The Big Lie!

[Apologette]

23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.

24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

25 Behold, I have told you before.

26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.

27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. Matthew 24

These are the words of Our Risen Savior, Jesus Christ. He warned us about those who would make claims that He, Jesus, would make an appearance on earth prior to His Second Coming at a future date. Note how Jesus contrasts these "false comings," which are secret, hidden from the world, and which can deceive even those who truly believe (are elect) with His highly visible true return. I think we have at least one poster on this forum who fits that category. God will deal with that person until He brings them back safely.

Jesus warns us in the above p***age from Matthew about false "comings.' Every pseudo-Christian cult led by a false teacher or prophet has defied this p***age and claimed a special "coming" of Jesus to validate their teachings. Let's take a look:

1. Jehovah's Witnesses, a cult founded by "Pastor" Russell teaches that Jesus came invisibly in 1914, and that He will never return to this earth. Jesus, according to them, has no glorified physical body, in any case, and was never physically resurrected. This necessitated this invisible "Second Coming."

2. Christian Science, a cult founded by Mary Baker Eddy, has stated the following: "We believe Mary Baker Eddy represents the Second Coming of Christ."

3. Unification cult: The Second Coming of Christ is denied, and they teach that a "third Adam" will come , and he will be born on earth just as Jesus was born. This other Savior is Sun Myung Moon.

4. Mormonism: Mormons teach that Jesus appeared in the New World after dying and being resurrected in the Old World. He came murderously to the New World, sank and burned cities and this "coming" was accompanied by terrible destruction; they also believe he appeared again to Joseph Smith SECRETLY in a grove of trees in 1820 where he said all of Christianity was an abomination. Then, they believe that Jesus appeared in the Nauvoo Temple, again secretly (since only Smith and Rigdon supposedly saw him). The First Vision account of Smith was not explained until 22 years after the fact, and was never known in the Church until that time. Smith's own mother, Lucy, never knew about any "first vision." This will explain why Smith's account is a sham: http://mormonthink.com/firstvisionweb.htm#taught

Now, we notice in each of the above cases that we have Jesus' "coming" distorted in some manner. Our Lord plainly warned us that His Second appearance would be something everybody would see, just like lightning striking in the sky from the east to the west. His appearance would "shine," not be in secret, and not to just some select person. The Book of Revelation, 1:7, indicates clearly:

"Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen."

Jesus Christ is coming a Second Time, but visibly, openly, and along with the Resurrection of the dead. That is clear. He's not coming as Mary Baker Eddy, or invisibly or as Sun Myung Moon, or in a grove of trees to a teenage treasure hunter in 1820. The Mormons have the Word of God, as do Christians. Now the question is this: will men believe God's Word or the words of men? Will they believe a BIG LIE, OR THE TRUTH?:

[Ma'am]

This is from the website in your post, Apologette:


James B. Allen, who served as ***istant church historian, frankly admitted that the story of the first vision "was not given general circulation in the 1830's." (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1966, p.33). Dr. Allen makes some startling concessions in this article. He admits, for instance, that "none of the available contemporary writings about Joseph Smith in the 1830's, none of the publications of the Church in that decade, and no contemporary journal or correspondence yet discovered mentions the story of the first vision...." Dr. Allen goes on to state that in the 1830's "the general membership of the Church knew little, if anything, about it." Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1966, pages 29-45.

"As far as Mormon literature is concerned, there was apparently no reference to Joseph Smith's first vision in any published material in the 1830's. Joseph Smith's history, which was begun in 1838, was not published until it ran serially in the Times and Seasons in 1842. The famous "Wentworth Letter," which contained a much less detailed account of the vision, appeared March 1, 1842, in the same periodical. Introductory material to the Book of Mormon, as well as publicity about it, told of Joseph Smith's obtaining the gold plates and of angelic visitations, but nothing was printed that remotely suggested earlier visitations."

"In 1833 the Church published the Book of Commandments, forerunner to the present Doctrine and Covenants, and again no reference was made to Joseph's first vision, although several references were made to the Book of Mormon and the circumstances of its origin."

I think Joseph Smith changed his story about his vision several times--to seeing one person, an angel, to finally, seeing what is supposedly God, telling Joseph to listen to Him, God's son, presumably. Suspicious to say the least...

[Apologette]

This is from the website in your post, Apologette:



I think Joseph Smith changed his story about his vision several times--to seeing one person, an angel, to finally, seeing what is supposedly God, telling Joseph to listen to Him, God's son, presumably. Suspicious to say the least...

Yes, I'd say so. Joseph Smith embellished the myth to suit his needs. Smith was a liar - he lied about everything, even saying he wasn't married but one woman when he was married to 34.

[Pa Pa]

23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.

24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

25 Behold, I have told you before.

26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.

27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. Matthew 24

These are the words of Our Risen Savior, Jesus Christ. He warned us about those who would make claims that He, Jesus, would make an appearance on earth prior to His Second Coming at a future date. Note how Jesus contrasts these "false comings," which are secret, hidden from the world, and which can deceive even those who truly believe (are elect) with His highly visible true return. I think we have at least one poster on this forum who fits that category. God will deal with that person until He brings them back safely.

Jesus warns us in the above p***age from Matthew about false "comings.' Every pseudo-Christian cult led by a false teacher or prophet has defied this p***age and claimed a special "coming" of Jesus to validate their teachings. Let's take a look:

1. Jehovah's Witnesses, a cult founded by "Pastor" Russell teaches that Jesus came invisibly in 1914, and that He will never return to this earth. Jesus, according to them, has no glorified physical body, in any case, and was never physically resurrected. This necessitated this invisible "Second Coming."

2. Christian Science, a cult founded by Mary Baker Eddy, has stated the following: "We believe Mary Baker Eddy represents the Second Coming of Christ."

3. Unification cult: The Second Coming of Christ is denied, and they teach that a "third Adam" will come , and he will be born on earth just as Jesus was born. This other Savior is Sun Myung Moon.

4. Mormonism: Mormons teach that Jesus appeared in the New World after dying and being resurrected in the Old World. He came murderously to the New World, sank and burned cities and this "coming" was accompanied by terrible destruction; they also believe he appeared again to Joseph Smith SECRETLY in a grove of trees in 1820 where he said all of Christianity was an abomination. Then, they believe that Jesus appeared in the Nauvoo Temple, again secretly (since only Smith and Rigdon supposedly saw him). The First Vision account of Smith was not explained until 22 years after the fact, and was never known in the Church until that time. Smith's own mother, Lucy, never knew about any "first vision." This will explain why Smith's account is a sham: http://mormonthink.com/firstvisionweb.htm#taught

Now, we notice in each of the above cases that we have Jesus' "coming" distorted in some manner. Our Lord plainly warned us that His Second appearance would be something everybody would see, just like lightning striking in the sky from the east to the west. His appearance would "shine," not be in secret, and not to just some select person. The Book of Revelation, 1:7, indicates clearly:

"Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen."

Jesus Christ is coming a Second Time, but visibly, openly, and along with the Resurrection of the dead. That is clear. He's not coming as Mary Baker Eddy, or invisibly or as Sun Myung Moon, or in a grove of trees to a teenage treasure hunter in 1820. The Mormons have the Word of God, as do Christians. Now the question is this: will men believe God's Word or the words of men? Will they believe a BIG LIE, OR THE TRUTH?:Comparing us to monies is despicable, JW almost as bad. The lies you should mention is over the murderers Luther and Calvin. You know the father of the Protestant movement and the father of the reformation of the same.

The horror is that those who follow Calvin and believe his lies and think they are chosen while others are condemned to hell..just cause. Will someday met that God and discover their sin have destroyed all hope of heaven. If you are a Calvinist then you believe that babies who were not saved from the beginning are worthy of hell. If this doctrine is true and the child I lost is bound for hell...then God is more deserving of hell than any other.

[Apologette]

Comparing us to monies is despicable, JW almost as bad. The lies you should mention is over the murderers Luther and Calvin. You know the father of the Protestant movement and the father of the reformation of the same.

The horror is that those who follow Calvin and believe his lies and think they are chosen while others are condemned to hell..just cause. Will someday met that God and discover their sin have destroyed all hope of heaven. If you are a Calvinist then you believe that babies who were not saved from the beginning are worthy of hell. If this doctrine is true and the child I lost is bound for hell...then God is more deserving of hell than any other.

Sorry, but cults are cults are cults. If you defy the faith transmitted in God's Word and go about to establish an alternate belief system then you are a cult, period. Furthermore, the other cults named are more honest about their beliefs than are Mormons who conceal their bizarre teachings from potential converts. Therefore, the most dangerous is Mormonism.

[Pa Pa]

Sorry, but cults are cults are cults. If you defy the faith transmitted in God's Word and go about to establish an alternate belief system then you are a cult, period. Furthermore, the other cults named are more honest about their beliefs than are Mormons who conceal their bizarre teachings from potential converts. Therefore, the most dangerous is Mormonism.Monies target the young, separate them from their families and encourage them to steel from them, feed them badly to break down their minds. Come on!

[James Banta]

Monies target the young, separate them from their families and encourage them to steel from them, feed them badly to break down their minds. Come on!

I haven't heard much from the Moonies in years.. Are they still out there? After the death of Sun Myung Moon they melted into the either.. How can they be a danger if they have no presence in our world? IHS jim

[dberrie2000]

Sorry, but cults are cults are cults.

You are right--and all denominations are cults:

Full Definition of CULT

1: formal religious veneration : worship
2: a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>
5a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad

b : the object of such devotion

c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion


Which ones do you qualify for a cult under, Catherine?

[James Banta]

You are right--and all denominations are cults:

Full Definition of CULT

1: formal religious veneration : worship
2: a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>
5a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad

b : the object of such devotion

c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion


Which ones do you qualify for a cult under, Catherine?

The defination we are using here is one you seem to have skipped:

A quasi-religious organization using devious psychological techniques to gain and control adherents (World English Dictionary)

Watch the world conference of the LDS church and the way almost everyone speaks and you will hear the numbing tone that is meant to control the thought of the congregation. IHS jim

[neverending]

You are right--and all denominations are cults:

Full Definition of CULT

1: formal religious veneration : worship
2: a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>
5a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad

b : the object of such devotion

c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion


Which ones do you qualify for a cult under, Catherine?

Which ones does Mormonism qualify for dberrie? Seems Mormonism fits all these definitions, especially #5.

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post
You are right--and all denominations are cults:

Full Definition of CULT

1: formal religious veneration : worship
2: a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>
5a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad

b : the object of such devotion

c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion


Which ones do you qualify for a cult under, Catherine?


Which ones does Mormonism qualify for dberrie? Seems Mormonism fits all these definitions, especially #5.


Regardless of which ones you believe the LDS can qualify under--all denominations qualify under at least one of these definitions. That means all denominations can be called cults. It's a double edged sword, Neverending, to attempt to label the LDS a cult. Your denomination is a cult--end of story.

[RealFakeHair]

Regardless of which ones you believe the LDS can qualify under--all denominations qualify under at least one of these definitions. That means all denominations can be called cults. It's a double edged sword, Neverending, to attempt to label the LDS a cult. Your denomination is a cult--end of story.

One hit wonder, if you wish to belong to the LDSinc. Cult, by all means do so, but keep it to yourself and Joseph Smith jr.

[dberrie2000]

One hit wonder, if you wish to belong to the LDSinc. Cult, by all means do so, but keep it to yourself and Joseph Smith jr.

That would probably be difficult to do--seeing it is usually the faith alone which brings the issue of Joseph Smith up.

[RealFakeHair]

That would probably be difficult to do--seeing it is usually the faith alone which brings the issue of Joseph Smith up.

Well do try.

[neverending]

Regardless of which ones you believe the LDS can qualify under--all denominations qualify under at least one of these definitions. That means all denominations can be called cults. It's a double edged sword, Neverending, to attempt to label the LDS a cult. Your denomination is a cult--end of story.

dberrie,
There is one MAJOR difference between your religion and mine, my devotion is for Jesus Christ and Him alone. I don't care who is the Pastor nor do I feel he's anything special. All I expect of a Pastor is that he has a love for Christ and practices what he preaches. We don't do strange rituals nor require people to adhere to ordinances for fear of losing their exaltation. We don't believe in exaltation, we believe in salvation but everyone can have it by doing only one thing, believing in Jesus Christ and what he did for them on the cross. Any time exaltation is even mentioned it is referring to God, nothing else. God is exalted, and He alone deserves are praises and honor.....not a mere man as the LDS give praises to. You even sing praise to the man. Sorry dberrie, but the only cult I see is yours.....end of story.

[Erundur]

Jesus Christ is coming a Second Time, but visibly, openly, and along with the Resurrection of the dead. That is clear. He's not coming as Mary Baker Eddy, or invisibly or as Sun Myung Moon, or in a grove of trees to a teenage treasure hunter in 1820.
You think we believe the First Vision was Christ's second coming?

[RealFakeHair]

You think we believe the First Vision was Christ's second coming?

Which one of his first vision are we talking about?

[Erundur]

Which one of his first vision are we talking about?
There's only one. I sense a distraction coming!

[neverending]

There's only one. I sense a distraction coming!

No distraction here for it is known that there were three different versions. And it took 18 yrs. before JS actually wrote one of his versions down. Do read the many accountings here:Home (http://www.mit.irr.org/) » Joseph Smith's Changing First Vision Accounts


Joseph Smith's Changing First Vision Accounts

By:
Joel B. Groat (http://www.mit.irr.org/author/joel-b-groat)

Joseph Smith, the founding prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, claimed that as a 14-year-old boy he had a vision of God the Father and Jesus Christ. The official account of this first vision found in Mormon Scripture (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith — History, 1:14-20) was not recorded by Joseph Smith until 1838, 18 years after the supposed event. However, for years before this, Joseph, and his close ***ociates did talk about his early visionary experiences. These earlier accounts contain significant variations from the official First Vision account. The links below present these accounts in chronological order.


1827 — Account of Joseph Smith, Sr. (http://www.mit.irr.org/changing-first-vision-accounts-1827-first-vision-account-related-willard-chase), and Joseph Smith, Jr., given to Willard Chase, as related in his 1833 affidavit.
1827 — Account by Martin Harris (http://www.mit.irr.org/changing-first-vision-accounts-1827-account-martin-harris-to-rev-john-d-clark) given to Rev. John Clark, as published in his book Gleanings by the Way, printed in 1842, pp. 222-229.
1830 — Interview of Joseph Smith by Peter Bauder (http://www.mit.irr.org/changing-first-vision-accounts-1830-first-vision-account-related-peter-bauder), recounted by Bauder in his book The Kingdom and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, printed in 1834, pp. 36-38.
1832 — Earliest known attempt (http://www.mit.irr.org/changing-first-vision-accounts-1832-first-vision-account-joseph-smith-jr)at an ‘official’ recounting of the ‘First Vision, from History, 1832, Joseph Smith Letterbook 1, pp.2,3, in the handwriting of Joseph Smith.
1834-35 — Oliver Cowdery, (http://www.mit.irr.org/changing-first-vision-accounts-1834-35-first-vision-account-in-messenger-and-advocate) with Joseph Smith’s help, published the first history of Mormonism in the LDS periodical Messenger and Advocate, Kirtland, Ohio, Dec. 1834, vol.1, no.3
1835 — Account given by Joseph Smith to Joshua the Jewish minister (http://www.mit.irr.org/1835-first-vision-account-joseph-smith-given-joshua-jewish-minister), Joseph Smith Diary, Nov. 9, 1835.
1835 — Account given by Joseph Smith to Erastus Holmes (http://www.mit.irr.org/changing-first-vision-accounts-1835-first-vision-account-joseph-smith-given-erastus-holmes) on November 14, 1835, originally published in the Deseret News of Sa****ay May 29, 1852.
1838 — This account became the official version (http://www.mit.irr.org/changing-first-vision-accounts-1838-first-vision-account-joseph-smith), now part of Mormon Scripture in the Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith — History, 1:7-20. Though written in 1838, it was not published until 1842 in Times and Season, March 15, 1842, vol. 3, no. 10, pp. 727-728, 748-749, 753.
1844 — Account in An Original History (http://www.mit.irr.org/changing-first-vision-accounts-1844-first-vision-account-joseph-smith) of the Religious Denominations at Present Existing in the United States, edited by Daniel Rupp. Joseph Smith wrote the chapter on Mormonism.
1859 — Interview with Martin Harris (http://www.mit.irr.org/changing-first-vision-accounts-1859-first-vision-account-martin-harris), Tiffany’s Monthly, 1859, New York: Published by Joel Tiffany, vol. v.—12, pp. 163-170.
(http://www.mit.irr.org/joseph-smiths-changing-first-vision-accounts)





I know this is a lot to read through but it would be of great interest if one would take time. It seems that JS couldn't recall who he saw, whether he saw God and Jesus Christ or whether he saw only an angel or only Jesus Christ. Don't you think if God appeared to you, that you'd ever forget one moment of what you saw or what was said? Did Moses ever forget his meeting with God (Jesus) at the burning bush or how about Paul when Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus?

[Erundur]

No distraction here for it is known that there were three different versions.
Yep, that's the distraction.

[neverending]

Yep, that's the distraction.

And this is your answer? You can do better.

[Erundur]

And this is your answer?
I'm still waiting for the answer to my question.

[Apologette]

I haven't heard much from the Moonies in years.. Are they still out there? After the death of Sun Myung Moon they melted into the either.. How can they be a danger if they have no presence in our world? IHS jim

Oh, there still around. Their headquarters is in Tarrytown, NY, I believe. There has been some internal conflict (I believe among the Moon family members), but they still exist. Moon is dead, and I'm not sure who is running that group now.

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post---Regardless of which ones you believe the LDS can qualify under--all denominations qualify under at least one of these definitions. That means all denominations can be called cults. It's a double edged sword, Neverending, to attempt to label the LDS a cult. Your denomination is a cult--end of story.

[SIZE=3]dberrie, There is one MAJOR difference between your religion and mine, my devotion is for Jesus Christ and Him alone.

The name of my church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Does your church carry the name of Jesus Christ?

You are a member of a cult either way.


I don't care who is the Pastor nor do I feel he's anything special.

The LDS believe all their members are special.


We don't do strange rituals nor require people to adhere to ordinances for fear of losing their exaltation.

Does that include this one?


Mark 16:16---King James Version (KJV)

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be ****ed.


We don't believe in exaltation,

Christ and the apostles did: did:


Matthew 23:12---King James Version (KJV)

12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.



1 Peter 5:6---King James Version (KJV)

6 Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time:


we believe in salvation but everyone can have it by doing only one thing, believing in Jesus Christ and what he did for them on the cross.


Were these the ones who believed in Jesus Christ?


Revelation 22:14---King James Version (KJV)

14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

[neverending]

The name of my church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Does your church carry the name of Jesus Christ?

You are a member of a cult either way.



The LDS believe all their members are special.



Does that include this one?


Mark 16:16---King James Version (KJV)

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be ****ed.



Christ and the apostles did: did:


Matthew 23:12---King James Version (KJV)

12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.



1 Peter 5:6---King James Version (KJV)

6 Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time:




Were these the ones who believed in Jesus Christ?


Revelation 22:14---King James Version (KJV)

14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

The name of your church means nothing!! It was called two different names before the one it has today. Since you have extra Biblical revelation and a man you practically worship, and weird ordinances that were NEVER part of the church Christ started, then your church is nothing more then a cult. You have a central figure who runs the show and you call him a prophet. When has Pres. Monson made any prophesy? He lives in luxury, having a limo and a driver. His one concern is how much money the church brings in....is that not treasuring up earthly things? "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal…" (Matt. 6:9). I understand that a church needs money to pay the day to day bills but when a church is bringing in millions daily, something is very wrong along with spending BILLIONS to buy up a full block of downtown Salt Lake to build a mall and expensive condos along with buying another block of downtown to have a pedestrian mall which causes traffic problems, as people have to drive out of their way if they need to go up to the State Capital.

[James Banta]

I'm still waiting for the answer to my question.

And the answer to your question is NO, we don't believe that the LDS see the official story of Joseph Smith first vision as the second coming of Jesus.. Now you have the answer you wanted, you can feel feel to address the myriad of first vision reports of Joseph Smith first vision.. IHS jim

[Erundur]

And the answer to your question is NO, we don't believe that the LDS see the official story of Joseph Smith first vision as the second coming of Jesus..
Good, then there's no problem here, because the appearance of Jesus Christ to Joseph Smith does not conflict with New Testament scripture about the second coming, and the OP is a straw man.

[James Banta]

Good, then there's no problem here, because the appearance of Jesus Christ to Joseph Smith does not conflict with New Testament scripture about the second coming, and the OP is a straw man.

Sorry but Joseph Smith contradicts even Joseph Smith as to the contents of the first vision. Here is a major character flaw in you.. You wouldn't answer because you hadn't gotten an answer to your question, then some one does step up and gives you as answer and you fail completely in answering the question put to you.. As usual you just concede the point. That proves that you nor anyone involved in Mormonism can bring a real answer to the question of why there is such a huge difference between the 1832 version of the first vision and that which is found in the PofGP JSH.. So far all you have offered here are personal insults and uninformed opinion. IHS. jim

[dberrie2000]

Sorry but Joseph Smith contradicts even Joseph Smith as to the contents of the first vision.

Jim--I've read the different accounts--and I don't see any conflict. Specifically--what conflict do you see?

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post---The name of my church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Does your church carry the name of Jesus Christ?

You are a member of a cult either way.

The LDS believe all their members are special.


Does that include this one?


Mark 16:16---King James Version (KJV)

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be ****ed.



Christ and the apostles did: did:


Matthew 23:12---King James Version (KJV)

12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.


1 Peter 5:6---King James Version (KJV)

6 Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time:


Were these the ones who believed in Jesus Christ?


Revelation 22:14---King James Version (KJV)

14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.


[SIZE=3]The name of your church means nothing!!

Sorry, Neverending--the name of Jesus CHrist means something to me.


Since you have extra Biblical revelation and a man you practically worship,

And the faith alone have their creeds and their theology that is found nowhere in the Bible--or, if it is--testifies against them:


James 2:24---New American Standard Bible (NASB)

24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Christ's church has always has continuing revelation--it is built upon the foundation of the living, mortal apostles and prophets--Jesus Christ as it's chief corner stone:


Ephesians 4:11-14---King James Version (KJV)

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till 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:

14 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 cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;


and weird ordinances that were NEVER part of the church Christ started, then your church is nothing more then a cult.

All denominations are cults--and any ordinance, according to the faith alone--has nothing to do with salvation. The faith alone deny the very scriptures themselves:


Mark 16:16---King James Version (KJV)

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be ****ed.


You have a central figure who runs the show and you call him a prophet.

Were there not prophets and apostles in the first century church? Did they not form the foundation of the NT church?

[Erundur]

Sorry but Joseph Smith contradicts even Joseph Smith as to the contents of the first vision.
No he didn't. You just made that up.


Here is a major character flaw in you..
Another personal attack, James?


You wouldn't answer because you hadn't gotten an answer to your question
I didn't answer because the alleged contradictions in the first vision accounts is off topic from my question--a distraction, because you guys knew I was about to show that the criticism in the OP is invalid.


That proves that you nor anyone involved in Mormonism can bring a real answer to the question
LOL, so whenever a protestant doesn't answer my question, does that prove that no one involved in protestantism can bring a real answer to the question? Good to know.


So far all you have offered here are personal insults and uninformed opinion.
Says the guy who just insulted me. :rolleyes:

[Apologette]

Well do try.

We won't let dberrie change the topic of this thread to anything but what it's intended to be : THE FALSE SECOND COMING OF MORMONISM!

[James Banta]

Jim--I've read the different accounts--and I don't see any conflict. Specifically--what conflict do you see?

There are the words of Joseph Smith from the 1832 account:

while in the at***ude of calling upon the Lord in the 16th year of my age a piller of fire light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me and I was filled with the spirit of god and the Lord opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me saying Joseph my son thy sins are forgiven thee. go thy way walk in my statutes and keep my commandments behold I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed for the world that all those who believe on my name may have Eternal life behold the world lieth in Sin and at this time and none doeth good no not one they have turned ***ide from the gospel and keep not my commandments they draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me and mine anger is kindling against the inhabitants of the earth to visit them acording to th[e]ir ungodliness and to bring to p*** that which hath been spoken by the mouth of the prophets and Ap[o]stles behold and lo I come quickly as it [is] written of me in the cloud clothed in the glory of my Father and my soul was filled with love and for many days I could rejoice with great Joy and the Lord was with me but [I] could find none that would believe the hevnly vision nevertheless I pondered these things in my heart (http://en.fairmormon.org/Primary_sources/Joseph_Smith,_Jr./First_Vision_accounts/1832)

This is suppose to be the same account given in JSH PofGP Look at it again:

It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him! My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, mother inquired what the matter was. I replied, “Never mind, all is well—I am well enough off.” (PofPG JSH)

Can you see any differences? In the 1832 account Smith said that "I saw the Lord". In the official account it says that "I saw two Personages".. Was the Father there or was He NOT? Kind of a big thing element of the story to omit don't you think? And what was the message of the Lord in the 1832 account? "Joseph my son thy sins are forgiven thee. go thy way walk in my statutes and keep my commandments behold I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed for the world that all those who believe on my name may have Eternal life behold the world lieth in Sin and at this time and none doeth good no not one they have turned ***ide from the gospel and keep not my commandments they draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me and mine anger is kindling against the inhabitants of the earth to visit them acording to th[e]ir ungodliness and to bring to p*** that which hath been spoken by the mouth of the prophets and Ap[o]stles behold and lo I come quickly as it [is] written of me in the cloud clothed in the glory of my Father".. And the message given in the official version was what? The Father first spoke saying "This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him! Then Jesus Spoke saying "I must join none of them (the churches of the day), for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. In the 1832 account all the world was in sin and corrupt in His eyes. In the official account the corruption is limited to the differing sects. And where was the the forgiveness of Smith Sins that was given in the 1832 account.

Telling us that there is no difference between these accounts tells me you compared them with your eyes closed.. Did I pull any of this from"ANTI" sources? Is Fair an "ANTI" source? Is the PofPG and "Anti" source? All I did was find in the Fair source the same events that are explained in JSH.. While they are recognizable in that he went off into the woods to pray, the story of a "light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down" but the number of beings that visited Him, and the message that was given is completely differently. Even his age when he said this all happened is different.. Such an event in your life is something you would never forget.. Not one word would ever be forgotten.. These stories don't match up as being the same event and yet that is how Smith refereed to both.. Now explain how they can be... IHS jim

[James Banta]

[Erundur;151855]No he didn't. You just made that up.

As you can see above I quoted LDS sources to show the differences between the PofPG account of the First vision and the account given in 1832. FAIR and the PofPG are hardly "ANTI" sources..


Another personal attack, James?

Not at all it was an observation of your behavior. You said you would give an answer to our questions if you got and answer.. I gace you the answer and you still denied giving your answer.. That was deceitful. And deceit is indeed a character flaw.


I didn't answer because the alleged contradictions in the first vision accounts is off topic from my question--a distraction, because you guys knew I was about to show that the criticism in the OP is invalid.

Often on a thread the subject tends to wander a bit.. We discuss and in the discussion questions that sometimes come up that could be called off topic. Your question was such a question could be seen as that but since the gtopic here is "The BIG LIE" we could say it fits fine.. And so did the question we asked you.. You didn't answer ONLY because you had no answer that didn't bring doubt of mormonism into the light of truth.. FEAR is why you didn't answer! Even after saying you would.. By not following through YOU LIED..


LOL, so whenever a protestant doesn't answer my question, does that prove that no one involved in protestantism can bring a real answer to the question? Good to know.

If they say they saw it and promised to do so after you gave them an answer, yes that is what it would prove.. I haven't seen that from any Christian on the forum. No one has ever refused to answer you after they had promised to do so.. BTW I don't know any protestant posters here.. Christians yes, but no protestants..


Says the guy who just insulted me.

No, there was no insult. There was an observation of character.. IHS jim

[Erundur]

As you can see above I quoted LDS sources to show the differences between the PofPG account of the First vision and the account given in 1832.
Nobody has disputed that. But what you claimed is that JS contradicted himself, and that's what I'm challenging you to support.


You said you would give an answer to our questions if you got and answer..
I did? When did I say that?


Often on a thread the subject tends to wander a bit..
But that's not what happened here. I asked a question regarding the OP, the topic of this thread. You guys, knowing I was about to show the OP is invalid, tried to distract me by asking questions about some other topic.


You didn't answer ONLY because you had no answer that didn't bring doubt of mormonism into the light of truth.. FEAR is why you didn't answer! Even after saying you would.. By not following through YOU LIED..
That is a lie.


If they say they saw it and promised to do so after you gave them an answer, yes that is what it would prove..
So you're either moving the goal posts or using a double standard. I guess it doesn't matter which.

[James Banta]

[Erundur;151874]Nobody has disputed that. But what you claimed is that JS contradicted himself, and that's what I'm challenging you to support.

I have listed them and shown the contradictions between the official FV and the 1832 FV accounts.. There are contradictions. Since Smith is the only one who made both statements if they contradict then Smith contradicted himself..


I did? When did I say that?

When I answered your question go look it up..


But that's not what happened here. I asked a question regarding the OP, the topic of this thread. You guys, knowing I was about to show the OP is invalid, tried to distract me by asking questions about some other topic.

then I answered your question and you saying that you would not answe ours until you had yours answered refused to follow through and answer ours after yours had an answer.. Sorry you didn't like the answer but it was answered.. You LIED by not keeping your word.. You are the LIAR here.. I have said nothing that was false! You can't say that.. Even saying that the official version of the FV found in JSH is a not a contradiction of the 1832 FV is nothing but a lie.. A blind man could see that they are different..


That is a lie.

It's easy to call a truth a lie but to give reason for why it is a lie is work.. You would want to do the work now would you.. The fact is you never brought your answer to the question after your question was answered.. It is you that are the liar here no me.. I can play the is so, is not game as long as you can, liar..


So you're either moving the goal posts or using a double standard. I guess it doesn't matter which.

Just say you will from now on answer the questions we ask you as we answer those you ask us.. Prove that you have stopped lying.. And stop calling other liars because they disagree with you. IHS jim

[RealFakeHair]

Erundur, (quote)Nobody has disputed that. But what you claimed is that JS contradicted himself, and that's what I'm challenging you to support.

Erundur, lets say you had an experience of Elohim of the Holy Bible visit you as a young boy of the age of say 1-17 years of age do you think you could give a complete description of the even. Not leaving out how many persons were there or how old you were or what was said?

[Erundur]

I have listed them and shown the contradictions between the official FV and the 1832 FV accounts..
No you haven't, and clearly you aren't going to; you'll just continue to insist that you did. This is such a useless line of criticism that I'll just give you a hint as to why your position is wrong: if one account says that X happened, and another account says that Y happened, is it possible that both X and Y happened?


When I answered your question go look it up..
Looked it up, still didn't say it. But there's really nothing to answer until you actually show some contradictions.


It's easy to call a truth a lie but to give reason for why it is a lie is work.. You would want to do the work now would you..
Okay. You claimed that I didn't answer ONLY because I had no answer that didn't bring doubt of mormonism into the light of truth. The truth is that I didn't answer because the question was a distraction. You knew this truth because I told you. Therefore...

[Erundur]

Erundur, lets say you had an experience of Elohim of the Holy Bible visit you as a young boy of the age of say 1-17 years of age do you think you could give a complete description of the even. Not leaving out how many persons were there or how old you were or what was said?
Whether I could give a complete description of the event is irrelevant to the subject of whether the first vision accounts contradict. But if I had such an experience and related that experience on multiple occaisions, those accounts would definitely not all be worded identically.

[RealFakeHair]

Whether I could give a complete description of the event is irrelevant to the subject of whether the first vision accounts contradict. But if I had such an experience and related that experience on multiple occaisions, those accounts would definitely not all be worded identically.

Worded identically would have been a problem for sure, but not to know how many person were present is a sure sign Joseph Smith jr. Was making it up as he went along. Second, at time he didn't know how old he was when he was visited, this is also a no, no when it comes to a factual event! There were no great revival going on in 1820, His mother did join the Presbyterian church in 1824 or 25.
When did he come to know all churches were wrong?
I can tell you from my own experience at the age of 5 and what happened to me that for sure Joseph Smith jr. Is was was a liar, and made it all up!

[neverending]

Whether I could give a complete description of the event is irrelevant to the subject of whether the first vision accounts contradict. But if I had such an experience and related that experience on multiple occaisions, those accounts would definitely not all be worded identically.

Wording has nothing to do with contradictory stories of some vision that JS claimed. What does matter, is what he saw and how with each telling of these visions he never told the same thing twice. First he claims he saw an angel. Later he claims he sees only Jesus. Next he claims to have seen both God the Father AND Jesus Christ. This is far from differences in wording. Did Moses ever forget what he experienced as he stood conversing with Jesus at the burning bush? Did Paul ever forget his experience when he did see Jesus on the road to Damascus? NO! And had JS truly seen what he claimed, he wouldn't have forgotten either and there would never have been 3 versions of his vision. Why did it take him 18 years before he decided to write anything down? He made things up as he went along and you know, if one is going to be a liar, one needs a very good memory.
Since you refuse to see that there were 3 totally different stories then there's nothing more to say to you. It is plain to those who eyes are clouded over, who are so gullible as to believe anything that is told to them by men who's only plan it is to take your money, lie to you and lead you far from God; that those poor souls must come up with whatever answer they can. I do feel very sorry for you as you grab at straws. To realize that there are significant errors to the religion one has relied on and held dear is not easy. Do you think it was easy for me when I discovered these things? It was devastating and caused me to have many sleepless nights and much, much praying. To experience the rug being pulled out from underneath me and not have anyone understand what I was going through was very difficult. My prayers will be with you.

[RealFakeHair]

Wording has nothing to do with contradictory stories of some vision that JS claimed. What does matter, is what he saw and how with each telling of these visions he never told the same thing twice. First he claims he saw an angel. Later he claims he sees only Jesus. Next he claims to have seen both God the Father AND Jesus Christ. This is far from differences in wording. Did Moses ever forget what he experienced as he stood conversing with Jesus at the burning bush? Did Paul ever forget his experience when he did see Jesus on the road to Damascus? NO! And had JS truly seen what he claimed, he wouldn't have forgotten either and there would never have been 3 versions of his vision. Why did it take him 18 years before he decided to write anything down? He made things up as he went along and you know, if one is going to be a liar, one needs a very good memory.
Since you refuse to see that there were 3 totally different stories then there's nothing more to say to you. It is plain to those who eyes are clouded over, who are so gullible as to believe anything that is told to them by men who's only plan it is to take your money, lie to you and lead you far from God; that those poor souls must come up with whatever answer they can. I do feel very sorry for you as you grab at straws. To realize that there are significant errors to the religion one has relied on and held dear is not easy. Do you think it was easy for me when I discovered these things? It was devastating and caused me to have many sleepless nights and much, much praying. To experience the rug being pulled out from underneath me and not have anyone understand what I was going through was very difficult. My prayers will be with you.

Did I ever tell about the time I saw a UFO? Welll don't ask me because I can never tell the same version twice.

[Erundur]

Worded identically would have been a problem for sure, but not to know how many person were present is a sure sign Joseph Smith jr. Was making it up as he went along. Second, at time he didn't know how old he was when he was visited, this is also a no, no when it comes to a factual event! There were no great revival going on in 1820, His mother did join the Presbyterian church in 1824 or 25.
I've seen no indication that JS didn't know how many persons were present, that he didn't know how old he was (and that's a pretty insignificant detail anyway), or that he claimed there was a great revival going on in 1820.

[Apologette]

Good, then there's no problem here, because the appearance of Jesus Christ to Joseph Smith does not conflict with New Testament scripture about the second coming, and the OP is a straw man.

Yes it does:

Mat. 24:26"So if they say to you, 'Behold, He is in the wilderness,' do not go out, or, 'Behold, He is in the inner rooms,' do not believe them. 27"For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be.…

Joe the liar said that Jesus appeared in the Palmyra wilderness - and you people believed him. He was a liar.

[RealFakeHair]

Yes it does:

Mat. 24:26"So if they say to you, 'Behold, He is in the wilderness,' do not go out, or, 'Behold, He is in the inner rooms,' do not believe them. 27"For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be.…

Joe the liar said that Jesus appeared in the Palmyra wilderness - and you people believed him. He was a liar.

I do realize LDSinc. TBMs suffer from a bad case of congnitive dissonance. About as bad as followers of Jim Jones, and other death cults, but I do keep hoping a crack might appear someday to open their eyes.

[Erundur]

Wording has nothing to do with contradictory stories of some vision that JS claimed.
Okay, I think at this point you guys need to get together and decide whether the accounts have contradictions or just differences.


What does matter, is what he saw and how with each telling of these visions he never told the same thing twice.
Just as we'd expect if it really happened.


First he claims he saw an angel. Later he claims he sees only Jesus. Next he claims to have seen both God the Father AND Jesus Christ.
Do you make a distinction between seeing Jesus and seeing only Jesus? If so, you need to show which one JS actually said.

[RealFakeHair]

I've seen no indication that JS didn't know how many persons were present, that he didn't know how old he was (and that's a pretty insignificant detail anyway), or that he claimed there was a great revival going on in 1820.

Okay, so you live in a box with blinders on. I get it.

[Erundur]

Joe the liar said that Jesus appeared in the Palmyra wilderness
Maybe he did, but Joseph Smith said Jesus appeared to him in the woods near Manchester.

[Erundur]

Okay, so you live in a box with blinders on. I get it.
Okay, so you can't back up your claim. I get it.

[RealFakeHair]

Okay, so you can't back up your claim. I get it.

I only wish you got it, but you are at this point to far gone, but hey that's life. Good luck in your future.

[Erundur]

I only wish you got it, but you are at this point to far gone, but hey that's life. Good luck in your future.
I accept your concession.

[RealFakeHair]

I accept your concession.

Even though I see you are paying the idiot game, I am okay with it anyways. By the way what are you 12 or 13 years old?

[dberrie2000]

There are the words of Joseph Smith from the 1832 account:

while in the at***ude of calling upon the Lord in the 16th year of my age a piller of fire light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me and I was filled with the spirit of god and the Lord opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me saying Joseph my son thy sins are forgiven thee. go thy way walk in my statutes and keep my commandments behold I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed for the world that all those who believe on my name may have Eternal life behold the world lieth in Sin and at this time and none doeth good no not one they have turned ***ide from the gospel and keep not my commandments they draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me and mine anger is kindling against the inhabitants of the earth to visit them acording to th[e]ir ungodliness and to bring to p*** that which hath been spoken by the mouth of the prophets and Ap[o]stles behold and lo I come quickly as it [is] written of me in the cloud clothed in the glory of my Father and my soul was filled with love and for many days I could rejoice with great Joy and the Lord was with me but [I] could find none that would believe the hevnly vision nevertheless I pondered these things in my heart (http://en.fairmormon.org/Primary_sources/Joseph_Smith,_Jr./First_Vision_accounts/1832)

This is suppose to be the same account given in JSH PofGP Look at it again:

It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him! My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, mother inquired what the matter was. I replied, “Never mind, all is well—I am well enough off.” (PofPG JSH)

Can you see any differences?

Differences? Yes. Contradictions? No. Have you ever red the accounts given in the Gospel concerning the resurrection of Christ? They vary quite radically, although, I am not sure they contradict. A statement by Joseph Smith that he saw the Lord--and then more particularally--two personages--does not necessarily contradict. They both can easily be true. One is a general statement--the other a detailed statement.

[RealFakeHair]

Differences? Yes. Contradictions? No. Have you ever red the accounts given in the Gospel concerning the resurrection of Christ? They vary quite radically, although, I am not sure they contradict. A statement by Joseph Smith that he saw the Lord--and then more particularally--two personages--does not necessarily contradict. They both can easily be true. One is a general statement--the other a detailed statement.

Up in the air its a bird, plane? No its Superman!
Joseph Smith jr. In the woods, in my bed-room, in 1820, 1823, I was 15,16, or was it 17? Up in the air its an angel, mormon jesus, mormon god and jesus? No it's my imaginary mind!

[dberrie2000]

Up in the air its a bird, plane? No its Superman! Joseph Smith jr. In the woods, in my bed-room, in 1820, 1823, I was 15,16, or was it 17? Up in the air its an angel, mormon jesus, mormon god and jesus? No it's my imaginary mind!

That might even extend beyond an imagination.

[neverending]

I accept your concession.

This is your pat answer because you can't do any research and defend your faith. I feel very sorry for you.

[Erundur]

This is your pat answer because you can't do any research and defend your faith.
My defense of my faith is exposing the fact that you guys can't back up your claims, and therefore your attacks are without merit. It's very effective.

[neverending]

My defense of my faith is exposing the fact that you guys can't back up your claims, and therefore your attacks are without merit. It's very effective.

The FACT is, you can't accept the truth!! We have shown you over and over from your own books, Church History, BoM, Pearl of Great Price etc. that what JS did was all lies. His life was far from being a godly man. It's not my fault or any other Christian's fault that YOU refuse to see the truth. So this concession **** is just that. You want to defend or just belly ache? I've yet to see you use ONE verse from any of your church's books to defend your faith, not one. I've yet to see you even quote ONE Bible verse. I say you don't know your Bible nor your own Standard Works. Thanks for your concession and proving what I say is true about you.

[Erundur]

The FACT is, you can't accept the truth!!
Of course I can. I choose not to accept anti-Mormon lies.


We have shown you over and over from your own books, Church History, BoM, Pearl of Great Price etc. that what JS did was all lies. His life was far from being a godly man.
Here comes another distraction. Having lost the debate first on the first vision = second coming, then on first vision accounts contradict, you want to change the subject again and just smear Joseph Smith's character. If you don't want to defend your claim, then all I can do is accept your concession.

[neverending]

Of course I can. I choose not to accept anti-Mormon lies.


Here comes another distraction. Having lost the debate first on the first vision = second coming, then on first vision accounts contradict, you want to change the subject again and just smear Joseph Smith's character. If you don't want to defend your claim, then all I can do is accept your concession.

I choose NOT to accept Mormon lies. Where does that leave us, NO WHERE. Thanks for your concession and your obsession with concession!! OH PLEASE....broken record! BYE!

[Erundur]

Thanks for your concession
That only works if the person actually concedes.

[James Banta]

That only works if the person actually concedes.

Exactly! And I have not seen anyone actually do that when trying to discuss mormonism with you.. You make the same ***umptions that you have now been a victim.. No one has conceded to you anymore than you have to us.. Please don't use that phrase, it is as infuriating to us as it seems to have been to you.. I will not concede that mormonism teaches different Jesus from the Jesus found in the Bible. The Jesus of the Bible is God, He has been with the Father since the beginning.. That is the message of John 1:1. I will not concede that there is One God, That no other God existed before that God. I will not concede that no other God will ever be formed in the future. I will not concede that God has been God from everlasting and will continue to be God to everlasting.. I will not concede that God forms the spirit of man within him not in some preexistence world. I will not concede that salvation is a gift of God given to those who hold faith in the Jesus of the Bible and is not a product of works. I will not concede that the order of creation is first physical and then spiritual. I will not concede that that the Father is an invisible God of whom Jesus is the tangible image.. I will Not concede that the Father is Spirit and a spirit does not have flesh and bone.. These are all facts. All taught buy the Holy Spirit to Apostles and prophets. To concede any one of those points would be the same thing as calling God a liar. That may be something you find easy to Do but it is impossible for a true believer in Jesus the Christ.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Oh, there still around. Their headquarters is in Tarrytown, NY, I believe. There has been some internal conflict (I believe among the Moon family members), but they still exist. Moon is dead, and I'm not sure who is running that group now.

So with that conflict their message and efforts go for not.. That sounds like a good thing.. IHS jim

[dberrie2000]

Exactly! And I have not seen anyone actually do that when trying to discuss mormonism with you.. You make the same ***umptions that you have now been a victim.. No one has conceded to you anymore than you have to us.. Please don't use that phrase, it is as infuriating to us as it seems to have been to you.. I will not concede that mormonism teaches different Jesus from the Jesus found in the Bible. The Jesus of the Bible is God, He has been with the Father since the beginning.. That is the message of John 1:1. I will not concede that there is One God, That no other God existed before that God.

A couple of points here, Jim:

1) Christ was never designated as the "one God" in the Biblical NT:


1 Corinthians 8:6---King James Version (KJV)

6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

2) Jesus Christ conceded the fact that God the Father was both His God and His Father.


John 20:17---King James Version (KJV)

17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Could you explain to us how the Father does not precede the Son?

[James Banta]

A couple of points here, Jim:

1) Christ was never designated as the "one God" in the Biblical NT:


1 Corinthians 8:6---King James Version (KJV)

6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

2) Jesus Christ conceded the fact that God the Father was both His God and His Father.


John 20:17---King James Version (KJV)

17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Could you explain to us how the Father does not precede the Son?

Question.. Did Jesus ever confirm that the Lord our God is one Lord? Look at Mark 12:29 and then tell me that He never confirmed that teaching? Then tell me that Jesus never used the name of God to refer to Himself after you read John 8:58.. In saying the things you have quoted alone with the p***ages I have quoted it is clear that the Trinity is the only way that the Father could be the God of Jesus and Jesus be God. I have quoted Isaiah 43:10 to you many times.. There it says that No God was formed before our God and no God will be formed after Him.. So Jesus was either God all the time the Father has been God or He is NOT God at all.. Was Jesus always in His resurrection body as he was in John 20:17? Was there a time when He was a Spiritual en***y, like maybe before he entered mortality.. Even mormonism teaches that.. But to be the Fathers creation as we are His creation.. That is just so unbiblical that it is nothing but cultic being unsupportable by the scripture.. IHS jim

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post---A couple of points here, Jim:

1) Christ was never designated as the "one God" in the Biblical NT:


1 Corinthians 8:6---King James Version (KJV)

6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

2) Jesus Christ conceded the fact that God the Father was both His God and His Father.

John 20:17---King James Version (KJV)

17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Could you explain to us how the Father does not precede the Son?


Question.. Did Jesus ever confirm that the Lord our God is one Lord? Look at Mark 12:29 and then tell me that He never confirmed that teaching?

Jesus did confirm the "one Lord"--just as Paul confirmed the "one God". But that "one God" was not Christ--and neither does the "one Lord" mean there is not another Lord:


Matthew 22:44----King James Version (KJV)

44 The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?


Then tell me that Jesus never used the name of God to refer to Himself after you read John 8:58..

Jesus Christ was God the Son. Just not the same God as God the Father.


In saying the things you have quoted alone with the p***ages I have quoted it is clear that the Trinity is the only way that the Father could be the God of Jesus and Jesus be God.

Not true---the only way I see is that God the Father is not the same God as God the Son.


I have quoted Isaiah 43:10 to you many times..

Again--the NT writers did not adopt the theology of the Deutero-Isaiah writers. The Early Church Fathers neither. Nor did the apostles:


Revelation 3:21---King James Version (KJV)

21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

One cannot have a God of another God and they be the same God. Christ is eternally subjected to His Father--and claimed that His God and Father was the same God and Father of mankind. That is not Deutero-Isaiah theology--it cannot fit that theology.

[James Banta]

Differences? Yes. Contradictions? No. Have you ever red the accounts given in the Gospel concerning the resurrection of Christ? They vary quite radically, although, I am not sure they contradict. A statement by Joseph Smith that he saw the Lord--and then more particularally--two personages--does not necessarily contradict. They both can easily be true. One is a general statement--the other a detailed statement.

The accounts given in the Gospel concerning the resurrection of Christ were given by inspiration to different men.. Each man recorded what they were given.. Smith was ONE PERSON.. Matthew and John were two different men last time I checked.. Two perspectives of the event, as long as they don't conflict can we stated differently. In fact in seeing that they are we can see that one isn't just a copy of the other. But if John would have said that Jesus hadn't actually be raised in bodily form after he said that He had been, that would be a contradiction.

Here in this testimony the same man gave a testimony so different that GOD the Father was excluded in one and clearly announced in the other.. The Father being Ignored? Jesus introducing Himself? The lack of an indictment against the Church and instead charges against the world? No one acted as scribe to the 1832 version of this vision it was all Joseph Smith.. Is the official PofPG JSH version in error because a scribe was used to record it? Even if you can find a way to exclude mention of the Greatest person in the universe from mention (It sounds more like Saul's testimony of seeing Jesus than what Joseph Smith tells us in JSH). How does that explain the differences in the accusations against the Church and Her teachers that just isn't seen in the 1832 version.. Really I keep coming back to the lack of the mention of the Father.. Even in the official version the mention of the Father's presence didn't take up that much time to include nor did it consume that much space in the text. Calling it an overview and excluding the Father is a cop-out.. No where in the 1832 version does Joseph Smith tell us that the testimony was an overview. That wasn't said until Smith dictated his history now found in the PofGP (See verse 20). It would seem that the PofPG version is the overview not the 1832 version.. The hand written version is closer to the source. He said he had that vision when he was 16 that would have been in 1822 just 10 years before he recorded it. The PofPG version said he was 15 and the vision was recorded in 1838 that was 18 years from the event.. There are so many problems with the differing version that they clearly show an evolving story.. IHS jim

[dberrie2000]

The accounts given in the Gospel concerning the resurrection of Christ were given by inspiration to different men.. Each man recorded what they were given.. Smith was ONE PERSON.. Matthew and John were two different men last time I checked..

And the last time I looked--the writer of Acts gives varying accounts of Paul's Damascus road conversion--or Paul's baptismal account, etc.


Two perspectives of the event, as long as they don't conflict can we stated differently. In fact in seeing that they are we can see that one isn't just a copy of the other. But if John would have said that Jesus hadn't actually be raised in bodily form after he said that He had been, that would be a contradiction.

I agree. So--specifically--where do you find a contradiction? Give us the wording, please.


Here in this testimony the same man gave a testimony so different that GOD the Father was excluded in one and clearly announced in the other..

Where did Joseph Smith state that God the Father was not present in the vision? That he does not mention God the Father in one account--and does so in a more detailed account--does not conflict---anymore than one gospel writer stating that an angel was present at the tomb--and another stating two were present. That does not conflict--unless one account stated there was ONLY one present.

Where do you see an account of Joseph Smith stating God the Father was not present--and another account stating He was present?

[neverending]

Comparing us to monies is despicable, JW almost as bad. The lies you should mention is over the murderers Luther and Calvin. You know the father of the Protestant movement and the father of the reformation of the same.

The horror is that those who follow Calvin and believe his lies and think they are chosen while others are condemned to hell..just cause. Will someday met that God and discover their sin have destroyed all hope of heaven. If you are a Calvinist then you believe that babies who were not saved from the beginning are worthy of hell. If this doctrine is true and the child I lost is bound for hell...then God is more deserving of hell than any other.

Papa.....how sorry I am that you lost a child, I can't imagine anything worse. I do not believe that a baby or a child are ****ed to hell. We know from scriptures that Christ loved children. It isn't until a person is able to fully understand the sacrifice that Christ made that they are able to chose for themselves whether or not they believe in him and accept him. Papa, there is no reason to blaspheme God; this is a horrible way to think. God has his plan for all people and we don't understand his reasons for why things happen. It takes faith to know that he sees the big picture. May I share with you something?
I lost my Dad when I was 35, he died suddenly of a heart attack, that was in 1987. After that, I watched my Mom decline in health all due to her not being able to accept my Dad's p***ing. I called it, Slow Suicide because she gave up on life, nothing meant anything to her. She spent 3 separate occasions in Psych. Facilities for clinical depression and even was on an anti-depressant but nothing helped. No amount of talking to her helped because she had talked herself into not wanting to live. She p***ed away in 2001. After that, it was my oldest brother. He never married due to being gay and he lived at home his entire life except for the 2 years he was on a mission for your church. After my Mom died, he became depressed and didn't care about anything too. His health began to decline as well and he had a small stroke in 2004. Two years later, he had another stroke and I and my only other sibling got to sit for two days and wait for my oldest brother to die. There was nothing that could be done. Well, it was that next spring, (my brother died in September of 2007) James went to work and became very ill. He was taken to the hospital and later had surgery due to a bowel rupture. He almost died because two doctors argued over what they thought was wrong and peritonitis had begun. It took James 3 months to recover enough to then have a second surgery to reconnect his bowel and finally he was well again til August when he was involved in a terrible car accident that once again we faced a life and death situation. James missed 9 months out of that year and when he finally had recovered enough to try and go back to work, his very first day back he was told, "Jim, we no longer need you. You can either be laid off or you can take early retirement." I will never forget the call that day as it was like a slap in the face but Papa...it cost us $62,000 for James to buy out his retirement, he had four more years with his *** before he could officially retire. What I am trying to tell you is, had it not been for my brother's p***ing, we wouldn't have had the money for James to buy out that time. My brother had inherited my parent's home but we had to sell it because my brother was on Medicaid and the State wanted their money for paying his medical bills. So, God knew what was coming for James and I and he provided a way for us; we also had our 15 year old grand daughter living with us too. Please don't think I don't miss my brother, for I miss him everyday. We were very close and shared many things in common but as I was saying, God saw the big picture and knew what we would need. Please don't hold anger in your heart, hold the memory of your child in your heart instead and your child will always be with you.
Life can be cruel and usually is but it is in those times that our faith is tested and I can tell you that without God in my life, I know I wouldn't have been able to help James nor deal with all the stress. I admit that there was a couple of days when I was angry with God and felt he no longer loved me but that was me, he still loved me, he was still there for me, I had deserted him. It was the following year that James was diagnosed with Congestive Heart Failure which hit me like a ton of bricks and I faced each morning wondering if James would still be with me. It was my knowledge from being a nurse that I began my study and research into heart disease and what I could do to help James' heart. I thank God for giving me the knowledge and wisdom to do all that was necessary and I praise God everyday as James no longer has Congestive Heart Failure and has been told he has Cardiomyopathy (a weak heart). We can live with that even though, James doesn't have the stamina he once had, we still work together and get things done around here.
Look to God Papa in all things and trust him to lead you, he will, he loves you; he always has and we have his promise that he will never leave us, nor forsake us. You are in my prayers.

[James Banta]

[dberrie2000;151929]And the last time I looked--the writer of Acts gives varying accounts of Paul's Damascus road conversion--or Paul's baptismal account, etc.

Yes you are right you got me.. BUT did these accounts ever get the number of persons Paul had seen wrong? Was the Father there even though Paul said that he had seen Jesus never mentioning the Father? But then Paul never said later that the father was there did he.. Paul's witness was consistent in the Person he saw and the message that was given.. Every time it was only Jesus, and every time it was a call to take the Gospel to the world.. Yes there are some difference between the accounts but nothing like Smith invented in the retelling of his experience..

Again was Paul the author of the retelling of his vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus? No! Did he leave two widely differing accounts of him experience or was it given as inspiration to Doctor Luke? yes the good doctor told the story in differing wording but did it have the same meaning without changing who the condemnation for sin was directed as Smith did. can't you see in the 1832 version that the world is being judged and in the PofPG version it has been changed to a condemnation of the Church? Read it and see for yourself.. I have posted both copies on this tread go read them..


I agree. So--specifically--where do you find a contradiction? Give us the wording, please.

Even through I provided the text you can't see it. Hummmm, That doesn't help me respect you much more than I ever have.. Here is the sections I find to be in conflict.

while in the at***ude of calling upon the Lord in the 16th year of my age a piller of fire light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me and I was filled with the spirit of god and the Lord opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me saying Joseph my son thy sins are forgiven thee. go thy way walk in my statutes and keep my commandments behold I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed for the world that all those who believe on my name may have Eternal life behold the world lieth in Sin and at this time and none doeth good no not one they have turned ***ide from the gospel and keep not my commandments they draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me and mine anger is kindling against the inhabitants of the earth to visit them acording to th[e]ir ungodliness and to bring to p*** that which hath been spoken by the mouth of the prophets and Ap[o]stles behold and lo I come quickly as it [is] written of me in the cloud clothed in the glory of my Father and my soul was filled with love and for many days I could rejoice with great Joy and the Lord was with me but [I] could find none that would believe the hevnly vision nevertheless I pondered these things in my heart (http://en.fairmormon.org/Primary_sou..._accounts/1832)

And in the PofPG version it says:

It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him! My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, mother inquired what the matter was. I replied, “Never mind, all is well—I am well enough off.” (PofPG JSH)

The added information from one to the other I don't question that indeed could be like the differing accounts of Paul's vision but these things that are clearly in conflict those I point to.. It was clearly an evolving story. And invention not an actual event..


Where did Joseph Smith state that God the Father was not present in the vision? That he does not mention God the Father in one account--and does so in a more detailed account--does not conflict---anymore than one gospel writer stating that an angel was present at the tomb--and another stating two were present. That does not conflict--unless one account stated there was ONLY one present.

Paul didn't say the Father was there either.. No one believes that Paul saw the Father and the Son, It was Jesus that appeared to Paul and by saying the "I saw the Lord" Smith was claiming the same thing not that the Father was included.. It is no harder nor does it take more time to write "the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord" Than it does to write "When the light rested upon me[B] I saw two Personages".. You are making excuses for the inconsistencies you have no real explanation..


Where do you see an account of Joseph Smith stating God the Father was not present--and another account stating He was present?

It doesn't say I was there either maybe by Smith's lack of saying I was there that I was standing right there along side Jesus.. Is that reasonable? No? Neither is it reasonable that Smith ever saw the Invisible God (Col 1:15).. The story of the first vision as is written in the PofPG was an evolved story which Smith made up as he grew his doctrines that became the LDS church.. IHS jim

[dberrie2000]

[dberrie2000;151929]And the last time I looked--the writer of Acts gives varying accounts of Paul's Damascus road conversion--or Paul's baptismal account, etc.


Yes you are right you got me.. BUT did these accounts ever get the number of persons Paul had seen wrong?

Please show us the exact number Joseph Smith testified to--and then where that contradicts any other testimony of his.


Was the Father there even though Paul said that he had seen Jesus never mentioning the Father?

Obviously He was--and not mentioning something in a narrative does mean it was not there.


But then Paul never said later that the father was there did he.. Paul's witness was consistent in the Person he saw and the message that was given.. Every time it was only Jesus, and every time it was a call to take the Gospel to the world.. Yes there are some difference between the accounts but nothing like Smith invented in the retelling of his experience..

Again was Paul the author of the retelling of his vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus? No! Did he leave two widely differing accounts of him experience or was it given as inspiration to Doctor Luke? yes the good doctor told the story in differing wording but did it have the same meaning without changing who the condemnation for sin was directed as Smith did. can't you see in the 1832 version that the world is being judged and in the PofPG version it has been changed to a condemnation of the Church? Read it and see for yourself.. I have posted both copies on this tread go read them..



Even through I provided the text you can't see it. Hummmm, That doesn't help me respect you much more than I ever have.. Here is the sections I find to be in conflict.

while in the at***ude of calling upon the Lord in the 16th year of my age a piller of fire light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me and I was filled with the spirit of god and the Lord opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me saying Joseph my son thy sins are forgiven thee. go thy way walk in my statutes and keep my commandments behold I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed for the world that all those who believe on my name may have Eternal life behold the world lieth in Sin and at this time and none doeth good no not one they have turned ***ide from the gospel and keep not my commandments they draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me and mine anger is kindling against the inhabitants of the earth to visit them acording to th[e]ir ungodliness and to bring to p*** that which hath been spoken by the mouth of the prophets and Ap[o]stles behold and lo I come quickly as it [is] written of me in the cloud clothed in the glory of my Father and my soul was filled with love and for many days I could rejoice with great Joy and the Lord was with me but [I] could find none that would believe the hevnly vision nevertheless I pondered these things in my heart (http://en.fairmormon.org/Primary_sou..._accounts/1832)

And in the PofPG version it says:

It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him! My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, mother inquired what the matter was. I replied, “Never mind, all is well—I am well enough off.” (PofPG JSH)

The added information from one to the other I don't question that indeed could be like the differing accounts of Paul's vision but these things that are clearly in conflict those I point to.. It was clearly an evolving story. And invention not an actual event..

That a story evolves is not proof it is an invention.

[Apologette]

Comparing us to monies is despicable, JW almost as bad. The lies you should mention is over the murderers Luther and Calvin. You know the father of the Protestant movement and the father of the reformation of the same.

The horror is that those who follow Calvin and believe his lies and think they are chosen while others are condemned to hell..just cause. Will someday met that God and discover their sin have destroyed all hope of heaven. If you are a Calvinist then you believe that babies who were not saved from the beginning are worthy of hell. If this doctrine is true and the child I lost is bound for hell...then God is more deserving of hell than any other.

Calvinists do not believe that babies go to Hell, but that they are among the Elect according to God's foreknowledge. If you had actually studied Reformed beliefs instead of parotting all the nonsense that comes out of Mormondom, you would know that. And there are different types of Reformed theology as well, you can't stereotype it as you do. As far as saying God is deserving of Hell, if I was you I'd get on my knees big time and repent of such a really horrible, antichrist, statement! How could you say such a thing about your Creator? *** said that even if God slayed him, He would still believe in Him.

*** 13:15: Though he slay me, I will hope in him;

My little nephew laid in a coma for two years after being hit by a car and died at age 8. Do I blame God? Of course not. God was with us through that whole trial and brought good from that evil.

Repent of what you said about God, and come to Christ as your Savior.

[Apologette]

My defense of my faith is exposing the fact that you guys can't back up your claims, and therefore your attacks are without merit. It's very effective.
Well, Richard, all you do is moan and groan and say that facts aren't true. You do it here and at CARM. You never post anything of merit - just ad homs and more ad homs. You don't defend Mormonism, because bottom line is, it's not defensible.

[Apologette]

Yes you are right you got me.. BUT did these accounts ever get the number of persons Paul had seen wrong? Was the Father there even though Paul said that he had seen Jesus never mentioning the Father? But then Paul never said later that the father was there did he.. Paul's witness was consistent in the Person he saw and the message that was given.. Every time it was only Jesus, and every time it was a call to take the Gospel to the world.. Yes there are some difference between the accounts but nothing like Smith invented in the retelling of his experience..

Again was Paul the author of the retelling of his vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus? No! Did he leave two widely differing accounts of him experience or was it given as inspiration to Doctor Luke? yes the good doctor told the story in differing wording but did it have the same meaning without changing who the condemnation for sin was directed as Smith did. can't you see in the 1832 version that the world is being judged and in the PofPG version it has been changed to a condemnation of the Church? Read it and see for yourself.. I have posted both copies on this tread go read them..



Even through I provided the text you can't see it. Hummmm, That doesn't help me respect you much more than I ever have.. Here is the sections I find to be in conflict.

while in the at***ude of calling upon the Lord in the 16th year of my age a piller of fire light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me and I was filled with the spirit of god and the Lord opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me saying Joseph my son thy sins are forgiven thee. go thy way walk in my statutes and keep my commandments behold I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed for the world that all those who believe on my name may have Eternal life behold the world lieth in Sin and at this time and none doeth good no not one they have turned ***ide from the gospel and keep not my commandments they draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me and mine anger is kindling against the inhabitants of the earth to visit them acording to th[e]ir ungodliness and to bring to p*** that which hath been spoken by the mouth of the prophets and Ap[o]stles behold and lo I come quickly as it [is] written of me in the cloud clothed in the glory of my Father and my soul was filled with love and for many days I could rejoice with great Joy and the Lord was with me but [I] could find none that would believe the hevnly vision nevertheless I pondered these things in my heart (http://en.fairmormon.org/Primary_sou..._accounts/1832)

And in the PofPG version it says:

It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him! My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, mother inquired what the matter was. I replied, “Never mind, all is well—I am well enough off.” (PofPG JSH)

The added information from one to the other I don't question that indeed could be like the differing accounts of Paul's vision but these things that are clearly in conflict those I point to.. It was clearly an evolving story. And invention not an actual event..



Paul didn't say the Father was there either.. No one believes that Paul saw the Father and the Son, It was Jesus that appeared to Paul and by saying the "I saw the Lord" Smith was claiming the same thing not that the Father was included.. It is no harder nor does it take more time to write "the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord" Than it does to write "When the light rested upon me[B] I saw two Personages".. You are making excuses for the inconsistencies you have no real explanation..



It doesn't say I was there either maybe by Smith's lack of saying I was there that I was standing right there along side Jesus.. Is that reasonable? No? Neither is it reasonable that Smith ever saw the Invisible God (Col 1:15).. The story of the first vision as is written in the PofPG was an evolved story which Smith made up as he grew his doctrines that became the LDS church.. IHS jim

dberrie is a troll who likes to use the Bible, and then attack the same Bible when convenient. While Paul's various accounts may appear to be contradictory, they can be reconciled:

http://www.harvardhouse.com/sauloftarsus_contradiction_acts.htm

[dberrie2000]

[B][SIZE=3]dberrie is a troll who likes to use the Bible, and then attack the same Bible when convenient.

Perhaps you can give us an example of where I have attacked the Bible?

Catherine--where is your Bible?


Matthew 15:8-9--King James Version (KJV)

8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

[Erundur]

Calvinists do not believe that babies go to Hell, but that they are among the Elect according to God's foreknowledge.
All babies, or just some?

[Erundur]

Well, Richard, all you do is moan and groan and say that facts aren't true.
Well, Susan, all you do is post facts that aren't true.


You never post anything of merit - just ad homs and more ad homs.
So you falsely claim. I think showing that anti-Mormon claims cannot be supported has a lot of merit.


You don't defend Mormonism, because bottom line is, it's not defensible.
And yet I seem to be succeeding, without even really trying.

[James Banta]

Well, Susan, all you do is post facts that aren't true.


So you falsely claim. I think showing that anti-Mormon claims cannot be supported has a lot of merit.


And yet I seem to be succeeding, without even really trying.

All this posters does it insert one unsupported claim after the other.. We show from the God that the "Lord our God is One Lord" (Deut 6:4), That "no God was formed before our God and there will be none formed after Him" but mormonism clearly teaches that Jesus became a god after the Father was already a GOD.. Even if Isaiah 43:10 is only for this world as many a mormon has tried to tell me.. Are not both the Father and Jesus God? And the Father is taught to be the Father of Jesus spiritually and physically. That isn't anti mormon teaching that is flat out mormon doctrine.. It is taught in mormonism that

the Being who is known among men as Jesus of Nazareth, and by all who acknowledge His Godhood as Jesus the Christ, existed with the Father prior to birth in the flesh; and that in the preexistent state He was chosen and ordained to be the one and only Savior and Redeemer of the human race. Preexistence and Foreordination of the Christ, http://www.lds.org/manual/jesus-the-christ/chapter-2?lang=eng )

While no Christian would deny that Jesus is eternally God being from everlasting to everlasting we deny that He ever had to become a God.. But to the mormon that doctrine is clearly stated in that quote. That He was chosen and ordained to be the Christ in His preexistant state.. Not that He was always the Christ and always God.. IHS jim