Hidden truths behind Mormonism and the Church of the Latter Day

[Avatar4321]

The Mormon church does not even have a prophet like unto Moses because Moses was near perfect and got mostly everything else right.

I don't think Moses was near perfect. But the doctrine he taught was. God had to correct him frequently. That's precisely why He revealed more to Him.

Are we supposed to believe that men like Moses or the Twelve were near perfect and yet needed to recieve revelation from the Lord frequently to guide them, and that we, being far worse have absolutely no need to recieve revelation? That the Heavens are silent now despite the scriptures being clear that the Lord reveals His will through His servants the Prophets.

What's more reasonable, that an unchanging God has stopped communicting with man and told us to rely on our intepretation of what He has told others, or that man in his wickedness ignores modern revelations like the Pharisees did?

I think Olivery Cowdery was far more articulate on this principle than I can be:

After writing the account given of the Savior’s ministry to the remnant of the seed of Jacob, upon this continent, it was easy to be seen, as the prophet said it would be, that darkness covered the earth and gross darkness the minds of the people. On reflecting further it was as easy to be seen that amid the great strife and noise concerning religion, none had authority from God to administer the ordinances of the Gospel. For the question might be asked, have men authority to administer in the name of Christ, who deny revelations, when His testimony is no less than the spirit of prophecy, and His religion based, built, and sustained by immediate revelations, in all ages of the world when He has had a people on earth? If these facts were buried, and carefully concealed by men whose craft would have been in danger if once permitted to shine in the faces of men, they were no longer to us; and we only waited for the commandment to be given ‘Arise and be baptized.’ (Joseph Smith History 1)

Tell me, how does one claim to follow the Lord and deny that He speaks? And if He speaks then those words are scripture. This is the major flaw with the theology of the Bible alone. To deny that God can speak anything else is reckless and foolish to me.

 

[editec]

I notice that people who escape the clutches of the LDS tend to spend a lot of effort warning people about how evil their former religon is.

Much more so that other people escaping other religions.

 

[Chuckt]

I notice that people who escape the clutches of the LDS tend to spend a lot of effort warning people about how evil their former religon is.

Much more so that other people escaping other religions.

Thanks to the internet, I am brought closer to people from all over the world whom I wouldn't talk to and that includes people of different faiths that don't live near me.

People speak to their level of expertise.

 

[longknife]

Before I unsubscribe from this thread, just thought I'd echo a comment from another poster - WHICH Bible do you believe in?

We all know that King James ordered a bunch of scholars to rewrite the Vulgate Bible so it would be in a lyrical style the masses could accept.

The Vulgate bible used by the Catholic church, does not include all of the gospels and other writings on the apostles and others alive at the time of Jesus - they are gathering dust somewhere deep in the Vatican archives.

The Jewish Torah also lacks a great number of documents dealing with Old Testament matters.

 

[Avatar4321]

I notice that people who escape the clutches of the LDS tend to spend a lot of effort warning people about how evil their former religon is.

Much more so that other people escaping other religions.

Teaching people to love one another and serve your fellow man, to be honest and upright is totally evil to some people nowadays. Go figure.

 

[Chuckt]

Before I unsubscribe from this thread, just thought I'd echo a comment from another poster - WHICH Bible do you believe in?

We all know that King James ordered a bunch of scholars to rewrite the Vulgate Bible so it would be in a lyrical style the masses could accept.

The Vulgate bible used by the Catholic church, does not include all of the gospels and other writings on the apostles and others alive at the time of Jesus - they are gathering dust somewhere deep in the Vatican archives.

The Jewish Torah also lacks a great number of documents dealing with Old Testament matters.

HOW TO CHOOSE A STUDY BIBLE
by John R. Kohlenberger III

http://www.equip.org/PDF/DB135.pdf


I actually consult all of them on Biblehub or some of them from my bookshelves. I know about Biblegateway but it isn't my favorite because I use Blueletterbible online a lot.

I use a lesser known New Testament from Dr. Kenneth Wuest who was Professor Emeritus of Greek and a NASB translator.

I try to get as many translations as possible and I helped write a review of one translation that was edited and published by an online ministry so I basically gave away my work for free.

I have a Strong's Concordance for different translations and I also have Young's Concordance.

I have the ten volume Greek dictionary called "Kittle's Theological Dictionary of The New Testament" but you have to know a little Greek or spend forever matching up the words.

I have different dictionaries and lexicons by different people. I have "The Basics of Biblical Greek" by William Mounce and I also have "Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words" and I didn't stop there but I have Vine's commentaries on the Bible where he translates the words.

What you need is a literal Bible which means you need to get as close to a word for word translation as possible. The opposite is the New Testament by Kenneth Weust which uses as many words as possible to get the original meaning in Greek so it is a little bit wordy.

I know people who live off of the Living Translation and the author says in the preface that it isn't recommended for Bible study. He translated it for his kids and you have a whole generation of adults growing up on it and now people are using "The Message" which isn't a translation because there are unjustified words in there and there is only one person on the translation team except for maybe his editor or secretary.

I have the Key Word Study Bible by Spiros Zohodiates. His native tongue was Greek.

I also have the Old Testament Theological Workbook. I also have "The Interlinear Hebrew/Greek-English Bible, 4 Volumes" by J. P. Green. I have Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon.

It isn't what I have or what I know. It is people who don't want to listen and couldn't care if I went to a Bible Institute or not. I actually have more Christian reference books than my wife who graduated from a Biblical University and I have some of her books too so I have over 70 feet of Biblical reference books and commentaries by different pastors and I've actually gotten to know some of my commentaries very well.

My time is equally important. I have Bible study going on in the car during drive time on my way to work and on the way back. I use to study 20 hours or more a week and can name two dozen different pastors I listen or have listened to.

 

[froggy]

Joseph Smith a prophet what a joke.lol

1) He never actually joined the Methodist Church. though he openly said he had been drawn towards Methodists at the time. Considering the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints wasn't organized yet, I see nothing wrong with going to a class at another Church. In fact, I still don't see a problem studying the scriptures with people of another Church.

2) Are you suggesting the Bible is true when it's translated incorrectly? Is the Jehovah's witness Bible true despite it being radically different? Of course it's only true insofar as it's translated correctly. Seems rather self evident to me. How could believing the Bible when it's correctly translated take it's Christianity away?

According to Methodist records, Joseph Smith became a member.

I, with Joshua McKune, a local preacher at that time, I think in June, 1828, heard on Saturday, that Joe Smith had joined the church on Wednesday afternoon, (as it was customary in those days to have circuit preaching at my father's house on week-day). We thought it was a disgrace to the church to have a practicing necromancer, a dealer in enchantments and bleeding ghosts, in it. So on Sunday we went to father's, the place of meeting that day, and got there in season to see Smith and talked with him some time in father's shop before the meeting. Told him that his occupation, habits, and moral character were at variance with the discipline, that his name would be a disgrace to the church, that there should have been recantation, confession and at least promised reformation-. That he could that day publicly ask that his name be stricken from the class book, or stand an investigation. He chose the former, and did that very day make the request that his name be taken off the class book. (The Amboy Journal, June 11, 1879, p.1).
Like so many of the early Methodist records, the early class books of the Harmony (now Lanesboro) Church are lost, so we will never know for certain whether Joseph Smith remained a member for only three days or six months. However, there was never any dispute that he had become a member, and by this one act he undercut the story he later put forth that God in a special vision had instructed him specifically not to join the Methodist Church.

-Ibid.

Joseph Smith was basically singled out.

Joseph Smith's First Vision/Joseph Smith joined other churches - FairMormon

Feel free to read it. again addressed decades ago.

So unless you want to believe you can become a member of a methodist church for 3 days, when you refuse to comply with their requirements, I don't think you have much of a case.

Personally, Im weary of accounts 50 years after the events when contemperary documents show otherwise.

But let's hypothetically say Joseph did try to join. So what? Does that indicate he is not a prophet?

The Apostle Peter literally denied Christ three times. Did that invalidate His call to the ministry or did it ultimately lead him to fulfill his call with that much more zeal?

People make mistakes. We should all be aware that God commands us to do things we fail to do. That doesn't mean we have forfeited the call He has given us.

I would also note that it's indisputeable that this was the period after he started translating the Book of Mormon. It's also indisputeable that many of the early converts to the Church came from members introducing themselves to already existing churches. If there was an association, it seems just as likely it was an attempt to prepare people for what was coming.

But ultimately, this doesn't matter. What matters is the Book of Mormon what it claims to be? And the only way to find that out is to ask God as the Book of Mormon instructs.

 

[Chuckt]

Joseph Smith a prophet what a joke.lol

According to Methodist records, Joseph Smith became a member.



-Ibid.

Joseph Smith was basically singled out.

Joseph Smith's First Vision/Joseph Smith joined other churches - FairMormon

Feel free to read it. again addressed decades ago.

So unless you want to believe you can become a member of a methodist church for 3 days, when you refuse to comply with their requirements, I don't think you have much of a case.

Personally, Im weary of accounts 50 years after the events when contemperary documents show otherwise.

But let's hypothetically say Joseph did try to join. So what? Does that indicate he is not a prophet?

The Apostle Peter literally denied Christ three times. Did that invalidate His call to the ministry or did it ultimately lead him to fulfill his call with that much more zeal?

People make mistakes. We should all be aware that God commands us to do things we fail to do. That doesn't mean we have forfeited the call He has given us.

I would also note that it's indisputeable that this was the period after he started translating the Book of Mormon. It's also indisputeable that many of the early converts to the Church came from members introducing themselves to already existing churches. If there was an association, it seems just as likely it was an attempt to prepare people for what was coming.

But ultimately, this doesn't matter. What matters is the Book of Mormon what it claims to be? And the only way to find that out is to ask God as the Book of Mormon instructs.

And this link has answers to unfairmormon:

50 Answers to 50 Mormon Answers to 50 Anti-Mormon Questions (answer 16) | Defending. Contending.

 

[DGS49]

LDS is a fascinating subject for those who are interested in religions and the history of religions. It is fascinating because both the BoM and Joseph Smith himself are so easily discredited - it's like shooting fish in a barrel - and yet the Institution has so much inertia and there are so many people with a huge vested interest in its legitimacy that they will go to ridiculous lengths to defend and support that which is so obviously false, fraudulent, or fabricated (by Mr. Smith).

I have studied LDS and Smith for years, and I've drawn my unavoidable conclusions despite the fact that I admire the Institution tremendously. LDS spawns people who are good citizens and all-around good people. From the standpoint of an outsider, I couldn't care less what they believe because they obey the law, pay their taxes, join the military services, form businesses, work hard, and are generally a huge asset to the overall society and country.

I will admit, however, that I am weary of reading the apologetics of Mormons, where they go to preposterous lengths to explain away - just one example - the provably-false tales in the BoM about the migrations of Hebrew tribes to the New World. I mean, Jesus Fucking Christ, we have GENETICS today - DNA testing, by which we can PROVE without any doubt that the native Americans have NO SEMITIC blood. The BoM is BULLSHIT! Deal with it!

And LDS has not "evolved" over the years. It has been forced to correct errors in the BoM, and renounce fundamental teachings (e.g., concerning Negros and plural marriage) because they were either untenable or embarrassing in the overall society.

This is fundamentally different from Judeo-Christian institutions which - if they are legitimate - are constantly striving to develop the BEST POSSIBLE translations of the historical books, and are not afraid to re-publish texts that contradict formerly-accepted historical details (for example Joseph's "coat of many colors" which is now a long cloak with sleeves). They are not changing things to suit contemporary sensibilities, they are striving for the best understanding of the facts.

Mormons were hated originally by the overall society because when Christian examined what Joe Smith was teaching, and the Book of Mormon, they rightly concluded that LDS was totally incompatible with Christianity - it DENIES ALMOST EVERY MAJOR CHRISTIAN BELIEF! LDS is, in fact polytheistic, and you can't get any more fundamental than that. It believes that Adam and Jesus Christ are the same person. It believes that the ultimate reward for a good life is THAT YOU WILL BECOME A GOD! Not a saint, a GOD. Polygamy was the most conspicuous and obvious difference between the original Mormons and Christians, but it was nothing compared to the theological differences, which are Grand Canyon magnitude.

But today's Mormons are breathlessly trying to spread the fiction that LDS is just another version of Christianity. They actually increased the size of the words, "Jesus Christ" in the official church logo! But aside from basically teaching the same "Golden Rule," there is no compatibility whatsoever between LDS and Christianity. The "salvation" that Jesus Christ taught is totally different from the "exaltation" that Mormons seek. Joseph Smith himself taught that all existing religions (other than LDS) were "an abomination in God's sight."

Not very ambiguous, is it?

There is no law that prevents Mormons from claiming to be a "Christian" religion. But is a complete delusion and a fraud.