a matter of record. You're being a coward by attempting to 'shoot the messenger' here.
It is based on our righteousnes. If the Holy Spirit tells you to go do something for the Lord and you either do not hear it or do not do it, you are not going to be going to where Jesus lives for eternity. Jesus even says that your righteousness must be greater than the righteousness of the scribes and the Pharisees you will not enter into eternal life. (Matthew 5:20)
So righteousness has got to do with something, right?
Tell me what your sources are? I know immediately if it is anti-Mormon or not. If it was a disgruntled Mormon, I am not interested. If it is a disgruntled non-Mormon that had a Mormon wife, I am not interested. If it is a charlatan non-Mormon looking to make some money off of his book, I am not interested. If it is a non-Mormon period, I am not interested. Did I cover my bases on what sources I look to for information?
Did JS do some odd things, introducing plural marriage, yes, I will agree with you. But here is where we part. I truly believe that when he says he had an angel come to him with a drawn sword and threatened that if he did not get going with introducing plural marriage he would be destroyed and another would take his place, I believe that happened.
To you that is just a grand excuse for JS to start his escapades into the sexual fantasy world of many wives. We are never going to come to an agreement on an immoral, sex-infested, adulterous JS. Never, no matter what you show me or tell me, I will never believe what you are saying.
I believe the Lord was with him the entire time, and in fact had to yank his head sometimes the right direction to get him to open up this doctrine that was seriously practiced between 1400bc and 0ad. Prophets and kings and common men all practiced this disgusting form of manhood for 1400 years before Jesus said it was enough.
With JS he needed to seed the church quickly and build up the population of the church quickly before satan could smash it to sunder. So Jesus introduced plural marriage again for about 50 years until the church reached a critical mass of population that it could never be taken from the earth again. This is just 1 of the reason Jesus allowed plural marriage again.
So you can rant and rage and kick and scream about JS, but I will not believe a word you say because I too, have studied him out in my mind and my prayers and I know he was OK with Jesus Christ and was doing what Jesus told him to do.
Jesus, the human being, but who is still God, is not on this earth. By what means do you think he would personally speak to the billions of Christians in the world over the nearly 2,000 years since he left the earth?He didn't say hear the voice of my sheep. He did not say read my words. He said hear MY voice. It is plain enough to me.
Jesus was speaking to His apostles when He said “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you,” John 14:26.Jesus, the human being, but who is still God, is not on this earth. By what means do you think he would personally speak to the billions of Christians in the world over the nearly 2,000 years since he left the earth?
Here's a clue:
“But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you,” John 14:26.
Again, you avoid answering a direct question. Here it is again:Jesus was speaking to His apostles when He said “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you,” John 14:26.
He was not talking about His other sheep which are not of this fold who will hear His voice.
By what means do you think he would personally speak to the billions of Christians in the world over the nearly 2,000 years since he left the earth?
Tell me what your sources are? I know immediately if it is anti-Mormon or not.
If it was a disgruntled Mormon, I am not interested. If it is a disgruntled non-Mormon that had a Mormon wife, I am not interested. If it is a charlatan non-Mormon looking to make some money off of his book, I am not interested. If it is a non-Mormon period, I am not interested. Did I cover my bases on what sources I look to for information?
Did JS do some odd things, introducing plural marriage, yes, I will agree with you. But here is where we part. I truly believe that when he says he had an angel come to him with a drawn sword and threatened that if he did not get going with introducing plural marriage he would be destroyed and another would take his place, I believe that happened.
To you that is just a grand excuse for JS to start his escapades into the sexual fantasy world of many wives. We are never going to come to an agreement on an immoral, sex-infested, adulterous JS. Never, no matter what you show me or tell me, I will never believe what you are saying.
I believe the Lord was with him the entire time, and in fact had to yank his head sometimes the right direction to get him to open up this doctrine that was seriously practiced between 1400bc and 0ad. Prophets and kings and common men all practiced this disgusting form of manhood for 1400 years before Jesus said it was enough.
With JS he needed to seed the church quickly and build up the population of the church quickly before satan could smash it to sunder. So Jesus introduced plural marriage again for about 50 years until the church reached a critical mass of population that it could never be taken from the earth again. This is just 1 of the reason Jesus allowed plural marriage again.
So you can rant and rage and kick and scream about JS, but I will not believe a word you say because I too, have studied him out in my mind and my prayers and I know he was OK with Jesus Christ and was doing what Jesus told him to do.
What are you talking about? What has Mohammed got to do with JS, who was not a sexual predator according to my studies and my prayers. You just are studying the wrong sources.Actually, yes. There are over a billion Muslims in the world who revere the sexual predator Muhammad, so why wouldn't or couldn't there be 20,000,000 people in the Mormon religion who revere the sexual predator Joseph Smith?
No. Who is the Mormon organization?Did you listen to the podcast which goes into depth on this issue?
"The happiness letter" is not really what they tell you it is; when you look at it with the historical background in mind it is very obviously a piece of manipulative, disgusting drivel, meant to pressure a woman into an elicit relationship with Joseph Smith. And that is but one of several such examples.
If anything is "disgusting", it's the real history of Mormonism! No wonder your leaders try to make it into something it isn't. But you are only deceiving yourself by not allowing yourself to see the truth, and instead saying I'm being anti-Mormon. That is a cop out. At least engage with the sources, as the non-Mormon and honest Mormon academics do. If you're unwilling to do that, then you don't really have room to say anything about anyone, since none of us made Joseph write the letters that he did, make the passes that he made at his associates' young daughters, and so on. That's a matter of record. You're being a coward by attempting to 'shoot the messenger' here.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?