mmksparbud
Well-Known Member
- Dec 3, 2011
- 17,312
- 6,820
- 74
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
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.
They are seen, heard and doing the work of God. They just are not recognized.
When? In what year? Based on what documents?I believe the priesthood was taken away.
This doesn't make sense. You do realize that?They were NOT men they are translated beings like Elijah and can not be killed. Neither are they resurrected beings, but they will be once they are changed in the twinkling of an eye. The priesthood power was taken away from MAN not translated beings.
When? Wasn't John, John the Revelator who wrote Revelations? So, after Christ died, resurrected, and went up to Heaven, John was still making scripture and writing letters, right? So, when did his priesthood become null and void(for MAN) because he became "translated". Do you have a specific time frame for when he stopped being just a disciple proselytizing for real, and became the ghost of Christmas past?I believe the priesthood was taken away.
God would not suffer His priesthood to be used by some of the atrocities that were supposedly done in the name of God by some of the people you listed. God took the priesthood from them and they were left to the wisdom of man.Well, reality disagrees with you. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The premise that Roman Catholicism has the priesthood is patently false. One of the foundational truths of protestant believers is that all who are born again are priests. (1 Peter 2:9) Lord Jesus is the great High Priest, not Peter, the pope or any other man. Mormons are simply deceived. Joseph Smith was a false prophet. "Let no one deceive you with vain words..." Ephesians 5:6"The Claim Only two Christian churches really have a leg to stand on when it comes to claiming the authority to act in God’s name, the Catholic church who claims to have had the authority all along since the days of Peter the chief Apostle, and the Latter-day Saints, who claim that God, and Christ himself returned to earth and restored Christ’s ancient Church, complete with the authority to act in God’s name, to the prophet Joseph Smith. If the Catholic church has the priesthood then by definition all other churches have no rights to the priesthood, since they left the only church that had the authority from God to act in his name. All differences of doctrinal opinion aside, that is pretty clear. If the Lord had to come back to earth and restore his Church and his ancient authority once again through Joseph Smith, then that means the Catholic church lost their authority to act in God’s name long, long ago. Otherwise the Lord wouldn’t have had to come back to give it to us again."
- Kelly Merrill
The Priesthood vs. the Power of the Priesthood | Gospelstudy.us
Choose:
Catholic or Mormon
And it came to pass that he said unto me: Look, and behold that great and abominable church, which is the mother of abominations, whose founder is the devil.
And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the harlot of all the earth.
And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the harlot of all the earth, and she sat upon many waters; and she had dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people.
And it came to pass that I beheld the church of the Lamb of God, and its numbers were few, because of the wickedness and abominations of the harlot who sat upon many waters; nevertheless, I beheld that the church of the Lamb, who were the saints of God, were also upon all the face of the earth; and their dominions upon the face of the earth were small, because of the wickedness of the great harlot whom I saw.
Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 14: 9 - 12
1 Nephi 14
You obviously do not read the news, have children at school, listen to the PC brigade rant or the lies of BLM and other leftist groups.That is still future friend.
God is a fair God and gives everyone the opportunity to return to Him through the proxy work for them through His Son and others.Salvation is in the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ. Who would be so demented as to divide these things pertaining to Him, saying that this over here is a work, while that over there is grace, etc.?
You are putting your phony baloney Mormon occultic temple work matrix over the scriptures and then saying that the rest of us can't understand them because we don't have that same set of presuppositions informing our reading. Thank God for that.
The gospel of Jesus Christ was restored with all of the keys after the priesthood was taken from MAN. Translated beings such as Elijah have had that priesthood since before they were translated, but they are changed beings and not classified as MEN. Resurrected beings are not classified as MEN either.When? Wasn't John, John the Revelator who wrote Revelations? So, after Christ died, resurrected, and went up to Heaven, John was still making scripture and writing letters, right? So, when did his priesthood become null and void(for MAN) because he became "translated". Do you have a specific time frame for when he stopped being just a disciple proselytizing for real, and became the ghost of Christmas past?
They are seen by humans and they continue to do God's work on the earth.By whom? Not by any humans. How then, do you know what they are doing?
I don't know what year, God knows.When? In what year? Based on what documents?
Like Elijah John was translated. I don't know when, but he was and he became a translated being. The priesthood was taken from man not Gods, resurrected beings, or translated beings.When? Wasn't John, John the Revelator who wrote Revelations? So, after Christ died, resurrected, and went up to Heaven, John was still making scripture and writing letters, right? So, when did his priesthood become null and void(for MAN) because he became "translated". Do you have a specific time frame for when he stopped being just a disciple proselytizing for real, and became the ghost of Christmas past?
God would not suffer His priesthood to be used by some of the atrocities that were supposedly done in the name of God by some of the people you listed. God took the priesthood from them and they were left to the wisdom of man.
God is a fair God and gives everyone the opportunity to return to Him through the proxy work for them through His Son and others.
God is a fair God and gives everyone the opportunity to return to Him through the proxy work for them through His Son and others.
The gospel of Jesus Christ was restored with all of the keys after the priesthood was taken from MAN. Translated beings such as Elijah have had that priesthood since before they were translated, but they are changed beings and not classified as MEN. Resurrected beings are not classified as MEN either.
Like Elijah John was translated. I don't know when, but he was and he became a translated being. The priesthood was taken from man not Gods, resurrected beings, or translated beings.
Do you think you could've avoided being this easily dismissible by actually reading about the history of Christianity from outside of the Mormon paradigm before claiming a propos of nothing that Mormonism is the 'restoration' of the early Church? I think you could have, but apparently you'd rather look like an idiot by parroting the claims of another idiot who also didn't realize what an idiot he looked like because he didn't bother to learn anything about what he was rejecting before doing so either.
Brilliant, @dzheremi . I just wanted to add that this kind of extreme information control is one of the markers for a cult(qualifying for the BITE model doesn't automatically make a religion a cult but ranking high on every single part of the acronym does).
There is so much I have learned about the history of Christianity since leaving the LDS cult that it definitely feels like their version of history is something a 17 year old boy in the 19th century would conceptualize based on his knowledge of the world and the Bible. Their greatest claim of divinity is how Joseph Smith only had a third grade education. So, if you wonder why LDS have a limited scope on history, it is because of the educational limits of its founder.
There IS a substantial historical record. If it happened you should be able to tell me when it happened.I don't know what year, God knows.
I don't know what year, God knows.
Although I didn't see him on your list, this is the sort of thing that took the priesthood from the earth:What people I listed? I showed two plaques sharing some historical details of the churches of Rome and Jerusalem.
Also, anything that you cannot prove and instead just assert based on nothing more than your religion's stance towards Christianity can be set aside very easily by literally anyone who has a different stance than you. The crucial difference between you and I, however, is that my stance is actually informed by history (contested history, sure, but then that would always be the case, since choosing one historical outlook necessarily privileges it over others), whereas yours is informed by nothing, because none of your religion's leaders have ever bothered to actually look at the historical claims and roots of the preexisting Christian churches, since they've all chosen to believe Joseph Smith's very stupid and very obvious lies instead.
All I'm saying is that anyone with even the tiniest shred of curiosity as to how and why we've ended up with the different churches at different historical centers of Christianity being as they are (which everyone should have if they're going to be claiming anything about the history of Christianity or any of its major figures, as Mormons definitely do) should actually want to find and look at things like the monuments I mentioned, the papyrological evidence for the earliest transmission of the scriptures, the vast collection of Early Church Fathers and other commenters on the life of the Church, etc. As it is, you have in Mormonism a religion that makes a bunch of historical claims about the Church and its supposed 'restoration', but not only absent the evidence necessary to sustain those claims, but actually against the copious evidence that proves those same claims wrong.
And yet you still expect to be taken seriously. You still want to sit at the adult table with all the actual Christian churches that have real reasons for existing and aren't based on Hebrew Indian magical seer stone gobbledygook.
No. It's never going to happen.
But that's the real reason why you have to believe in 'proxy' work and all the other good works you claim your religion does: because those are in some sense a substitute for being rooted in anything real. It's as simple as claiming that everything that came before you was by its very nature corrupted and based in ignorance and/or wickedness of this or that kind, and then claiming to have the true way that is totally not-coincidentally built upon the denial of the core beliefs of the religion that you claim your 'restoration' is to replace. The Islamic prophet Mohammed (a.k.a. Arabian Proto-JS) claimed the same by calling all of existence before his own 'revelations' the "time of ignorance", and much earlier false prophets like Montanus also claimed some variation of that during the early centuries of the Church. So since we'd been through this very same thing numerous times long before Joseph Smith came around, why do you or any Mormon think you should be taken seriously when your true religious forerunners (this group of 'new prophets', which were all rejected by Christianity) were not?
Do you think you could've avoided being this easily dismissible by actually reading about the history of Christianity from outside of the Mormon paradigm before claiming a propos of nothing that Mormonism is the 'restoration' of the early Church? I think you could have, but apparently you'd rather look like an idiot by parroting the claims of another idiot who also didn't realize what an idiot he looked like because he didn't bother to learn anything about what he was rejecting before doing so either.
It's a real shame, this Church of Perpetual Latter-Day Idiocy we know as Mormonism. It could've been mercifully put down at any point before right now by anyone in any position of authority actually bothering to read and learn, but noooooooo, the 'restoration' of the Church (that never actually went anywhere) must continue because...well, because the phony power structure that is built atop JS' foundation of historical illiteracy, racism, bigamy, and lying must continue, or else the likes of Elders Holland, Eyring, et al. might have to actually get real jobs (or just live off their retirement savings, like every other elderly person does) that don't consist of obfuscating with the non-Mormon public while emotionally manipulating everyone who has bought into JS' lies. And Lord knows we can't have that, for some reason!
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?