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]

Originally Posted by Christian

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]

Originally Posted by Erundur

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]

Originally Posted by Christian

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]

Originally Posted by Erundur

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?

[Erundur]

Originally Posted by Christian

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]

Originally Posted by Christian

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=Christian;165844]

Originally Posted by Erundur

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 [IMG]http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/images/****ons/viewpost-right.png[/IMG]
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]

Originally Posted by Christian

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

Obviously, 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?

Originally Posted by Christian

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.

Originally Posted by Christian

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]

Originally Posted by Christian

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=theway;165846]

Originally Posted by Christian

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]

Originally Posted by Apologette

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]

Originally Posted by Apologette

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]

Originally Posted by MickeyS

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]

Originally Posted by Christian

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]

Originally Posted by Christian

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 [IMG]http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/images/****ons/viewpost-right.png[/IMG]

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]

Originally Posted by Christian

mickey posted:

Originally Posted by Christian [IMG]http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/images/****ons/viewpost-right.png[/IMG]


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

[MickeyS]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Matthew 7:15-23

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

[Christian]

Originally Posted by theway

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