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.
Did Jesus sin? The New Testament was written after His death.
LDS church releases photos of Joseph Smith's seer stone
The Seer Stone Controversy : Writing the "Book of Mormon" on JSTOR
"In the context of the restored gospel, a seer stone is a stone through which a seer receives divine communication. The Book of Mormon defines a seer as a “revelator and a prophet also” (Mosiah 8:15-16)." 10 insights about Joseph Smith and seer stones from the authors of 'Joseph Smith’s Seer Stones'
Occult in America: Joseph Smith
Yes, Joseph Smith Really Did Use a Seer Stone in the Translation of the Book of Mormon
BobRyan said: ↑
Gen 26:5 cannot be bent into a claim that Abraham never sinned.
Why not?
Friend, Have you never read? where no law is, there is no transgression.
Romans 2:v.5-16
5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the Day of wrath and revelation of the righteous Judgment of God; - the Day of God's wrath has arrived -
6 Who will render to every MAN according to his deeds:
7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
12 For as many as have sinned WITHOUT LAW (the Gentiles) shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law (the Jews)shall be Judged by the law;
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another.
16 In the Day (this Day arrived)when God shall Judge the secrets of MEN by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
.
"God’s Word defines sin as “the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4, KJV) or “lawlessness” (New King James Version, NIV). Therefore, “where there is no law there is no transgression” (Romans 4:15). This is what the Bible clearly says! So do we find transgressions of the Ten Commandments described as sinful before Mt. Sinai? Clearly we do.Scriptures, please, the discussion is about the accusation of Abraham's sin.
Through the messages posted earlier in this topic, the discussion is about the accusation against Abraham implying or insinuating that he lied to Abimelech, and sinned before God, what is not true. By the way, God is the Truth. The Word is God.
I quoted Scriptures in my earlier post : "where no law is, there is no transgression-Romans 4:v.15". The law was given by Moses-John 1:v.17-, i.e. four hundred and thirty years after Abraham-Gal.3:v.17.
While there are some members of the LDS faith who believe that a husband will resurrect his wife so that they can enter into the Celestial Kingdom together, this is not a doctrinal teaching of the Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints.I once heard a wife must be resurrected by her Husband, is that true?
What books were in JS's personal library?
BobRyan said: ↑
interesting -- how does this solve the problem you have with the book of Mormon condemning polygamy as abomination for which those tribes "must leave" Israel since God regards the polygamy of David and Solomon as "abomination"??
No matter who wrote BoM.. whether it was taken from Spalding or it "came out of staring in a hat" - either way is fine with me as the basis for the book - I just don't see how this helps you resolve the issue.
Good points - I am not trying to argue that Joseph Smith getting the BoM "from a hat covering a glass stone" is better or worse than getting it from Spalding's manuscript.
My argument was about the "abomination" statement in BoM saying that King David and King Solomon's polygamy was "abomination" before God - right after we saw an LDS member claim that God was just fine with David having polygamy and that is why it was supposedly ok for Joseph Smith.
I notice this point is being dropped like a hot potato.
BobRyan said: ↑
interesting -- how does this solve the problem you have with the book of Mormon condemning polygamy as abomination for which those tribes "must leave" Israel since God regards the polygamy of David and Solomon as "abomination"??
No matter who wrote BoM.. whether it was taken from Spalding or it "came out of staring in a hat" - either way is fine with me as the basis for the book - I just don't see how this helps you resolve the issue.
Good points - I am not trying to argue that Joseph Smith getting the BoM "from a hat covering a glass stone" is better or worse than getting it from Spalding's manuscript.
My argument was about the "abomination" statement in BoM saying that King David and King Solomon's polygamy was "abomination" before God - right after we saw an LDS member claim that God was just fine with David having polygamy and that is why it was supposedly ok for Joseph Smith.
I notice this point is being dropped like a hot potato.
While there are some members of the LDS faith who believe that a husband will resurrect his wife so that they can enter into the Celestial Kingdom together, this is not a doctrinal teaching of the Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints.
https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=8816&context=etdDon't forget that JS's grandfather Asael Smith was a Unitarian preacher. He rejected the Trinity and taught that everyone would be saved --- even the wicked.
...I have given up trying to find answers from anyone LDS. So, from this point forth, I'll be in this section of the forum acting as an exMormon and an antiMormon in answering any doctrinal questions my fellow Christians may have. As I said, you a
Dr. Robert Millet’s Address to the BYll may continue this conversation if you like. I just wanted to make my own personal statement. Thank you.
"God’s Word defines sin as “the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4, KJV) or “lawlessness” (New King James Version, NIV). Therefore, “where there is no law there is no transgression” (Romans 4:15). This is what the Bible clearly says!
So do we find transgressions of the Ten Commandments described as sinful before Mt. Sinai? Clearly we do.
No, was not.Was God's Law written on Abraham's heart?
This is a double pronged discussion, because, of course, I'm looking for an explanation from someone LDS. But regarding the second prong dealing with my humility, I don't mind anyone responding.
So, I am troubled by the notion of prophets and general authorities being excused for now disavowed doctrine, like polygamy and the ban of the priesthood for black men, because they are supposedly not perfect and make mistakes, just like anyone. We are told directly that those who might lead us astray are removed from their post before they have a chance to do so.
"The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty."
Okay, what about black men and the priesthood? What about the doctrine of the curse of black skin on those who are wicked? Is that really the mind of God? Why change it then? And if it is merely a matter of innocence versus deliberate nefarious motives, then how is an LDS prophet any different than a minister from any other Christian religion? If an LDS prophet means well and has a will to serve God, but mistakenly preaches doctrine that is contrary to the will of the Lord, what is the point of having him? Prophet isn't a fancy word for preacher; it means something specific. And if I cannot trust a prophet or apostle to lead me in 100% the ways of the Lord with everything he says(because he speaks for the Lord, right?), then why not be a Baptist or a Methodist or a Catholic? They're all leading by their own methods of inspiration and a desire to serve Christ, no?
One big issue I have is with humility. Because I believe in it. I believe it is good to be humble and gracious(as opposed to arrogant and selfish). While in the church, I believed in the concept of us being Hands of the Lord, that if we were humble enough to be led, He would direct our doings in this life(through opportunities and the impressions of other people) to the path we needed to walk for our greatest growth and service and that of others. I also believe, it is okay not to have 100% of the answers or the full picture beforehand. Sometimes you don't understand at the current moment "why" but later in life, you look back at the picture and things suddenly make sense. I was right where I was supposed to be and He knew the whole time.
So, in addition to struggling with the imperfection of church leaders ultimately equating to their unworthiness to lead others to righteousness, I also struggle with doubts about the concept of obedience and humility. It is a real issue to try and understand what I want from piety and reconciling my own God-given intellect and right to judge on moral grounds. Am I being led astray by my own pride? Do I want all of the answers(why polygamy then not polygamy? Why racist priesthood doctrine? Why seer stone yet gold plates?)? Or is it okay for me to demand moral consistency from an Almighty?
I apologize if this is not he right place to go for this discussion. Ex-Mormon forums have rules against preaching/theistic talk and LDS forums don't allow debate or any negativity about the church or its leaders. I am alone and conflicted and I need to talk these things out.
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?