any former mormons out there?

[Allweather]

I am debating with you at the moment, not with Mr Abanes and his worthless book. If you have truly studied original LDS literature, and have criticisms to make or questions to ask about it, bring it here and we will discuss them; but I am not in the business of trying to refute every anti-Mormon literature published by a bunch of evil and corrupt men on the Internet and in bookstores. That runs into millions of pages; and I am not interested in them.

zerinus

Interesting wiggle. I can understand your reluctance to face facts, as they must be uncomfortable things for you. I don’t pretend to do original research. I just was wondering how you TBMs cope with research already done by others, and that’s why I pointed out that it isn’t mine. Apparently you are familiar with the source I gave, as you are able to pronounce it “worthless.” I wonder if you’d mind giving us a thumbnail sketch of your reasoning behind that pronouncement. If the Abanes book is truly “worthless” then I will throw it away and admit that here. Forgive my doubt of you, but I don’t agree that it is “worthless.” It is chock full of supporting documentation. If it is well-documented and without significant factual error, then you must object to it because it illustrates the kamikaze nature of your religion, which requires a certain averting of the eyes from facts and figures.

And BTW I am not asking you to “refute every anti-Mormon literature published by a bunch of evil and corrupt men on the Internet and in bookstores.” Just the Abanes book. Let’s keep it simple for now. I’ve got other books on the burner that we can discuss later, if you’d like. But for now, just the one book, and not even the whole book, but just the section on failed Joseph Smith prophesies. You say JS never issued a false prophesy. Why don’t you just take this as an opportunity to refute a book that works to make the ranks of tithing Mormons smaller? I mean, pretty much all the rest of your efforts here are having the EXACT opposite effect that you desire. Maybe you could get some traction out of a reasoned and persuasive refutation of this book. Think of it as an opportunity to make up lost ground.

 

[Karin]

has anybody noticed that after we posted our “lovely” pictures of the charts showing what EP (for you Z…Eternal Progression) was the great zerinus disappered …what are the odds that he never returns to answer the rest of our questions?

 

[christianley]

That’s a nice graphic of the Three Levels of Heaven, and how Mormons believe we get there, but it leaves off the Eternal Progression part.

Compare it to this graphic. Eternal Progression is granted to those who have sealed marriages and achieve Godhood in the Celestial Kingdom.

EP is inconsistent with the biblical Jesus, and inconsistent with the Mormon scriptures as quoted by Zerinus.

But yes, EP was taught by both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. Even though it’s not in the BoM, and not completely clear in the D&C 132, it’s still part of their continuing revelation that continues beyond the original Mormon scriptures.

A quick search of www.lds.org brought up 187 documents explaining and commenting on EP. So, please stop telling me that because it’s not clearly defined in the Mormon scriptures then the Mormon church does not believe in it as doctrine.

The places where Eternal Progression is not held as doctrine are the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant churches, which hold that the Canon of Scripture is closed. Being a Catholic, I also do not accept EP.

But it’s nice to know that there is room for me in the Mormon’s Terrestrial Heaven, just as there is room for devout Mormons in heaven as we understand it according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraphs 846 and 847 (quoted and linked to many times elsewhere). Look it up yourself on the Vatican’s website.

Nan

http://www.utlm.org/images/eternalprogressionutlm.gif

That graph almost looks like one I saw once at an Amway meeting …

 

[Allweather]

has anybody noticed that after we posted our “lovely” pictures of the charts showing what EP (for you Z…Eternal Progression) was the great zerinus disappered …what are the odds that he never returns to answer the rest of our questions?

What struck me was his response to your, Karin’s, posting of the first chart, which was an LDS product attibuted to an LDS source circa 1950. He called it something like “cheap, anti-Mormon fireworks.”

Z is a terrible Mormon apologist. Whoever installed him in this Mission needs to consider pulling him out and putting in someone better suited to prevarication and obfuscation. Z just isn’t getting the job done. I seriously doubt that anyone here, either posters, or lurkers, are buying any of his stuff.

 

[zerinus]

Here is Eternal Progression as explained by Joseph Smith himself. Now, if you believe that Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and that the revelations he presents did come from the Holy Spirit as he claims, then you would be hard pressed to deny Eternal Progression: that God the Father had a Father Himself, and that men can follow the example of Jesus Christ to become gods themselves.

Thank you for your research. And you did not need to give lengthy quotes; I am familiar with the piece. So you reckon you have finally found me an accurate definition of eternal progression! Thank you again. At last we seem to be getting somewhere! So let me go straight to the point and inform you that the first part of your definition, that “God the Father had a Father Himself,” is NOT a doctrine of the Church. If what you have just given me is the correct and accurate definition of eternal progression, then eternal progression is not a doctrine of the LDS Church, period. It IS a doctrine of the Church that man has the potential to acquire divinity, but it is NOT a doctrine of the Church that God the Father was once a man like us, and progressed to become God. That doctrine is not taught in the standard works, and it has been repudiated by the current president and prophet of the Church, Gordon B Hinckley, in two separate interviews he gave to San Francisco Chronicle in April 13, 1997 and to Time Magazine in Aug 4, 1997. Here are the quotes:

Don Lattin (religion editor, interviewing Gordon B. Hinckley, San Francisco Chronicle, April 13, 1997, p 3/Z1)

Q: There are some significant differences in your beliefs [and other Christian churches]. For instance, don’t Mormons believe that God was once a man?

Hinckley: I wouldn’t say that. There was a little couplet coined, “As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.” Now that’s more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don’t know very much about. {emphasis added.}

Q: So you’re saying the church is still struggling to understand this?

Hinckley: Well, as God is, man may become. We believe in eternal progression. Very strongly. We believe that the glory of God is intelligence and whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the Resurrection. …that’s one thing that’s different. Modern revelation. We believe all that God has revealed, all that he does now reveal, we believe he has yet to reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

Gordon B. Hinckley, as quoted in Time Magazine, Aug 4, 1997:

Q: Just another related question that comes up is the statements in the King Follett discourse by the Prophet.

Hinckley: Yeah

Q: … about that, God the Father was once a man as we were. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing. Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?

Hinckley: I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it.

Zerinus

Continued . . .\

 

[zerinus]

. . . Continued

Let me make clear how LDS doctrine is derived. It has always been made clear by the leadership of the Church that the standard works (the canonized scriptures of the Church) are the true source of LDS theology and doctrine. Everyone’s teaching should be judged by that standard, including those of the leadership. If anyone’s teachings does not conform to the teachings of the standard works, then it is suspect; and if it outright contradicts it, then it is false. The only person that is authorized to introduce new doctrine into the Church is the President of the Church; and he cannot do so just off the bat at somebody’s funeral. If it is new doctrine, then it has to be sanctioned and approved by his counsellors, and then presented to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles for their approval, and then presented to the body of the Church for their sustaining vote, before it becomes the doctrine of the Church. I am sure you will now ask, “But Joseph Smith taught this doctrine, and he was your prophet, therefore you must accept it!” The answer is no! Joseph Smith made a mistake. He got carried away about what God had revealed to him, and speculated about something that God had not revealed to him. We don’t believe that prophets are infallible. They are capable of making mistakes. It is not very often that Joseph Smith made those kinds of mistakes; but this is one instance that he did. We don’t know how God came to be. That doctrine has not been revealed, simple as that. Gordon B Hinckley doesn’t know, because God hasn’t told him, neither does anybody else, as far as I am aware.

And if you truly reject Eternal Progression and hold that Jesus Christ is eternal, which is the opposite of the words of Prophet Joseph Smith, you must not be a Mormon after all.

The eternity of Jesus Christ is not “the opposite of what Joseph Smith taught”. Those quotes I had given you were from the modern scriptures of the Church, and that is what Joseph Smith taught. Who gave us the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price? Joseph Smith did. Joseph Smith never repudiated those volumes of scripture that God had revealed to him. He taught that the Book of Mormon is the most correct of any book, and the keystone of our religion, and that a man will get closer to God by following its precepts than any other book.

Joseph Smith’s teachings on the plurality of gods, . . .

Joseph Smith’s teachings on the plurality of gods are not in contradiction to the biblical doctrine of Deity.

. . . denying the Holy Trinity, . . .

That depends on what you mean by the “Holy Trinity”. If by that you mean the “Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost,” then we believe in the Trinity. Our first Article of Faith states: “We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost”. What we reject is the Trinitarian theology of post-apostate Christendom. We do accept the biblical doctrine of the Deity; but we believe that that doctrine is not Trinitarian. Trinitarianism is a false theology spun around the biblical doctrine of the Deity by the uninspired teachings of post apostate Christianity. It is not biblical. That we do not believe.

. . . are hand-in-hand with Eternal Progression.

I don’t know what you mean by that. There is no such thing as “hand-in-hand”. We don’t have a “hand-in hand” theology! You either include those in your definition of eternal progression, or you don’t. If you want to include that, you will have to rephrase your definition. We can’t have a “shifting definition”. You have to decide from the start what you want to include in your definition, and what you want to leave out.

I say it again. If you are a real Mormon, you must cling to both. If you hear the Holy Spirit telling you something different, you must not be a Mormon after all.

I am a real Mormon, and I don’t have to cling to anything except what God has revealed to us in the canonized scriptures of the Church. I test everything by that standard. That is what our leaders have advised us to do.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

Without a paid clergy, who is accountable? If someone, say, a Bishop, teaches something immoral. Say the ward bishop says something like, “The father has a right to discipline his family anyway he sees fit, even if it crosses over into abuse.” Who is accountable in that situation? If that is the quality of moral guidance being given, where is one to turn? A moral leader should understand the teaching of scriptures - this requires education and formation. I believe the Catholic church has it right, in this area. That’s not to say Priests are perfect, we’re all sinners, but at least they’re knowledgable in what the scriptures do or do not teach.

I fail to see how having a paid clergy makes them any more accountable.

zerinus

 

[christianley]

Thank you for your research. And you did not need to give lengthy quotes; I am familiar with the piece. So you reckon you have finally found me an accurate definition of eternal progression! Thank you again. At last we seem to be getting somewhere! So let me go straight to the point and inform you that the first part of your definition, that “God the Father had a Father Himself,” is NOT a doctrine of the Church. If what you have just given me is the correct and accurate definition of eternal progression, then eternal progression is not a doctrine of the LDS Church, period. It IS a doctrine of the Church that man has the potential to acquire divinity, but it is NOT a doctrine of the Church that God the Father was once a man like us, and progressed to become God. That doctrine is not taught in the standard works, and it has been repudiated by the current president and prophet of the Church, Gordon B Hinckley, in two separate interviews he gave to San Francisco Chronicle in April 13, 1997 and to Time Magazine in Aug 4, 1997. Here are the quotes:

Don Lattin (religion editor, interviewing Gordon B. Hinckley, San Francisco Chronicle, April 13, 1997, p 3/Z1)

Q: There are some significant differences in your beliefs [and other Christian churches]. For instance, don’t Mormons believe that God was once a man?

Hinckley: I wouldn’t say that. There was a little couplet coined, “As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.” Now that’s more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don’t know very much about. {emphasis added.}

Q: So you’re saying the church is still struggling to understand this?

Hinckley: Well, as God is, man may become. We believe in eternal progression. Very strongly. We believe that the glory of God is intelligence and whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the Resurrection. …that’s one thing that’s different. Modern revelation. We believe all that God has revealed, all that he does now reveal, we believe he has yet to reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

Gordon B. Hinckley, as quoted in Time Magazine, Aug 4, 1997:

Q: Just another related question that comes up is the statements in the King Follett discourse by the Prophet.

Hinckley: Yeah

Q: … about that, God the Father was once a man as we were. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing. Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?

Hinckley: I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it.

Zerinus

Continued . . .\

At the General Conference following this interview, Hinckley claimed he was misquoted. I quote:

“The media have been kind and generous to us. This past year of pioneer celebrations has resulted in very extensive, favorable press coverage. There have been a few things we wish might have been different. I personally have been much quoted, and in a few instances misquoted and misunderstood. I think that’s to be expected. None of you need worry because you read something that was incompletely reported. You need not worry that I do not understand some matters of doctrine. I think I understand them thoroughly, and it is unfortunate that the reporting may not make this clear. I hope you will never look to the public press as the authority on the doctrines of the Church.”

lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-32-1,00.html

Note in particular that your prophet has commanded you not to use “the public press as the authority on the doctrines of the Church.” This is probably so that Hinckley can lie to the press about the LDS Church doctrines if it is convenient at the time.

 

[zerinus]

At the General Conference following this interview, Hinckley claimed he was misquoted. I quote:

“The media have been kind and generous to us. This past year of pioneer celebrations has resulted in very extensive, favorable press coverage. There have been a few things we wish might have been different. I personally have been much quoted, and in a few instances misquoted and misunderstood. I think that’s to be expected. None of you need worry because you read something that was incompletely reported. You need not worry that I do not understand some matters of doctrine. I think I understand them thoroughly, and it is unfortunate that the reporting may not make this clear. I hope you will never look to the public press as the authority on the doctrines of the Church.”

lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-32-1,00.html

Note in particular that your prophet has commanded you not to use “the public press as the authority on the doctrines of the Church.”

Yes, Hinckley’s interview with the Time Magazine had been incompletely reported. It had been reported as follows (the passages in red being omitted):

A: I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it.

zerinus

 

[christianley]

Yes, Hinckley’s interview with the Time Magazine had been incompletely reported. It had been reported as follows (the passages in red being omitted):

A: I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it.

zerinus

You can’t trust anything any Mormon says to the press about Mormon doctrine so Hinckley is telling you not to rely on it. Hinckley knows there are doctrines that aren’t convenient to explain to the press and wants to retain his ability to lie or obfuscate as the occasion demands. We know that Mormons teach that God was once a man. We’ve shown you from Gospel Principles this is true:

“This is the way our Heavenly Father became God. Joseph Smith taught: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God. . . . He was once a man like us; . . . God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-46).”

lds.org/library/display/0,4945,11-1-13-59,00.html

 

[Allweather]

Yes, Hinckley’s interview with the Time Magazine had been incompletely reported. It had been reported as follows (the passages in red being omitted):

I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it.

zerinus

This is your Prophet? He reads here like a dissembling con-artist. This must be what people mean when they say that arguing doctrine with a Mormon is like nailing jello to a wall.

I am so thankful for our Catholic magisterium, that teaches with authority, unambiguously, face-forward. Anyone reading these words quoted above, reportedly issuing forth from the mouth of the Living Mormon Prophet, will not want to join any organization he heads, I’m sure of that. Thankyou, Z, for making this so clear to onlookers.

 

[christianley]

This is your Prophet? He reads here like a dissembling con-artist. This must be what people mean when they say that arguing doctrine with a Mormon is like nailing jello to a wall.

I am so thankful for our Catholic magisterium, that teaches with authority, unambiguously, face-forward. Anyone reading these words quoted above, reportedly issuing forth from the mouth of the Living Mormon Prophet, will not want to join any organization he heads, I’m sure of that. Thankyou, Z, for making this so clear to onlookers.

It would have been better if he would have just said, “We don’t know how God came to be. That’s a mystery.”

 

[artist3189]

This Zerinus is all over the place. He is a master at ‘eisegesis’, throwing up scripture with his arguments to see what will stick, but I found it odd that no one points out the fact that when he uses these fragments of scripture to secure some position, he ignores the essence of the truth. Example of him quoting Matthew 16:17, concerning Peters revelation. He uses this to bolster his claim to the ‘truth’ of the Testimony of the Holy Spirit, which by the way exists as exactly WHAT to the LDS, certainly not GOD, so what is giving this testimony? Finish the scene Zerinus. What is going on in Matthew 16:17. Open your eyes. Your are so engulfed by the MORMON WAY, you can’t see the truth. You come to these forms with the same approach you’d use on un-informed Catholics whose doors you darken. I also find it curious that some Catholics are more impressed with your FEELINGS than with speaking to you about the truth of THE WORD. You carry a large burden on your shoulders my friend. All the souls you steal from Christ’s Church, the One Holy and Apostolic Church will call out ‘your name’ when’ they are being asked “why did you abandon me”? You have no position to defend. The LDS is a false church based on errors. Don’t look into to far though, unless you are strong enough to accept the truth. Be happy with what you are told, what you assume to be true and what you are comfortable with, otherwise, you may have to become Catholic. If you choose to give up your own soul, fine, you have that free will, but if you actively take others with you, your guilt will multiply. Pray for your awakening, we will pray for you also.

 

[geraldffff]

This Zerinus is all over the place. He is a master at ‘eisegesis’, throwing up scripture with his arguments to see what will stick, but I found it odd that no one points out the fact that when he uses these fragments of scripture to secure some position, he ignores the essence of the truth. Example of him quoting Matthew 16:17, concerning Peters revelation. He uses this to bolster his claim to the ‘truth’ of the Testimony of the Holy Spirit, which by the way exists as exactly WHAT to the LDS, certainly not GOD, so what is giving this testimony? Finish the scene Zerinus. What is going on in Matthew 16:17. Open your eyes. If you choose to give up your own soul, fine, you have that free will, but if you actively take others with you, your guilt will multiply. Pray for your awakening, we will pray for you also.

Amen

 

[truthsilence]

Don’t know a whole lot about Mormonism but I noticed a scripture quote by zerinus that had nothing to do with the text about his Holy Ghost theory zerinus was writting about. It sounds a lot like the giberish the JW’s sound off about. My thanks to truthsilence for such a powerfull insightfull statement. I might add the Catholic Church is the best and the worst for people who do not have out going personalities. In a social setting like a parish festival the sound it is like a great frendly busy beehive which is as it should be. In the worship setting one can not deny that Jesus is King. I have pity for thoese who miss out on this experience.

Thank you for your kind comments. I just attended my first “catholic” social event, hosted by a wonderful lady from the parish I attend. It was a Christmas party. I spent the better part of the evening visiting with the most adorable six year old I’ve ever met. I’m not all that comfortable in crowds, and there were over sixty people there. But with this little darlin’ to visit with, and how relaxed and friendly the atmosphere was, it really was a fun evening!

 

[truthsilence]

Zerinus,

It is astonishing to me that you would view that Time magazine interview with President Hinckley as even remotely faith-promoting. That interview was one of the things that finally sent me spiraling. I later realized, it was an answer to prayer.

I was really struggling when I went to God in prayer saying: “Lord, I don’t know if President Hinckley is a Prophet, but I believe he knows he is, and I don’t think he’s lying”. I know this might sound crazy…even juvenile… but this is where I was at, at the time. I desperatley wanted to believe LDS claims. Those claims had been a real force in my spirituality for over fifteen years.

It wasn’t long after my prayer, that I read the interview you posted. I’ll stop short of calling President Hinckley a liar, and believe it or not I respect your beliefs enough not to say such a thing to you. But you know as well as I do that the church definitely teaches all these things. I’m quite sure I could produce a reference from the “Gospel Principals” manual that would make it clear to all of us, that these doctrines are still taught.

Why else, as was pointed out by Christianley, would President Hinckley have thought it important to clarify to the faithful: “You need not worry that I do not understand some matters of doctrine. I think I understand them thoroughly”. ?? Why?? Because he knows it is taught. You know it. And so do I.

 

[Nan_S]

zerinus:

Hinckley: Well, as God is, man may become. We believe in eternal progression. Very strongly. We believe that the glory of God is intelligence and whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the Resurrection. …that’s one thing that’s different. Modern revelation. We believe all that God has revealed, all that he does now reveal, we believe he has yet to reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

Except, I suppose, that President Hinckley believes all that God has revealed except for what God said to the Prophet Joseph Smith which he proclaimed with “And I want you to know that God, in the last days, while certain individuals are proclaiming His name, is not trifling with you or me” nor when Joseph Smith proclaimed “I have it from God, and get over it if you can. I have a witness of the Holy Ghost, and a testimony”

Zerinus, my dear friend, I have lost track of the number of times you yourself and RMcMullen have written that you know something to be true because the Holy Ghost affirmed it to you. Was not Joseph Smith also entitled make proclamations with the same affirmation from the Holy Ghost?

I have in front of me a copy of the Mormon tract, “The Restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” In it we are exhorted to this: “If you ask your Heavenly Father in prayer, you can receive an answer from Him through the Holy Ghost. THe Holy Ghost is also called the Spirit of God, and one of His roles is to witness, or testify, of the truth… The Holy Ghost confirms the truth through feelings, thoughts, and impressions.” (No mention here of councils or apostles being required to know the Holy Ghost speaks truth.)

Joseph Smith said he received affirmation from the Holy Ghost that God was not always God, and that the Father Himself had a Father. Now you tell me that these truths, confirmed by the Holy Ghost to Joseph Smith himself, were mistakes!!

I wonder how much else that Joseph Smith received from the Holy Ghost was also mistaken. Obviously Joseph Smith believed it all was true. Can we then be assured that the Book of Mormon, D&C, etc., were accurately translated? Is it not by the testimony of the Holy Ghost that they were translated, as is written in the introduction to the Book of Mormon: “The ancient record thus brought forth from the earth as the voice of a people speaking from the dust, and translated into modern speech by the gift and power of God as attested by Divine affirmation, was first published to the world in the year 1830 as The Book of Mormon.”

Finally, if the words of Joseph Smith, truths confirmed to him by the Holy Ghost, were mistakes, how then can you trust the feelings, thoughts, and impressions you yourself believe you have from the Holy Ghost?

I thank you for this dialogue. It has suggested to me the topic I need to write on for my term paper in our Church History class: Reliance on the Writings of the Original Apostles and their Pupils (the Early Church Fathers) as Opposed to Reliance on Modern Ideas and Revelations, and the Resulting Effects in the Church of Jesus Christ in the Modern World.

Pax Christi,
Nan

 

[Allweather]

This Zerinus is all over the place. He is a master at ‘eisegesis’, throwing up scripture with his arguments to see what will stick, but I found it odd that no one points out the fact that when he uses these fragments of scripture to secure some position, he ignores the essence of the truth…

I think most everyone notices this, but there’s only so much one can do. The threads are long already. If we burrow down into every error of his, then they will just become impossible.

I believe that Z is an honest and well meaning person; It is Mormonism that is untenable from an argumentative point of view. The good news is, he is on fire for the Lord. He’s not apathetic. Apathetic people aren’t looking for the Lord, period. Z is on fire. That’s a good thing. It’s only too bad that he’s wasting all that energy and intelligence defending the indefensible.

 

[zerinus]

We believe all that God has revealed, all that he does now reveal, we believe he has yet to reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God

That is a quote from the 9th Article of Faith. You can read all of them here:

scriptures.lds.org/en/a_of_f/1

Zerinus, my dear friend, I have lost track of the number of times you yourself and RMcMullen have written that you know something to be true because the Holy Ghost affirmed it to you. . . .

Yes, the Holy Spirit witnesses to me that Joseph Smith was a prophet, the Book of Mormon is true, and the Church is led by true prophets and Apostles today; and those who ignore, reject, or ridicule that do so at their own peril. The rest of your post is worthless rhetoric, and no further comment is required.

zerinus

 

[Nan_S]

That is a quote from the 9th Article of Faith. You can read all of them here:

scriptures.lds.org/en/a_of_f/1

Yes, the Holy Spirit witnesses to me that Joseph Smith was a prophet, the Book of Mormon is true, and the Church is led by true prophets and Apostles today; and those who ignore, reject, or ridicule that do so at their own peril. The rest of your post is worthless rhetoric, and no further comment is required.

zerinus

Just quoting you, my friend. You say you know certain things are true, because of the witness of the Holy Ghost to you personally. Joseph Smith said the same, and you say he was mistaken. I find that extremely confusing.

I ridicule no one, not intentionally anyway. It may come across that way sometimes, but I am actually seriously trying to understand.

Let’s call it a night, OK?. You appear to have your hackles up, and I have a term paper to write.

Peace?
Nan