How is the salt lake mormon group any different?

[Christian]

EACH of the 150+ break-offs from joseph smith's invented religion CLAIMS that God led them to do so
EACH of them has their own 'prophet,' and their own 'apostles.'
EACH of them claims that all the rest of them are NOT parts of joey smith's invented religion.

How are the utah mormons any different?

Why should we believe ANY of them?

[Erundur]

How are the utah mormons any different?
One way the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is different is that it didn't break off from itself.

[Christian]

One way the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is different is that it didn't break off from itself.
The others didn't 'break off from themselves' either. So how is the slc group any different?

[Erundur]

The others didn't 'break off from themselves' either. So how is the slc group any different?
But they broke off from us. We didn't.

[Christian]

But they broke off from us. We didn't.

But you DID break off from emma and joseph smith's religion. So what makes you any 'different?' They have their 'prophets. . .' you have YOUR 'prophets', they have their 'apostles. . .' you have YOUR 'apostles'

So what's makes yours 'special?' Because YOU are a member?:rolleyes:

[Erundur]

But you DID break off from emma and joseph smith's religion.
No, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints did not break off from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

[Christian]

[QUOTE=Erundur;165843]No, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints did not break off from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.[/QUOTE

Oh? You mean you are STILL part of emma and joe smith's religon? Naah, I didn't think so. Your petty little semantic games make you look like you must be about ten years old. . .

[Erundur]

Oh? You mean you are STILL part of emma and joe smith's religon?
Um, yeah. I'm still part of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

[theway]

[QUOTE=Erundur;165843]No, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints did not break off from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.[/QUOTE

Oh? You mean you are STILL part of emma and joe smith's religon? Naah, I didn't think so. Your petty little semantic games make you look like you must be about ten years old. . .

Are you still trying to get this little conspiracy theory of yours off the ground??? Sorry, but that dog won't hunt.

I have shown over and over your folly.
How succession of leadership and authority was to be in the LDS Church was already revealed before Joseph's death.
The Twelve as a quorum were equal in authority to the Presidency; which means, that at the death of President/Prophet, the Leadership went to the Twelve. D&C 107:23-24.

The Twelve chose Brigham Young to replace Joseph..... But just to calm those that might have had a question about it, a vote of those gathered of the LDS Church was taken. They likewise chose Brigham Young.

All other break-off didn't even start up until years later, on their own, unrecognized and without any authority from the Church.

[Christian]

way posted:


Originally Posted by Erundur http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/images/****ons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?p=165843#post165843)
No, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints did not break off from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.[/QUOTE

Oh? You mean you are STILL part of emma and joe smith's religon? Naah, I didn't think so. Your petty little semantic games make you look like you must be about ten years old. . .


[QUOTE=Christian;165844]Are you still trying to get this little conspiracy theory of yours off the ground??? Sorry, but that dog won't hunt.

I have shown over and over your folly.

You have 'shown' nothing. You have made baseless claims


How succession of leadership and authority was to be in the LDS Church was already revealed before Joseph's death.
The Twelve as a quorum were equal in authority to the Presidency; which means, that at the death of President/Prophet, the Leadership went to the Twelve. D&C 107:23-24.

That may be the slc group's party line. It doesn't line up with the others however. . .

The Twelve chose Brigham Young to replace Joseph..... But just to calm those that might have had a question about it, a vote of those gathered of the LDS Church was taken. They likewise chose Brigham Young.

All other break-off didn't even start up until years later, on their own, unrecognized and without any authority from the Church.

Yep, first young's group broke off then the others did also.

It seems 'odd' that the smith group didn't seem to accept young's departure as being from God at all, yet your slc group pretends they did.

[theway]

You have 'shown' nothing. You have made baseless claimsObviously, you have no understanding of what a "baseless claim" means. I gave you the reference, D&C 107:23-24 to support my claim. What support for your little AntiMormon theory have you given us?




That may be the slc group's party line. It doesn't line up with the others however. . .Of course not... Think before you post....
But then what does that matter to you as you do not believe either "Party Line" like I stated before, you do not even have a horse in this race.



Yep, first young's group broke off then the others did also.
It seems 'odd' that the smith group didn't seem to accept young's departure as being from God at all, yet your slc group pretends they did.
Im sorry, you still have yet to tell us what group we supposedly broke off of? What Church was it? Can you give us an address or at least a telephone number?

The only baseless claims being bantered around here, is by you.

[Apologette]

The others didn't 'break off from themselves' either. So how is the slc group any different?

Actually, the Brighamites did break away from the regular Mormons, and went (or should we say fled) West. They left - the regular Mormons, including Smith's wife and children, remained in Nauvoo. The Mormon cult was later reorganized by Smith's eldest son and other Mormons.

[Apologette]

[QUOTE=Christian;165844]Are you still trying to get this little conspiracy theory of yours off the ground??? Sorry, but that dog won't hunt.

I have shown over and over your folly.
How succession of leadership and authority was to be in the LDS Church was already revealed before Joseph's death.
The Twelve as a quorum were equal in authority to the Presidency; which means, that at the death of President/Prophet, the Leadership went to the Twelve. D&C 107:23-24.

The Twelve chose Brigham Young to replace Joseph..... But just to calm those that might have had a question about it, a vote of those gathered of the LDS Church was taken. They likewise chose Brigham Young.

All other break-off didn't even start up until years later, on their own, unrecognized and without any authority from the Church.

Bull, Joey Smith prophesied that his son would lead the cult.........not Young.

[Apologette]

Actually, it's the FLDS which have a pretty good claim to being the continuation of Smith's version of Mormonism. Woodruff changed Mormonism for the sake of money and power.

[theway]

Actually, the Brighamites did break away from the regular Mormons, and went (or should we say fled) West. They left - the regular Mormons, including Smith's wife and children, remained in Nauvoo. The Mormon cult was later reorganized by Smith's eldest son and other Mormons.Im afraid you got your facts all wrong. There was no other Mormon Church left behind. Smith's eldest son did not reorganize the Church as he was just a kid at the time. Someone out of the many groups that arose after Joseph Smith's death did. And even then, that was only after several failed attempts at forming a new Church. When Smith III was finally offered the *** (he was the fourth one to whom it was offered) he refused! He later took the *** but that wasn't until 16 years later after the Church Joseph Smith set up was already established in SLC.
Not to mention that the Reorganized Church no longer exists. According to Joseph Smith, the true Church restored by God in these last days will not be taken again.
LOL....
I guess I was wrong, you might actually have a horse in this race.... although you are "beating a dead horse"

[MickeyS]

Bull, Joey Smith prophesied that his son would lead the cult.........not Young.

No, I'm sorry, you're mistaken. Joseph III says himself that he was never ordained into an office by his father. He said the following in front of circuit court in Kansas City in 1893.

"I did not state that I was ordained by my father: I did not make that statement. I was not ordained by my father as his successor: according to my understanding of the word ordain, I was not. I was blessed by him and designated, well in a sense chosen. …”

What Joseph did when he laid hands upon his son's head was to bestow a blessing. A blessing can be prophetic, but it is not unchanging prophecy. The fulfillment of a blessing is conditioned upon two things:

One, the worthiness and faithfulness of the recipient, and, two, the overriding will and wisdom of God. (And actually, even prophecies themselves can be greatly impacted by free agency and the choices of others.)

[Christian]

No, I'm sorry, you're mistaken. Joseph III says himself that he was never ordained into an office by his father. He said the following in front of circuit court in Kansas City in 1893.

"I did not state that I was ordained by my father: I did not make that statement. I was not ordained by my father as his successor: according to my understanding of the word ordain, I was not. I was blessed by him and designated, well in a sense chosen. …”

What Joseph did when he laid hands upon his son's head was to bestow a blessing. A blessing can be prophetic, but it is not unchanging prophecy. The fulfillment of a blessing is conditioned upon two things:

One, the worthiness and faithfulness of the recipient, and, two, the overriding will and wisdom of God. (And actually, even prophecies themselves can be greatly impacted by free agency and the choices of others.)

So the mormon god is a liar, huh? When someone prophesies and that doesn't come to p***, the man is NOT a prophet of the REAL God (read your BIBLE).

[theway]

So the mormon god is a liar, huh? When someone prophesies and that doesn't come to p***, the man is NOT a prophet of the REAL God (read your BIBLE).

It seems even Joseph Smith III knew the difference between a prophetcy, and ordination, and a blessing.
You appear to be the only one with a comprehension problem.

[MickeyS]

So the mormon god is a liar, huh? When someone prophesies and that doesn't come to p***, the man is NOT a prophet of the REAL God (read your BIBLE).


Nope, it's the same God of the Bible.

Unless you believe Jonah, Elisha, David, Isaiah, Ezekiel & Moses were false prophets. But I don't believe you think that, although each of them had been given prophecies by The Lord that changed and/or did not come to p*** due to actions of men. Prophecies are conditional to free agency and worthiness. And that is in the Bible.

But that doesn't matter here because it wasn't a prophecy, it wasn't an ordination, it was a blessing.

[Christian]

mickey posted:

Originally Posted by Christian http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/images/****ons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?p=165864#post165864)

So the mormon god is a liar, huh? When someone prophesies and that doesn't come to p***, the man is NOT a prophet of the REAL God (read your BIBLE).


Nope, it's the same God of the Bible.

Unless you believe Jonah, Elisha, David, Isaiah, Ezekiel & Moses were false prophets. But I don't believe you think that, although each of them had been given prophecies by The Lord that changed and/or did not come to p*** due to actions of men. Prophecies are conditional to free agency and worthiness. And that is in the Bible.

SHOW US if you think that is in the Bible.

I'll bet you cannot find ONE SINGLE CASE where your claims about those prophets were false.

Of course YOUR 'private inturpurtashin' of them. . .doesn't matter a whit.

GOD told us:

Deut 18:20-22
20 But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.' 21 And if you say in your heart, 'How shall we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?' — 22 when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not happen or come to p***, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.
NKJV

Your 'prophet' joseph smith DIED trying to shoot his way out of jail. . .MANY of his so-called 'prophesies' ended up proved false. . .unless you for instance still own the Temple Lot. . .which you don't.



But that doesn't matter here because it wasn't a prophecy, it wasn't an ordination, it was a blessing.

So you are admitting that God was not speaking to Joseph Smith in the process?

It figures.

[MickeyS]

mickey posted:

Originally Posted by Christian http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/images/****ons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?p=165864#post165864)


Nope, it's the same God of the Bible.

Unless you believe Jonah, Elisha, David, Isaiah, Ezekiel & Moses were false prophets. But I don't believe you think that, although each of them had been given prophecies by The Lord that changed and/or did not come to p*** due to actions of men. Prophecies are conditional to free agency and worthiness. And that is in the Bible.

SHOW US if you think that is in the Bible.

I'll bet you cannot find ONE SINGLE CASE where your claims about those prophets were false.

Of course YOUR 'private inturpurtashin' of them. . .doesn't matter a whit.

GOD told us:

Deut 18:20-22
20 But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.' 21 And if you say in your heart, 'How shall we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?' — 22 when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not happen or come to p***, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.
NKJV

Your 'prophet' joseph smith DIED trying to shoot his way out of jail. . .MANY of his so-called 'prophesies' ended up proved false. . .unless you for instance still own the Temple Lot. . .which you don't.

First of all, the verses you cited do not say a man is a false prophet if the prophecies do not come true, only that the prophecy itself is false. It actually makes it very clear that it is about an actual prophet, not a false prophet. Since you are a big fan of not adding to scripture what isn't there...so you really should hold to your own standard.

These are the two things those p***ages establish about what PROPHECY is:
1-It must be uttered in the name of the Lord. This means that an off-the-wall comment by a prophet cannot be taken as a prophecy, pretended or otherwise, unless he declares that he is delivering the word of the Lord.
2-The prophecy must fail. But no timeframe is established for the fulfillment of a prophecy.

Also....there are several instances in the Bible of prophecy (actual prophecy) not coming to p*** or changing. Because, men's actions and definitely the will of God affects any prophecy.

David
The Lord told David that the men of Keilah “will deliver thee up [to Saul]” (1 Samuel 23:12).

This did not happen. Reason - the actions of David, he fled from the city (verses 13-14).

Isaiah
Isaiah told king Hezekiah, “Thus saith the Lord, Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die, and not live.” (2 Kings 20:1) But after the king pleaded with the Lord, the prophet delivered a new message, saying that fifteen years would be added to his life (verses 2-6).

Prophecy changed- are you saying God is a liar, or just confused? Or could it have been the actions of men that influenced that outcome?

Don't like that one? Another from Isaiah
In his prophesy against Babylon (Isaiah 13:1), declared that the Medes would slay men, women and children and that Babylon would “be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation” (Isaiah 13:17-20). In 539 B.C., Cyrus, king of the Medes and Persians, took Babylon without bloodshed, and made it one of the principal cities of his empire. Babylon remained inhabited for centuries afterward.

Was God lying to Isaiah?

Moses
The Lord told Moses that he would destroy the Israelites and make of Moses a greater nation than they. When Moses protested that this would be wrong, the Lord changed his mind (Numbers 14:11-20).

Ooops...The Lord changed His mind...again...since He's not a liar or confused...perhaps the actions of Moses affected this prophecy?

Elisha
The Lord said through Elisha that the combined armies of Israel, Judah and Edom would “smite every fenced city” of Moab and that he would “deliver the Moabites also into your hand.” But one city, Kir-hareseth, was not taken.

Was The Lord mistaken? No. When Mesha, the Moabite king, sacrificed his son on the city wall, the Israelites left and went home. The prophecy was not fulfilled because the Israelites would not cooperate with the Lord’s wishes.

Ezekiel
Through Ezekiel, the Lord declared that the Lebanese city of Tyre would be destroyed by the Babylonian king Nebuchadrezzar, never to be rebuilt (Ezekiel 26, especially verses 4, 7, 12, 14). Though Nebuchadrezzar laid siege against Tyre from 598 to 586 B.C., he was never able to take the city. The Lord then told Ezekiel that, in compensation for his not taking Tyre, Nebuchadrezzar would be given the land of Egypt, (Ezekiel 29:17-10). Its people would be slain and its rivers dry up (Ezekiel 30:10-12; 32:11-15) and the land of Egypt would remain uninhabited for forty years (Ezekiel 29:11-13). But though Nebuchadrezzar defeated an Egyptian army in battle, he never conquered Egypt either.

Woooow....that was pretty big...Ezekiel must be a false prophet...not

I'm not making light. I know you have to know how prophecy works if you know the Bible, unless you can explain your interpretation of what happened with these prophets, because it's pretty straight forward. You don't believe Joseph Smith because you don't like him and YOU don't believe him. But you really can't say THE BIBLE says he's a false prophet, because it doesn't. Not once.

Prophecy also works in it's own timeframe, since you brought up the Temple Lot example...I ***ume you're referring to the fact that Joseph said "within this generation" am I right? Let's see, it looks like Jesus Himself had this to say about prophecies that are still yet to p***, as in Matthew 24 He states “this generation shall not p***” until these words were fulfilled verse 34. That was told two thousand YEARS ago...still not all fulfilled, so to say something is false prophecy because it simply hasn't YET been fulfilled...Sorry...doesn't work. There are numerous examples of unfulfilled prophecy simply because it hasn't YET come to p***. Again, you can believe (or not believe) anything you like, but the Bible doesn't support your claims of who is or isn't a false prophet because to say Joseph is a false prophet because what he said didn't come to p*** "in this generation" you have just said Jesus is also a false prophet.


But that doesn't matter here because it wasn't a prophecy, it wasn't an ordination, it was a blessing.

So you are admitting that God was not speaking to Joseph Smith in the process?

It figures.

Nobody but you and the original poster of the comment I replied to ever said THIS was EVER prophecy. Joseph Smith III himself never even claimed this to be prophecy, or ordination. This is ALL you.

[alanmolstad]

Matthew 7:15-23



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGiVWDCxulM

[MickeyS]

Matthew 7:15-23



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGiVWDCxulM

Oh ok...lol....not even "Dr" Marty can determine who is and isn't Gods prophets. That's still up to God.

[Christian]

Im afraid you got your facts all wrong. There was no other Mormon Church left behind. Smith's eldest son did not reorganize the Church as he was just a kid at the time. Someone out of the many groups that arose after Joseph Smith's death did. And even then, that was only after several failed attempts at forming a new Church. When Smith III was finally offered the *** (he was the fourth one to whom it was offered) he refused! He later took the *** but that wasn't until 16 years later after the Church Joseph Smith set up was already established in SLC.
Not to mention that the Reorganized Church no longer exists. According to Joseph Smith, the true Church restored by God in these last days will not be taken again.
LOL....
I guess I was wrong, you might actually have a horse in this race.... although you are "beating a dead horse"

Let's see now. . .joe smith supposedly 'restored' Christ's church which had fallen away, then bringum young supposedly 'restored' smith's new religion.

So you must believe in a 'restored' 'restored' church, if young had to save it by fleeing west. . .

And the OTHER 150 or so 'lds' churches that are in the same boat? How is YOURS any different from theirs?

[Christian]

Sorry, but if your 'reference' is to a false document from a heretical religion, your 'reference' has no value as a real reference.

Please don't tell me the rlds church doesn't exist any more. I have visited a congregation of them a couple of towns over on business. Their address? Look at their website for it. . .http://reorganizedchurch.org/index.html

[theway]

Sorry, but if your 'reference' is to a false document from a heretical religion, your 'reference' has no value as a real reference.

Please don't tell me the rlds church doesn't exist any more. I have visited a congregation of them a couple of towns over on business. Their address? Look at their website for it. . .http://reorganizedchurch.org/index.html
LOL.... No what you have here is a Reorganized Church of a Reorganized Church of a Restoration Church of the Church Christ set up.... In other words, you have a splinter group of the Community of Christ Church (formally known as the RLDS Church). Hint: there is a reason they are calling themselves the "Reorganized Church" and not the "Reorganized Latter-Day Saint Church" (RLDS)
Had you of actually read your link they admit to it...


"By 1989, the church was fragmenting with the formation of several hundred Restoration Branches and the creation of a few Restoration Churches...

.....2005 is also the date of the first conference of Restoration Branches, convening four months later, after a year of planning. Because the acts of the World Conference disordered the church and placed the only lawful organization of the church in faithful branches, the Conference of Branches became the highest level of church government. Its beginnings were modest, but in April 2007, it declared itself a lawful successor and continuation of the RLDS Church and chose to abide the laws of the church as extant on January 1, 1958."

[Christian]

LOL.... No what you have here is a Reorganized Church of a Reorganized Church of a Restoration Church of the Church Christ set up.... In other words, you have a splinter group of the Community of Christ Church (formally known as the RLDS Church). Hint: there is a reason they are calling themselves the "Reorganized Church" and not the "Reorganized Latter-Day Saint Church" (RLDS)
Had you of actually read your link they admit to it...


"By 1989, the church was fragmenting with the formation of several hundred Restoration Branches and the creation of a few Restoration Churches...

.....2005 is also the date of the first conference of Restoration Branches, convening four months later, after a year of planning. Because the acts of the World Conference disordered the church and placed the only lawful organization of the church in faithful branches, the Conference of Branches became the highest level of church government. Its beginnings were modest, but in April 2007, it declared itself a lawful successor and continuation of the RLDS Church and chose to abide the laws of the church as extant on January 1, 1958."

So now you are claiming that this 'non-existant church' has been renamed the Community of Christ Church and the RLDS is a 'splinter group.'

Either way, ONE of them is the church joseph smith invented, and the slc mormons are splinters (albiet major splinters. . .'great apostasies?')

And THAT leaves the utah lds in the exact SAME BOAT as the rest of the 150+ 'lds' religions.

[theway]

So now you are claiming that this 'non-existant church' has been renamed the Community of Christ Church and the RLDS is a 'splinter group.'

Either way, ONE of them is the church joseph smith invented, and the slc mormons are splinters (albiet major splinters. . .'great apostasies?')

And THAT leaves the utah lds in the exact SAME BOAT as the rest of the 150+ 'lds' religions.
No... And I don't know why you have such a bad comprehension problem.
All you had to do is read your own link to understand why your previous statement was false.
The RLDS was the third Church that came about after two failed attempts by Apostates at starting another Restoration Church. Not only that, but there was no connection to The Priesthood of Jesus Christ as there was about a 17 year span IIRC between the time Joseph Smith died and the RLDS was finally formed.
Today THERE IS NO LONGER A RLDS CHURCH... as you link points out, that church fragmented into hundreds of smaller Churches. The largest one became the Community of Christ. A few of the smaller one joined together in 2005 and called themselves "The Reorganized Church"
In other words, the Church you mentioned has only been around for about ten years, and is an offshoot of a Church that failed and doesn't exist anymore.
And no the COJCOLDS is not in the same boat, as the Church is still around and the Priesthood was never lost. The COJCOLDS followed secession as set down by revelation to Joseph Smith.
No other restoration Church can claim that.

[Christian]

No... And I don't know why you have such a bad comprehension problem.
All you had to do is read your own link to understand why your previous statement was false.
The RLDS was the third Church that came about after two failed attempts by Apostates at starting another Restoration Church. Not only that, but there was no connection to The Priesthood of Jesus Christ as there was about a 17 year span IIRC between the time Joseph Smith died and the RLDS was finally formed.
Today THERE IS NO LONGER A RLDS CHURCH... as you link points out, that church fragmented into hundreds of smaller Churches. The largest one became the Community of Christ. A few of the smaller one joined together in 2005 and called themselves "The Reorganized Church"
In other words, the Church you mentioned has only been around for about ten years, and is an offshoot of a Church that failed and doesn't exist anymore.
And no the COJCOLDS is not in the same boat, as the Church is still around and the Priesthood was never lost. The COJCOLDS followed secession as set down by revelation to Joseph Smith.
No other restoration Church can claim that.

So let's see if I understand your position correctly. . .joseph smith's group shattered into pieces, young's group went west and claims to be 'the right one,'' and all of the other pieces were 'the wrong ones?' So the question remains (since each of THOSE groups thought they were the 'right ones,' HOW IS THE SALT LAKE GROUP ANY DIFFERENT FROM THE OTHER FRAGMENTS of smith's religion?

Just because 'you say so' doesn't cut it. Each of THEM 'has reasons why yours is false and theirs is true.' So what is the difference, and why should anyone believe you?

[theway]

So let's see if I understand your position correctly. . .joseph smith's group shattered into pieces, young's group went west and claims to be 'the right one,'' and all of the other pieces were 'the wrong ones?' So the question remains (since each of THOSE groups thought they were the 'right ones,' HOW IS THE SALT LAKE GROUP ANY DIFFERENT FROM THE OTHER FRAGMENTS of smith's religion?

Just because 'you say so' doesn't cut it. Each of THEM 'has reasons why yours is false and theirs is true.' So what is the difference, and why should anyone believe you?

Well of course each has reasons.... But at the same time all the splinter groups defeat their own reasons by claiming to be the One True Church that Joseph restored.

If they claim to be the Church of Christ as restored by Joseph Smith, then they also believe in the revelations given to Joseph Smith by God and recorded in the D&C 107.
That being the case, then they are aware how succession is to be implemented in the true Church.

THERE IS ONLY ONE CHURCH WHICH HAS FOLLOWED THE SUCCESSION PROCESS, and that one Church is, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
All others are apostate.

But you already know this, you just don't want to lose you little AntiMormon talking point that you invented.
So you pretend you don't understand what I am saying.

[Christian]

Well of course each has reasons.... But at the same time all the splinter groups defeat their own reasons by claiming to be the One True Church that Joseph restored.

If they claim to be the Church of Christ as restored by Joseph Smith, then they also believe in the revelations given to Joseph Smith by God and recorded in the D&C 107.
That being the case, then they are aware how succession is to be implemented in the true Church.

THERE IS ONLY ONE CHURCH WHICH HAS FOLLOWED THE SUCCESSION PROCESS, and that one Church is, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
All others are apostate.

But you already know this, you just don't want to lose you little AntiMormon talking point that you invented.
So you pretend you don't understand what I am saying.

Of course they also say that bringum young added 'revelations' that joe smith never had, so your d&c 107 is worthless in your argument.

Yes, each of THEM has excuses just as the utah group do as to why THEY and ONLY THEY are the 'right one,' the one who followed their 'succession process.'

So how is the utah group any different?

Understanding you and agreeing with you are two different things. I DO understand you, and DO DISagree with what you are saying, of course.

But you must hold tight to your excuses. . .

[theway]

Of course they also say that bringum young added 'revelations' that joe smith never had, so your d&c 107 is worthless in your argument.

Yes, each of THEM has excuses just as the utah group do as to why THEY and ONLY THEY are the 'right one,' the one who followed their 'succession process.'

So how is the utah group any different?

Understanding you and agreeing with you are two different things. I DO understand you, and DO DISagree with what you are saying, of course.

But you must hold tight to your excuses. . .
Nope sorry.... In your desperate attempt to save your little pet AntiMormon project, you just keep looking sillier and sadder.
The revelation in section 107 was around BEFORE Joseph Smith died, as Joseph Smith himself alluded to it several times. It was not an invention of Brigham Young.
After hours long arguments by all those who wanted to take over the Church at the death of Joseph Smith, all Brigham Young did was remind them of the revelation that already existed as to how to elect the next President of the Church.

Not only are you beating a dead horse, but your horse doesn't even have a leg to stand on.

[Christian]

some way posted:


Originally Posted by Christian http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/images/****ons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?p=165969#post165969)
Of course they also say that bringum young added 'revelations' that joe smith never had, so your d&c 107 is worthless in your argument.

Yes, each of THEM has excuses just as the utah group do as to why THEY and ONLY THEY are the 'right one,' the one who followed their 'succession process.'

So how is the utah group any different?

Understanding you and agreeing with you are two different things. I DO understand you, and DO DISagree with what you are saying, of course.

But you must hold tight to your excuses. . .


Nope sorry.... In your desperate attempt to save your little pet AntiMormon project, you just keep looking sillier and sadder.

Your pathetic ad hominem (personal attack) is noted. You sound pretty desperate. . .

The revelation in section 107 was around BEFORE Joseph Smith died, as Joseph Smith himself alluded to it several times. It was not an invention of Brigham Young.

At least that is what the utah mormons tell you. . .and they of course have a vested interest in making it look that way.

After hours long arguments by all those who wanted to take over the Church at the death of Joseph Smith, all Brigham Young did was remind them of the revelation that already existed as to how to elect the next President of the Church.

Not only are you beating a dead horse, but your horse doesn't even have a leg to stand on.

More pathetic ad hominem. It figures. It seems to be all you have. . .utah fabrications and excuses. Nothing to demonstrate any real difference between your group and the rest of the mormon groups.

And yes, the mormon religion IS a 'dead horse.'

[MickeyS]

some way posted:



Nope sorry.... In your desperate attempt to save your little pet AntiMormon project, you just keep looking sillier and sadder.

Your pathetic ad hominem (personal attack) is noted. You sound pretty desperate. . .

The revelation in section 107 was around BEFORE Joseph Smith died, as Joseph Smith himself alluded to it several times. It was not an invention of Brigham Young.

At least that is what the utah mormons tell you. . .and they of course have a vested interest in making it look that way.

After hours long arguments by all those who wanted to take over the Church at the death of Joseph Smith, all Brigham Young did was remind them of the revelation that already existed as to how to elect the next President of the Church.

Not only are you beating a dead horse, but your horse doesn't even have a leg to stand on.

More pathetic ad hominem. It figures. It seems to be all you have. . .utah fabrications and excuses. Nothing to demonstrate any real difference between your group and the rest of the mormon groups.

And yes, the mormon religion IS a 'dead horse.'

Lol...oh wow...bless your heart....that's all I can say ;)

[theway]

some way posted:



Nope sorry.... In your desperate attempt to save your little pet AntiMormon project, you just keep looking sillier and sadder.

Your pathetic ad hominem (personal attack) is noted. You sound pretty desperate. . .

The revelation in section 107 was around BEFORE Joseph Smith died, as Joseph Smith himself alluded to it several times. It was not an invention of Brigham Young.

At least that is what the utah mormons tell you. . .and they of course have a vested interest in making it look that way.

After hours long arguments by all those who wanted to take over the Church at the death of Joseph Smith, all Brigham Young did was remind them of the revelation that already existed as to how to elect the next President of the Church.

Not only are you beating a dead horse, but your horse doesn't even have a leg to stand on.

More pathetic ad hominem. It figures. It seems to be all you have. . .utah fabrications and excuses. Nothing to demonstrate any real difference between your group and the rest of the mormon groups.

And yes, the mormon religion IS a 'dead horse.'LOL.... I'm so glad you are against us and not for us...

Keep up "your" good work.

[Christian]

LOL.... I'm so glad you are against us and not for us...

Keep up "your" good work.

I will continue to speak out against all cults, false prophets, and false doctrines. I am FOR Jesus Christ and against those things. So I will continue to be against the 150+ mormon cults and continue to uphold JESUS CHRIST and HIS church.

[theway]

I will continue to speak out against all cults, false prophets, and false doctrines. I am FOR Jesus Christ and against those things. So I will continue to be against the 150+ mormon cults and continue to uphold JESUS CHRIST and HIS church.


Well then, if you really feel the need to continue your crusade, then perhaps you'd better get your facts straight.

First, there are only about 100 sects which claim to be a part of the Mormon church in any way; not 150.

Second, out of those, only about 5 claim that they have a direct succession to Joseph Smith.... And out of those 5, only 3 exist today, (including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in Utah). The other two Churches only have about 2,100 members combined, and are currently quickly going defunct.

Third, all the other sects are breaks-offs of one of those first 5 churches. Including the two largest...
The FLDS which are a apostate sect of the Utah church; and the Community of Christ which is a remenent if the defunct RLDS, which in turn is merely a break-off of several apostate break-offs of the Church Joseph Smith restored.(FYI, The "Restored Church" you linked to in this thread is merely a break-off of the defunct RLDS Church)

So I would center your argument around which of the 3 Churches claiming succession from the Church Joseph restored is the true one.
Seeing as you don't want to believe my proof that the LDS Church in Utah is the only legitimate Church, then you need only wait a few more years while the other two go defunct also.... And then there will be only one.

[Christian]

way posted:

Well then, if you really feel the need to continue your crusade, then perhaps you'd better get your facts straight.

First, there are only about 100 sects which claim to be a part of the Mormon church in any way; not 150.

Would you like me to repost the list that I posted before so you may count them?

Second, out of those, only about 5 claim that they have a direct succession to Joseph Smith.... And out of those 5, only 3 exist today, (including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in Utah). The other two Churches only have about 2,100 members combined, and are currently quickly going defunct.

Joe smith thought CHRIST'S church had gone defunct, didn't he?

Of course JESUS told us:

Matt 7:13-14
13 "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.
NKJV

So I am not impressed by your mormon group's large numbers. There are more muslims than mormons, btw, as well as MANY MORE catholics than mormons. So your numbers are NOT IMPRESSIVE AT ALL.


Third, all the other sects are breaks-offs of one of those first 5 churches. Including the two largest...
The FLDS which are a apostate sect of the Utah church; and the Community of Christ which is a remenent if the defunct RLDS, which in turn is merely a break-off of several apostate break-offs of the Church Joseph Smith restored.(FYI, The "Restored Church" you linked to in this thread is merely a break-off of the defunct RLDS Church)

So I would center your argument around which of the 3 Churches claiming succession from the Church Joseph restored is the true one.
Seeing as you don't want to believe my proof that the LDS Church in Utah is the only legitimate Church, then you need only wait a few more years while the other two go defunct also.... And then there will be only one.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh GOODNESS. You think God's church would fail. . .again!
Joe smith's theory that Jesus would build a church that would lose its authority or lose any of its scripture, or lose anything else has been debunked so many times. . .it's pathetic.