PDA

View Full Version : A question has sprouted.



James Banta
02-01-2014, 09:55 AM
Were there peoples of the world that allowed to come to the American Continent even if they didn't know the true and living God? As I read the BofM it seems to teach that ONLY a righteous people would be allowed to inherit the Land of promise..

Ether 13:2
For behold, they rejected all the words of Ether; for he truly told them of all things, from the beginning of man; and that after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof

So did God bring to the land of promise a people that worshiped false gods (idols), a people that had never heard of the true God? That seems to be the new teaching of the LDS church saying that the Nephites, Lamanites and Jaredites are among the ancestors of the American Indians. If these people are not the only ancestors of the American Indians what other after the flood were allowed to enter this the Land of promise? After all only men that serve God would be allowed to dwell on the Land.. Were there a people that the world never knew that served the one true God that was allowed to enter the Land of Promise before the Jaredites or after the Nephites that met those requirements? Or is it instead proper to say that the Nephites, Lamanites and Jaredites ARE the ancestors of the American Indians. That God kept true to His teaching and allowed no other men to inherit this land other than those that should serve Him?

Is there a way to teach that the American Indians had pagan ancestors and stay true to what the text teaches as to who could inherit the Land of Promise? Please explain how the Nephites, Lamanites and Jaredites could only be among the ancestors of the American Indians in light of the requirement for the land to be reserved for a people that would serve God and not idols.. IHS jim

Erundur
02-01-2014, 03:44 PM
Is there a way to teach that the American Indians had pagan ancestors and stay true to what the text teaches as to who could inherit the Land of Promise?
Check your premises. You're ***uming that "this land" = the entire American continent. You also seem to think that the fact that "the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof" means that every single person who dwelt in the land would necessarily do so.

neverending
02-01-2014, 07:12 PM
Check your premises. You're ***uming that "this land" = the entire American continent. You also seem to think that the fact that "the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof" means that every single person who dwelt in the land would necessarily do so.

Guess you don't take what God said literally but feel it is ok to change the thoughts of God. How nice of you to do God's thinking. So, with that said, how do we know that God ever spoke to JS? It is only Smith's say so. If God did help JS translate the BoM and this is a sacred book for you and your church, then are you not to accept every word written within it? Oh, excuse me, you know more then God and He never meant it to read that way. No wonder you don't accept what is written in the Bible either. So, why are you even a Mormon if you don't believe in the words of your BoM?

Erundur
02-01-2014, 07:45 PM
If you don't address my post, does that mean you can't? Feel free to show that anything I said is incorrect.

alanmolstad
02-01-2014, 07:51 PM
Once again....its a moot point.

it doesn't matter a hoot what this or that means in the Mormon's Point of view...

We are constrained by the fact that the bible specifically warned us about the story told by the Mormon's, and ...well....thats enough.

iT'S CASE-CLOSED

Move on people.....move on....

neverending
02-01-2014, 08:17 PM
If you don't address my post, does that mean you can't? Feel free to show that anything I said is incorrect.

You've been shown already. It is YOU who refuses to see what is logical. And I am STILL waiting for you to answer my questions. Good thing I haven't been holding my breath. You have proven to everyone here that you have no answers to support Mormonism. James has shown you that there is no physical evidence to the BoM. What more do you need? I see you fighting against things that you can never prove. Give it up, you're standing on sinking sand.
Why didn't Jesus teach about temple marriage? Why didn't Jesus teach about doing work for the dead? Why didn't Jesus teach we must do good works. He gave us three commandments only:
#1 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind; and, Love your neighbor as yourself." Luke 10:27
#2 "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Matt. 5:48

Now, tell us when you became perfect. Because one must be perfect in order to obey God's commandments. We don't have it in us to be obedient.....the reason God sent us a Savior.

Erundur
02-01-2014, 08:54 PM
You've been shown already. It is YOU who refuses to see what is logical.
Evidence-free ***ertion. Link, or it didn't happen.

neverending
02-01-2014, 09:06 PM
Evidence-free ***ertion. Link, or it didn't happen.


Still waiting!

Erundur
02-01-2014, 10:18 PM
Still waiting!
So it didn't happen. :)

James Banta
02-02-2014, 10:32 AM
So it didn't happen. :)

How do I show that there is NO EVIDENCE fr the BofM in the Americas? All I can show you in that the Smithsonian, National Geographic, and anthropological schools like brown University have never found anything in all their research that supports the BofM.. here is an example of their correspondence:

Information from the
National Museum of Natural History
SMITHSONIAN INS***UTION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20560



Your recent inquiry concerning the Smithsonian Ins***ution's alleged use of the Book of Mormon as a scientific guide has been received in the Smithsonian's Department of Anthropology.

The Book of Mormon is a religious document and not a scientific guide. The Smithsonian Ins***ution has never used it in archeological research and any information that you have received to the contrary is incorrect. Accurate information about the Smithsonian's position is contained in the enclosed "Statement Regarding the Book of Mormon," which was prepared to respond to the numerous inquiries that the Smithsonian receives on this topic.

Because the Smithsonian regards the unauthorized use of its name to disseminate inaccurate information as unlawful, we would appreciate your ***istance in providing us with the names of any individuals who are misusing the Smithsonian's name. Please address any correspondence to:



Anthropology Outreach Office
Department of Anthropology
National Museum of Natural History MRC 112
Smithsonian Ins***ution
Washington, DC 20560





PREPARED BY
THE DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY
SMITHSONIAN INS***UTION
1996

IHS jim

Apologette
02-02-2014, 11:03 AM
Check your premises. You're ***uming that "this land" = the entire American continent. You also seem to think that the fact that "the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof" means that every single person who dwelt in the land would necessarily do so.

So, why don't you identify for us what "land" is intended? And why the Mormon god's prophetic claim fell flat on its face, as nobody knows what "land" the Jaredites settled? Could that be because the whole yarn proclaims American exceptionalism as a Christian doctrine? Sure looks like it.

Erundur
02-02-2014, 11:49 AM
How do I show that there is NO EVIDENCE fr the BofM in the Americas?
I don't think you can, but neverending said that you have.


All I can show you in that the Smithsonian, National Geographic, and anthropological schools like brown University have never found anything in all their research that supports the BofM..
Actually, what it says is that the Smithsonian Ins***ution has never used the Book of Mormon in archaeological research.

Erundur
02-02-2014, 11:51 AM
So, why don't you identify for us what "land" is intended? And why the Mormon god's prophetic claim fell flat on its face, as nobody knows what "land" the Jaredites settled?
Is this an admission that you guys are ***erting a claim even though you have no idea whether it's correct or not?

Apologette
02-02-2014, 01:43 PM
Is this an admission that you guys are ***erting a claim even though you have no idea whether it's correct or not?

We have discernment. Mormonism is a hoax.

neverending
02-02-2014, 02:04 PM
So it didn't happen. :)

What didn't happen? That Jesus never taught that people need to marry in the temple. That he never taught good works was needed for salvation, or doing work for the dead? STILL WAITING!

Erundur
02-02-2014, 09:00 PM
We have discernment.
I haven't seen any evidence of that.

Erundur
02-02-2014, 09:01 PM
What didn't happen?
That I have been shown already that anything I said in post #2 is incorrect.

James Banta
02-02-2014, 09:20 PM
Check your premises. You're ***uming that "this land" = the entire American continent. You also seem to think that the fact that "the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof" means that every single person who dwelt in the land would necessarily do so.


Helaman 3:8
And it came to p*** that they did multiply and spread, and did go forth from the land southward to the land northward, and did spread insomuch that they began to cover the face of the whole earth, from the sea south to the sea north, from the sea west to the sea east.

Since your prophets are unwilling to tell the world where the BofM lands are one can only read that p***age and believe that it means the whole of the Americas East, West, North, and South, both continents.. That means that no one but the righteous should have ever been allowed to enter these lands.. You are INVENTING again and this time without president.. IHS jim

James Banta
02-02-2014, 09:32 PM
Evidence-free ***ertion. Link, or it didn't happen.

LOOK WHO IS ACCUSING OTHERS ABOUT NOT HAVING EVIDENCE!! I have just shown you from your own book that the children of Lehi fill the WHOLE LAND.. You denied it and limited the BofM land to some unknown quan***y.. I am sorry but your limited lands theory just doesn't work with what your own scriptures teach.. When you can show me some statement from one of your church presidents that explain this limited land theory you might have some room to teach it.. Until they do you are required to believe what the BofM teaches that is if you believe it at all.. IHS jim

Erundur
02-02-2014, 11:54 PM
one can only read that p***age and believe that it means the whole of the Americas East, West, North, and South, both continents..
The fact that people read that p***age and believe that it doesn't mean the whole of the Americas proves that that's not the only way one can read it. You're ***uming that Helaman 3:8 is referring to the Drake P***age, Arctic Ocean, Pacific Ocean, and Atlantic Ocean respectively, but this ***umption is not supported by the internal geography of the text.

neverending
02-03-2014, 10:46 AM
That I have been shown already that anything I said in post #2 is incorrect.

Post #2 does NOT answer my questions. I am still waiting. Must I repeat the questions for you again? How many times have I asked you but you remain silent? Have no answers, fine then say so. There's no shame in not knowing, that is how one learns. Again, why didn't Jesus teach people must be married in the temple? Why didn't Jesus teach that good works would give people salvation or that it was necessary at all? Why didn't Jesus teach works for the dead?
I still await an answer.
As for believing what is written in your BoM why do you question anything? If God said all people in the land, is that not what he meant? If you are questioning the wording and trying to say that God didn't mean what he helped JS to write, then how can you believe anything about your religion? Your whole church rests on the BoM and what JS did. What does "ALL" mean to you then?

James Banta
02-03-2014, 11:22 AM
The fact that people read that p***age and believe that it doesn't mean the whole of the Americas proves that that's not the only way one can read it. You're ***uming that Helaman 3:8 is referring to the Drake P***age, Arctic Ocean, Pacific Ocean, and Atlantic Ocean respectively, but this ***umption is not supported by the internal geography of the text.

The way the p***age is written supports all of the Americas being the promised land. Not the limited lands that some scholars at BYU have decided to redefine their own scripture to include.. This Limited Geography theory has not always been the teaching of the Church. Michael R. Ash of both FARMS and FAIR tell us that "Joseph Smith understood the Book of Mormon according to rumors and suppositions of his day" and that was a "hemispheric geography with the Lehites as the primary progenitors for the Native Americans". Ash goes on to teach that the teachings of Smith of the subject "do not cons***ute revelation". Again I say that the BYU intellectuals have taken lead even over Joseph Smith as the directors of REAL LDS teaching as to what cons***utes BofM lands.. And by what right to they make such contradiction? He said it is by "revealed doctrine, scientific facts, or in-depth examination".. Since he can't point to a single revealed doctrine he is down to clinging to scientific facts, and/or in-depth examination. Since there is no facts that can be examined there can be no in-depth examination of such facts unless you can explain the facts better than saying it is impossible for God to have included the full Continent as being under His protection. You can find these Anti mormon responses from My Ash in "Were the Lehites Alone in the Americas?," by Michael R. Ash, www.fairlds.org..

IHS jim

Erundur
02-03-2014, 12:05 PM
Post #2 does NOT answer my questions.
No kidding; I didn't suggest it did, and your questions are off-topic.

Erundur
02-03-2014, 12:07 PM
The way the p***age is written supports all of the Americas being the promised land.
No, your interpretation of the p***age supports all of the Americas being the promised land. Not the same thing.

RealFakeHair
02-03-2014, 03:07 PM
Once again in mormonlandism there is NO there there! No matter how hard the LDSinc. Try and spin the evidence against Josesph Smithr jr. Imagainary mind there is still no DNA linking the american injins to the jewish people, and That is a fact!

James Banta
02-04-2014, 10:09 AM
No, your interpretation of the p***age supports all of the Americas being the promised land. Not the same thing.

But other than the teaching of the academics at BYU you have no authoritative from the prophet, or any prophet for that matter who the LDS believe specks or has spoken for God who has taught the limited geography theory of BofM lands.. But you and your idols at BYU know better than your prophets don't you? IHS jim

James Banta
02-04-2014, 10:23 AM
I don't think you can, but neverending said that you have.


Actually, what it says is that the Smithsonian Ins***ution has never used the Book of Mormon in archaeological research.

That is what I said.. There has been no research into the BofM at all.. All American anthropology points to the vast majority of American population coming from Asia. There is some evidence of small expedition coming from Africa, and northern Europe. But as for the vast majority science tells us of human population making the immigration across the Bering land bridge beginning 16,500 years ago, during the Late Glacial Maximum. That theory has received intense study from all repeatable ins***utions dedicated to anthropology.. IHS jim

Erundur
02-04-2014, 10:30 AM
But other than the teaching of the academics at BYU you have no authoritative from the prophet, or any prophet for that matter who the LDS believe specks or has spoken for God who has taught the limited geography theory of BofM lands..
First, I was going to say that's false, but I'm not sure I understand that sentence.

Anyway, it doesn't matter; because were not a mind control cult, we're allowed to think for ourselves, rather than having all our thoughts spoon-fed to us by a leader.

RealFakeHair
02-04-2014, 10:31 AM
But other than the teaching of the academics at BYU you have no authoritative from the prophet, or any prophet for that matter who the LDS believe specks or has spoken for God who has taught the limited geography theory of BofM lands.. But you and your idols at BYU know better than your prophets don't you? IHS jim

I love the limited geography theory the LDSinc. Now have. It goes like this, "hey guys look over here, no not there here."
"Here Where?" We christians asks. "You know, here where the book of Mormon was found." "You mean Hill Cumorah in New York, but there was nothing found there." We christians answer.
"No not that Hill Cumorah, but the one in South America." The LDSinc. Replies. "Where is that Hill Cumorah?" We christians asks.
"We don't know." is the LDSinc. Answer, "But it is there if you just had the faith to know." The LDSinc. Keep telling us.
Go figure!

James Banta
02-04-2014, 05:21 PM
First, I was going to say that's false, but I'm not sure I understand that sentence.

Anyway, it doesn't matter; because were not a mind control cult, we're allowed to think for ourselves, rather than having all our thoughts spoon-fed to us by a leader.

Ok it was a bit wordy.. Not one of your leaders, your prophets, have taught the limited geography theory of the BofM.. That teaching comes from your intellectuals at BYU..

Not a mind control cult? Really? I have seen LDS general conference.. The tone of the speakers is voiced for the purpose of calmly controlling the mind.. It's like a eastern cult's mantra.. Listen closely at fast and testimony meeting.. "I know Joseph Smith was a prophet and that this is the one true Church". This LDS mantra is another another mind control method.. Mormonism is a mind control cult.. Even in the denial of what the BofM teaches as to the nature of God shows that control. Or that David was an abomination to God because of polygamy and then spin 180 degrees and say David was justified in having many wives. In holding such beliefs you reveal that your mind is under the control of those that teach the party line in Mormonism, namely the First presidency. I won't call you out for holding beliefs that you have gained from a distorted view of James. He does teach that our Faith must work.. But the non even anti Biblical doctrines of mormonism have all been planted in your mind through years of repe***ion.. That is mind control..

Can you point to THE LEADER of the Christian Church? Even Billy Graham wasn't THE leader of the Christian Church. The Only Leader of the Christian Church is Her Lord, Jesus. I can point out such a man in Mormonism.. Mormonism has had a strong central leader since Joseph Smith first started to invent his church.. Not one of the Christian posters here knows who the Pastor of my church is, and I don't know who theirs are. Yet we all hold the same doctrines of Who God is, or how salvation come to a person. We have no higher authority than the local church to dictate to us what we will study in Sunday School, or what the men's groups will be focusing on.. Do the different Elder Quorum or High Priest groups make such decisions for themselves or do those decisions come from the central authority of the church in Salt Lake? Trying to show that the Christian Church is involved in mind control has opened up an avalanche of reasons why mormonism a mind control cult and the sects of Christianity are not.. IHS jim

neverending
02-04-2014, 06:08 PM
First, I was going to say that's false, but I'm not sure I understand that sentence.

Anyway, it doesn't matter; because were not a mind control cult, we're allowed to think for ourselves, rather than having all our thoughts spoon-fed to us by a leader.

So you truly believe your religion is not a mind controlled cult and that you're allowed to think for yourselves? Dry that out and you can fertilize your lawn. Speak your mind during Priesthood Meeting and see how fast you'll find yourself in your Bishop's Office answering his questions. Mormons live in fear all the time. Fear that if they ever do question anything and someone finds out they will be labeled an apostate and be excommunicated and shunned. James and I took a small tract around our neighborhood many years ago. It had a picture of Jesus standing outside a door about to knock and the scripture verse that says, "Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me." (Rev. 3:20) Within a month James and I were kicked out and the reason, Apostacy. We had neighbors who didn't even know us gossiping and saying all manner of lies about us. This happened around the end of August. Come Halloween, we never had one child come trick or treating and even watched as neighbors would cross the street so they didn't have to walk in front of our home. What is so sad is that we never lost our belief or faith in Jesus Christ. What we learned was that we had not been worshipping the true Jesus Christ; instead we had been lead down the primrose path; believing a false Jesus from the demented mind of JS.
Now, what do you say about this statement, "When the Prophet speaks the debate is over". N. Eldon Tanner, August Ensign 1979, pages 2-3.
As you can plainly see, you don't have the right to question anything and I will again say, a church that has ALL the answers, doesn't allow any questions.

James Banta
02-05-2014, 09:27 AM
I love the limited geography theory the LDSinc. Now have. It goes like this, "hey guys look over here, no not there here."
"Here Where?" We christians asks. "You know, here where the book of Mormon was found." "You mean Hill Cumorah in New York, but there was nothing found there." We christians answer.
"No not that Hill Cumorah, but the one in South America." The LDSinc. Replies. "Where is that Hill Cumorah?" We christians asks.
"We don't know." is the LDSinc. Answer, "But it is there if you just had the faith to know." The LDSinc. Keep telling us.
Go figure!

Oh yes just like that chest of treasure that was always just a few feet deeper than it was an hour before. Those pesky treasure guardians always moving the gold so it was always just out of reach.. I guess the Hill Cumorah and the wagon loads of plates was just like that.. Hey if there were so many plates hidden in caves when did the Nephites have time to do anything but make and record what ever, on plates.. Sometimes this stuff get too ridiculous not to at least smile. IHS jim

Erundur
02-05-2014, 10:08 AM
So you truly believe your religion is not a mind controlled cult and that you're allowed to think for yourselves?
Clearly it is not.


Now, what do you say about this statement, "When the Prophet speaks the debate is over". N. Eldon Tanner, August Ensign 1979, pages 2-3.
It depends on the context in which it's used, of course, but in general I'll do what the president of the church did and reject it.

James Banta
02-05-2014, 12:07 PM
Clearly it is not.


It depends on the context in which it's used, of course, but in general I'll do what the president of the church did and reject it.

Can you show us where following the prophet has been rejected by the prophet? We did show you where a GA (Prophet and President of the LDS church) taught it. I think showing us where it is rejected is in order.. IHS jim

Erundur
02-05-2014, 12:55 PM
Can you show us where following the prophet has been rejected by the prophet?
No, but see below.


We did show you where a GA (Prophet and President of the LDS church) taught it. I think showing us where it is rejected is in order..
Actually, you showed me where a GA (but not a president of the Church) taught "When the Prophet speaks the debate is over." However, I confused this with another statement that was rejected by President George Albert Smith, so I take back my previous statement. In context, N. Eldon Tanner and Elaine Cannon, whom Tanner was quoting, were referring to the revelation of eternal principles and God's will through his prophet. It certainly did not mean that we "don't have the right to question anything."

neverending
02-05-2014, 03:12 PM
Clearly it is not.


It depends on the context in which it's used, of course, but in general I'll do what the president of the church did and reject it.

How who's moved the goal posts? Oh, yes let's not accept anything that a leader of your church has spoken and then try and say, "It depends on the context in which it's used." What a load of nonsense. As it is with ALL Mormons, if something doesn't fit with your doctrines, then by heaven, it must not have been used in the right context or you all go even further and take things OUT of context. You admit that you do your own thinking....I say BS! If you do that, you're going to get into hot water eventually. And you're admitting that you don't accept everything your prophet speaks or teaches. How do you honestly answer the questions during a renewal of your temple recommend?

neverending
02-05-2014, 04:14 PM
No, but see below.


Actually, you showed me where a GA (but not a president of the Church) taught "When the Prophet speaks the debate is over." However, I confused this with another statement that was rejected by President George Albert Smith, so I take back my previous statement. In context, N. Eldon Tanner and Elaine Cannon, whom Tanner was quoting, were referring to the revelation of eternal principles and God's will through his prophet. It certainly did not mean that we "don't have the right to question anything."

I needed to add this: "If the prophet can be wrong about important issues, even doctrinal issues, then can we as members of the kingdom challenge the prophet on controversial topics? Often critics cite the following couple of quotes from Church magazines provide the answer:

"When the Prophet speaks the debate is over".
N. Eldon Tanner, August Ensign 1979, pages 2-3

"When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan-it is God's plan. When they point the way, there is no discussion, it should mark the end of controversy," stated a part of the ward teaching message printed in the Improvement Era, June 1945, p. 345. Written by Lee A. Palmer under the supervision of the Presiding Bishopric. This was to teach Ward members how to sustain the leaders of the church. When members sustain by the raising of one's hand, they are promising to follow their leadership and abide by their council as the "Living oracles of God." Is this NOT then telling ALL members that they are not allowed to do their own thinking? If having sustained this men and then begin doing your own thinking, you're opening yourself up to Satan and being lead toward apostasy. However, some members also cite other talks that church leaders have given that states that the prophets are not always inspired such as this quote from Harold B. Lee:

It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they write. I don’t care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works, unless that one be the prophet, seer, and reve-lator -- please note that one exception -- you may immediately say, “Well, that is his own idea.” And if he says something that contradicts what is found in the standard church works, you may know by that same token that it is false, regardless of the position of the man who says it.
“Sustaining the General Authorities of the Church,” Improvement Era, June 1945, pg. 354.
Further reading: Mormon Liberals: Friends or Foes? (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25529792/Oak%20Tree/Bailey%20-%20Mormon%20Liberals.pdf), David Bailey
A Final testimony (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/25529792/Oak%20Tree/Brown%20-%20A%20Final%20Testimony.pdf), Hugh B. Brown
Editor comment: It's kind of hard to answer this question with just a few quotes from various church leaders. However, we can say with some surety that if you publicly disagree with the church leadership over certain issues, you will be subject to church discipline."

Also, ""...learn to do as you are told,...if you are told by your leader to do a thing, do it, none of your business whether it is right or wrong." - Herber C. Kimball, 1st Counselor to Brigham Young. Journal of Discourses, v.2, p.106

As I've said, if you question your prophet, and it is done where someone will hear, don't think you won't be in your Bishop's office before you know it. Your church does not take kindly to anyone questioning anything, that is how they control the members.

Erundur
02-05-2014, 05:59 PM
As I've said, if you question your prophet, and it is done where someone will hear, don't think you won't be in your Bishop's office before you know it. Your church does not take kindly to anyone questioning anything, that is how they control the members.
You can say it all you want, but it won't magically become true.

neverending
02-05-2014, 06:25 PM
You can say it all you want, but it won't magically become true.


Really? It happened to me and all it took was a small tract that was given to our neighbors within a block of my home. The track didn't even criticize the church or its leaders. Guess subject is closed.

Erundur
02-05-2014, 11:38 PM
Really?
Really.


It happened to me and all it took was a small tract that was given to our neighbors within a block of my home. The track didn't even criticize the church or its leaders. Guess subject is closed.
So because you have spoken, the debate is over? :)

neverending
02-06-2014, 08:59 AM
Really.


So because you have spoken, the debate is over? :)

Yes, since all the thinking has been done :)

RealFakeHair
02-06-2014, 09:17 AM
Really.


So because you have spoken, the debate is over? :)

The fact is when debating about mormonism, you are debating over something that isn't there. You can't debate over something you can't feel, or touch with your hands, or see with your eyes. Mormonism is and will always be just a human feeling or as they like to say. "gut feeling.

neverending
02-06-2014, 01:50 PM
The fact is when debating about mormonism, you are debating over something that isn't there. You can't debate over something you can't feel, or touch with your hands, or see with your eyes. Mormonism is and will always be just a human feeling or as they like to say. "gut feeling.

Let's not forget the burning in their bosoms....which for me is heartburn. Anyone can get a good feeling about something if they want it bad enough or they are doing it to please someone. How often do members of the LDS Church raise their hands to sustain a new prophet or some other leader within their church but maybe someone knows some dirt but yet they will still raise that right hand. Seems dishonest to me but they do it out of fear and what others will think of them. It is also all about appearances. Shame that they don't live for Jesus Christ and are more concerned about men and what those men will think of them.

James Banta
02-07-2014, 12:48 PM
No, but see below.


Actually, you showed me where a GA (but not a president of the Church) taught "When the Prophet speaks the debate is over." However, I confused this with another statement that was rejected by President George Albert Smith, so I take back my previous statement. In context, N. Eldon Tanner and Elaine Cannon, whom Tanner was quoting, were referring to the revelation of eternal principles and God's will through his prophet. It certainly did not mean that we "don't have the right to question anything."

You are right the "Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet" were not given by the President of the Church at the time.. It was given by Ezra Taft Benson while he was President of the Quorum of the Twelve. When I was LDS the man who held that position was ordained, and sustained by the church as a prophet, seer, and revelator.. If His words are approved by the prophet they are as much the word of God as if the president of the Church had spoken them.. I claim President Benson's teachings here as my authority for showing that a LDS who has sustained the President of the church as God prophet are required to obey him as he would God.. And that when he specks the "thinking has been done".. Benson teaches that these "Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet" are the Key of eternal salvation (https://www.lds.org/liahona/1981/06/fourteen-fundamentals-in-following-the-prophet?lang=eng)..

In no way do these things negate the teachings of Tanner or Elaine Cannon on this subject. Their statements seem to summarize the teaching here expanded by President Benson.. IHS jim

alanmolstad
02-07-2014, 01:01 PM
who has sustained the President of the church as God prophet is required to obey him as he world God.. And that when he specks the "thinking has been done"..


Thats the real thing i see and the real problem I have with every single mormon i have ever worked with or talked to.

How can they look at statements like that from their leadership and not think to themselves "Im in a Cult!"

It SCREAMS Cult!!Cult!! Cult!!!

Statements like this are the very definition of what being in a Cult is like and what its known by.

"The thinking has been done"?
Who in their right mind talks like this to other people?
Who in their right mind would allow other people to talk to them like this?

I cant even imagine what i would do if I ever heard someone tell me to "Stop Thinking"
They would see no more of my shadow on their door that is for sure!

dberrie2000
09-08-2016, 10:52 AM
Thats the real thing i see and the real problem I have with every single mormon i have ever worked with or talked to.

How can they look at statements like that from their leadership and not think to themselves "Im in a Cult!"

It SCREAMS Cult!!Cult!! Cult!!!

Statements like this are the very definition of what being in a Cult is like and what its known by.

So--was Paul preaching a cult?

1 Corinthians 4:16---King James Version (KJV)
16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.

1 Thessalonians 1:6--King James Version (KJV)
6 And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost.

Philippians 1:7---King James Version (KJV)
7 Even as it is meet for me to think this of you all, because I have you in my heart; inasmuch as both in my bonds, and in the defence and confirmation of the gospel, ye all are partakers of my grace.

Romans 2:16---King James Version (KJV)
16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

Berean
01-14-2017, 03:08 PM
So--was Paul preaching a cult?

1 Corinthians 4:16---King James Version (KJV)
16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.

1 Thessalonians 1:6--King James Version (KJV)
6 And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost.

Philippians 1:7---King James Version (KJV)
7 Even as it is meet for me to think this of you all, because I have you in my heart; inasmuch as both in my bonds, and in the defence and confirmation of the gospel, ye all are partakers of my grace.

Romans 2:16---King James Version (KJV)
16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

Nonsense

This is why we don't use the KJV, and why Mormon have no business spewing Bible verses out of context while attempting to tell us what it "really" says.

In the first place, Mormons do not have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and therefore it is impossible for them to discern, much less even understand the Gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone, (which is why they reject it) much less attempt to teach those of us who do have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit what the Gospel is "really" saying.

Let's just say the KJV has some "issues," as do some of the heathen idol worshipers who use it exclusively.

CLICKING THIS LINK (http://biblehub.com/interlinear/romans/2-16.htm) will take you to Strong's Interlinear, where you can see for yourself the Greek rendition of this verse, which clearly demonstrates that Paul is not calling it "his" Gospel. The KJV clearly gets this wrong. Either that, or someone is intentionally altering God's Word to mock Christians and promote lies concerning what the Bible "really" teaches.

The Greek renders: "according to the Gospel of me by Christ Jesus." You only get "you are partakers of "my" Gospel, if you re-arrange the words to suit your agenda to make it say that

This is also the problem with the false rendering of Philippians 1:7, which was also given above.

CLICK HERE (http://biblehub.com/interlinear/philippians/1.htm) for Strong's actual Greek rendering without the Mormon spin, which says:

"even as it is right for me this to feel about all of you so as to have in my heart you in both the chains of me and in the defense and confirmation of the Gospel fellow partakers with me of grace all you are."

Again, "partakers of "my" grace, is clearly an improper translation of Greek to English.

So folks, you have been slimmed.

Berean
01-14-2017, 03:32 PM
So--was Paul preaching a cult?

1 Corinthians 4:16---King James Version (KJV)
16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.

1 Thessalonians 1:6--King James Version (KJV)
6 And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost.

Philippians 1:7---King James Version (KJV)
7 Even as it is meet for me to think this of you all, because I have you in my heart; inasmuch as both in my bonds, and in the defence and confirmation of the gospel, ye all are partakers of my grace.

Romans 2:16---King James Version (KJV)
16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

Upon further review, I just notice that every one of those verses has been butchered.

Let's go back and review the first two as well..

DBerrie insists 1 Cor 4:16 says:

"Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me"

Whereas in Greek, it becomes "exhort therefore you imitators of me become." CLICK HERE FOR PESKY LINKY (http://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_corinthians/4.htm)

Yuge difference.

Now let's examine 1 Thes 1:6.

DBerrie claims it says: (to make the false claim that Paul was a "cult" leader)

"And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost."

Whereas Strong's Greek renders it:

"and you imitators of us become and of the Lord having received the word in tribulation much with the joy of the Spirit Holy" CLICKY THE LINKY HERE ("http://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_thessalonians/1.htm)

Again... that's a YUGE difference.

We've been totally slimmed.

I feel dirty.

dberrie2000
02-06-2017, 02:18 PM
Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post So--was Paul preaching a cult?

1 Corinthians 4:16---King James Version (KJV)
16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.

1 Thessalonians 1:6--King James Version (KJV)
6 And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost.

Philippians 1:7---King James Version (KJV)
7 Even as it is meet for me to think this of you all, because I have you in my heart; inasmuch as both in my bonds, and in the defence and confirmation of the gospel, ye all are partakers of my grace.

Romans 2:16---King James Version (KJV)
16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.


Upon further review, I just notice that every one of those verses has been butchered.

Let's go back and review the first two as well..

DBerrie insists 1 Cor 4:16 says:

"Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me"

Whereas in Greek, it becomes "exhort therefore you imitators of me become." CLICK HERE FOR PESKY LINKY (http://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_corinthians/4.htm)

Yuge difference.

Are you claiming the Bible is butchered? Berean--the Biblical verses I gave are direct quotes from the KJV Bible--as it indicates. If you have a problem with those verses--you might want to take it up with the translators of the Biblical text.