How do the Mormons do it?

[Naf623]

I might have to revoke my wish for leniency by the Mods after that diatribe.

Might I remind you what you said to me about this forum early on:

Telstar:

Most of us here are willing to defend our faith with whatever it takes to prove our points. You will certainly be confronted by many arguments from our side that will try to help you understand why we believe that LDS doctrine is incorrect. If you’re willing to engage in some very difficult discussions, at times, without letting your ‘feelings’ get in the way or your powers of reason and logic, then you’ll be just fine. But, if you can’t really handle these sometimes rather heated discussions, then perhaps you should get out of the kitchen before you get burned out by them. No one would really blame you for leaving if this kind of thing bothers you that much. Poor Parker is usually the only one that sticks around to ‘fight the good fight’ for the LDS side, while all of his other Mormon friends abandon him (or get booted) to carry on the ‘battle’, alone.

It seems that Catholics can say whatever they like about other religions, however insulting and degrading; but the moment you don’t like the equivalent being said back people are threatened with a ban. Double standards.

 

[NewSeeker]

Yes, it is true that if Joseph Smith was not the prophet we know him to be, that we have nothing. This is why we do not rely on belief that ‘the church exists’ as being our confirmation of its truth as I remember being suggested of Catholics earlier. I’m comfortable with the logic that because religion exists, that God must exist and that’s the position I began when searching for my own answers. There is not a single true LDS believer who has not approached God about the truth of the church, the Book of Mormon and the divinely appointed prophetic mission of Joseph Smith. It is not ‘just a feeling’ we rely on, it is much, much more. As I believe it was Parker brought up earlier, but appears to have been utterly dismissed;
Hebrews 4:12
“For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow”
When God speaks to us, His word enters into us and gives an irrefutable realisation of truth, and leaves an indelible mark throughout our being that takes great effort working against it to remove.
It is a long way removed from ‘just a feeling’, and given how in tune with the Spirit you claim to be, I’m astonished you do not understand it.

I’ve never claimed to be in tune with the spirit. In fact, I’ve never felt the spirit and have never sensed God’s presence. Of course, I’ll bet that, like every single Mormon I’ve shared that with during a lifetime of faithful church membership (church leaders, mission companions, friends, and family alike), you’ll smugly say outright or passive-aggressively infer that such an outcome is entirely my fault. You know the routine - I wasn’t listening when the spirit whispered, lacked faith, wasn’t sincere, didn’t want to live up to the standards of the church, I rationalized the spiritual feelings away, talked myself out of a testimony, yada yada yada, the same old line of garbage Mormons spoonfeed to each other on a regular basis to account for those like me who tried and failed to feel anything at all, gain an ‘irrefutable realization of truth’, have an indelible ‘mark left throughout my being’, whatever you want to call it. So no, I never have claimed to be in tune with the spirit. You made that up.

 

[Stephen168]

I do not doubt the belief and conviction of the people involved in any part of this, … the Bible was translated and this paved the way for many good, well intentioned people to try their best to come to correct conclusions, and ultimately allowed a young boy to read the admonition of James that only through sincere prayer could we really discover the will of God.

Great Protestant fiction, mostly of British origin. What year was the Bible first translated into the common language of the people?

As prophesied by both Old and New Testament prophets, the church as established by Jesus Christ apostasised, not in that there was a mass exodus of membership, but that the church itself veered from correct principles. And hence a restoration was necessary (as also predicted).

Any prediction in the Old Testament would explain Christ establishing his Church. What New Testament predictions are you referring to?

Just a note: The Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion, built upon the bedrock of Christ and a foundation of apostles and prophets.

Historically this is false, but how do you reason it to be true?

 

[Stephen168]

It seems that Catholics can say whatever they like about other religions, however insulting and degrading; but the moment you don’t like the equivalent being said back people are threatened with a ban. Double standards.

No double standard as long as you stick to the facts. Making up fiction about the Catholic Church does not defend the Mormon Church. Logically saying anything about the Catholic Church does not defend the Mormon Church.

The great thing about Catholicism is we have the truth and don’t have to make up fiction about Mormonism to prove it. We don’t have to make up things about anybody to prove it. Mormonism requires a fictitious history of Christianity.

 

[Telstar]

Exodus 33:11
“And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend”
~more passages taken out of context~

All typical examples of Mormon data-mining out of context.
**Exodus 33:[20] And again he said: Thou canst not see my face: for man shall not see me and live.
~
[22] And when my glory shall pass, I will set thee in a hole of the rock, and protect thee with my right hand, till I pass: [23] And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face thou canst not see. **When the Prophets spoke of seeing God, “face to face”, they referred to the various ways that He appeared to them: as a burning bush, a pillar of fire, a cloud, etc…

So, are you calling God a liar?

The Law of Moses was fulfilled in Jesus Christ; all will not be fulfilled until He returns. The Law was instituted only because the Israelites were not fully prepared yet to live by the full law required for God’s Everlasting Covenant with Abraham. Prior to this the people and prophets lived by the same laws and expectations that God expects of His people in all times.

All that Jesus revealed to us won’t be fully accomplished until He returns, but the work of the Prophets is finished. Jesus Christ, the Messiah, is the fulfillment of all of their works. Nothing more about the work of salvation can be revealed, because Jesus Christ has already revealed it all. He’s the last Prophet and the fulfillment of God’s plan of salvation. He gave His plan to His chosen Apostles, and all who would follow them, when He still walked the streets of Jerusalem. They have faithfully passed it on to rest of us, thanks to the guidance of the Holy Ghost. Jesus sent the Holy Ghost to remain with us, always, and He has kept His word. The Apocalypse was His final work of prophecy that was given to John, by Him.

So, are you calling Jesus a liar, too? You might want to rethink your position, because God doesn’t take it lightly when anyone calls Him, or His Only Begotten Son, a liar.

Hardly; the authority to act in God’s name is controlled by Him alone. The distinction made that the Levites alone could officiate in this office is scriptural precedence that only who God says can hold His priesthood ought to be ordained to it.

"Posted by Naf623: So you also complain when reading the OT that only the tribe of Levi were permitted to officiate in Temple ordinances?"
You claimed we’d complain about the Levitical Priesthood, in response to the charge of your ever changing ‘doctrine’. We happen to believe in the Old Testament because it’s the true word of God. God made laws for His own reasons. We don’t question what God does. But, LDS make up new ‘laws’ whenever they need to save face in public, or if it serves their own purposes, like when the practice of polygamy that was keeping Utah from becoming a state, was abolished. Those ‘doctrines’ don’t come from God. They come from a bunch of guys that decided it might be better for their own PR if they changed their beliefs, at least in the eyes of the public.

Really? Where?

David killed a man to steal his wife? He wasn’t just punished for the murder. There are many more examples if you wanted to know the real truth. Some of them have already been mentioned.

There’s a first.

Since you demand respect, but don’t reciprocate, that just might have to change.

Hardly.

Oh yeah, I forgot about your heartburn. Maybe some Tums could help you with that problem.

Nope. He was told that none of them taught the full gospel truths; that many of them had some correct ideas, but all deviated in some way from correct teachings because they had stopped relying on God to continually reveal His will and correct interpretations of scripture.

Bull. He claimed they were “all corrupt” and “an abomination” in the eyes of God. He wrote more than one account of his ‘vision’, all of them different, as did several other people, also all different. They weren’t even written, at all, until many years after it supposedly happened. The claims of his age changed with each new version that was written, anywhere from 12 to 17. All of this seems to indicate that he made it all up, just to bolster his claim of being a prophet. But, as the saying goes: ‘You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.’

Some people are just more gullible than others.

 

[Naf623]

Great Protestant fiction, mostly of British origin. What year was the Bible first translated into the common language of the people?

It’s pretty irrelevant: during the middle ages, translation of scripture was discouraged, the excuse used was misinterpretations, and a couple of groups were labelled as heretics when they did it.

Any prediction in the Old Testament would explain Christ establishing his Church. What New Testament predictions are you referring to?

Actually Amos’ prophecy can’t refer to Jesus establishing His church:
Amos 8:
11Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord:
12And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it.

Given that from the time of Amos to Christ the Jewish Law still held sway, so the word of the Lord was still present and in effect, the period he speaks of must be post Christ. Therefore, if you are right and the Catholic church has existed and remained true, recognised by God and held proper authority continually since then, this period of complete apostasy must still be to come, and all churches, Catholic included, must either fail, or none be left true and with real authority recognised by God.

Paul had quite a lot to say:
Acts 20:
29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

He knew and warned against people from within the church congregation leading the church astray.

2 Timothy 4:
2Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
3For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

Speaking about being diligent in preaching to the saints, and prophesying about the future situation of the same.

2 Thessalonians:
3Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first

‘That day’ referring to Christ’s Second Coming.

And Peter:
Peter 2:
1But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

I’ve highlighted ‘bring in’ because it clearly prophesies that these things will not break away from the church (as many other scriptures prophesy), but be incorporated into it.

Possibly the clearest message, though, comes from John the Revelator:
Revelation 14:
6And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,

The everlasting gospel cannot refer to the Law of Moses, as that is not everlasting, therefore it is clear that an angel after the time of Jesus’ mortal ministry will bring the gospel to the earth. If the gospel were already on the earth, or still here, this would be entirely unnecessary and impossible. Therefore, if the everlasting gospel needs to be returned to the earth, this is proof that whatever state any church that remains is in, it cannot be recognised by God, so He must send His gospel back to the earth.

While I agree that none of these specify any time, it is quite clear that a general apostasy is prophesied, and if it has not happened yet, then it is still to come.

Historically this is false, but how do you reason it to be true?

Historically?
Since the time Joseph Smith restored the church there has been an unbroken line of Apostles and Prophets, with a continuous stream of revelations from God, interpreting and confirming all aspects of how His kingdom is to be re-established and organised.

 

[Naf623]

]When the Prophets spoke of seeing God, “face to face”, they referred to the various ways that He appeared to them: as a burning bush, a pillar of fire, a cloud, etc…

So when you speak to your friends you see them as a pillar of fire, or a burning bush?
‘as a man speaketh unto his friend’ to me clearly says that Moses was conversing directly with God and could see Him without difficulty.

Genesis 32:30
“And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face”
Exodus 19:21
“And the Lord said unto Moses, Go down, charge the people, lest they break through unto the Lord to gaze, and many of them perish” (Notice only many of them would perish; presumably because “blessed are the pure in heart for the shall see God”)
Exodus 24:10-11
“And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.
And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink”
Act 7:56
“And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God”

So, are you calling God a liar?

no, but I think it would be the least of his worries with me, or you, if we did.
‘blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God’: unless you believe this direct wrote from Christ to be false?
I’m just quoting from His scriptures, places where He has conversed directly with mortal men, and they have reported to have seen Him.

"Posted by Naf623: So you also complain when reading the OT that only the tribe of Levi were permitted to officiate in Temple ordinances?"
You claimed we’d complain about the Levitical Priesthood, in response to the charge of your ever changing ‘doctrine’. We happen to believe in the Old Testament because it’s the true word of God. God made laws for His own reasons. We don’t question what God does. But, LDS make up new ‘laws’ whenever they need to save face in public, or if it serves their own purposes, like when the practice of polygamy that was keeping Utah from becoming a state, was abolished. Those ‘doctrines’ don’t come from God. They come from a bunch of guys that decided it might be better for their own PR if they changed their beliefs, at least in the eyes of the public.

My point was that we don’t always understand anything about why God does anything, but when He gives us a law to follow, we do. You mentioned about black members holding the priesthood, and I pointed out that the precedent is set when only the Levites were permitted to hold it: equally arbitrary from our viewpoint, but we trust that God has His reasons. As to polygamy, while the subject is rarely particularly considered anymore; so far as I am aware the standpoint is that it is a perfectly accepted practise, as it was in Old Testament times, but that we defer to follow the laws of the land where we live where these do not prevent us from worshipping.

David killed a man to steal his wife? He wasn’t just punished for the murder. There are many more examples if you wanted to know the real truth. Some of them have already been mentioned.

Yes, he was punished for coveting another woman, for continuing to look at her instead of turning away, or going back inside, for lusting after her, and for murdering her husband. I see no record of any of the righteous men in the Old Testament being rebuked for polygamy. And if you think they were, consider that they continued, and were still seen fit to be prophets, which position would have been speedily removed after such a rebuke if they did not salter their ways.

 

[truthsave]

Naf623:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen168
Historically this is false, but how do you reason it to be true?

Historically?
Since the time Joseph Smith restored the church there has been an unbroken line of Apostles and Prophets, with a continuous stream of revelations from God, interpreting and confirming all aspects of how His kingdom is to be re-established and organised.

Of course this is historical! Historical is everything that happened.
This is what happened, ok, but I would ask what confirmed historically that these apostols and prophets were credible? Talking and behaving aside, talking wisely and behaving well doesn’t make you neither an apostol nor a prophet.
To make them credible Jesus sent his apostols after the Pentacost doing some really extraordinary acts that are recorded in the Bible in the Acts. Why?
The answer is simple: you can talk well, you can be nice and people liking you, but you cannot fake miracles.
These extraordinary acts gave the apostols the credibility that they were really the apostols of Jesus Christ. To distinguish them from the others.
Is it ever been recorded something similar from Joseph Smith’s apostols?
I didn’t even think Joseph Smith ever did a miracle, ( translation of the Book of Mormon?).
Can you immagine Jesus Christ performing miracles of translation? They would have not even crucified him.
Nor the apostols. Can we immagine the acts of the apostols saying: and Pierre and Paul started translating misterious plates…
Mormon apostols historically don’t need to do anything in particular to be believed from people outside their community.
Is it wrong doubting?
And if somebody not religious at all want to aproach christianity and he will read the lives of St. Francis or St. Seraphim and the life of any of your apostols do you really, but really, of course if you were not mormon, believe they were more credible if you didn’t want to buy the Joseph Smith story all togheter?
If somebody doubts between two for supposition holy people which one would have more credit? Why the Lord would like to favour one more then another?
I hope you don’t answer is not the Lord but the devil (even though I think mormons have enough bad taste to think this) that was the devil that was behind christian Saints if not you will add on all the already incredibles blaspemies of mormon doctrine against christianity also the one that all our Saints were helped by the devil to decive us to believe more in Jesus Christ but not in Joseph Smith. Since was really Jesus Christ that talked from Joseph Smith mouth and who was behind Padre Pio stigmates or other things? The Lord too or maybe the devil? For mormon could be so.
I wait a confirmation of it.
I hope I am wrong.

 

[Telstar]

It’s pretty irrelevant: during the middle ages, translation of scripture was discouraged, the excuse used was misinterpretations, and a couple of groups were labelled as heretics when they did it.

The fear of misinterpretation was not an ‘excuse’. It wasn’t allowed because Jesus gave His Church the responsibility of guarding the true meaning of His words. If you see that as unimportant, then…

Actually Amos’ prophecy can’t refer to Jesus establishing His church:
Amos 8:11-12
Given that from the time of Amos to Christ the Jewish Law still held sway, so the word of the Lord was still present and in effect, the period he speaks of must be post Christ. Therefore, if you are right and the Catholic church has existed and remained true, recognised by God and held proper authority continually since then, this period of complete apostasy must still be to come, and all churches, Catholic included, must either fail, or none be left true and with real authority recognised by God.

That passage was recently discussed, elsewhere. I don’t think it’s about the ‘great apostasy’ that would come before the end. Personally, I believe one way to interpret it is that God was speaking of the Jews who would seek Him, but not find Him, after they rejected the Messiah. The fact that it specifically says that it will not be a famine of bread seems to be obvious that the Bread of Life would exist in the Holy Eucharist, and would feed the souls of the faithful. And, since there would still be no “thirst for water”, as signifying that the Grace of God would still flow freely to those that would know where to find it.

Paul had quite a lot to say:
Acts 20: 29-30
He knew and warned against people from within the church congregation leading the church astray.

2 Timothy 4:2-3
Speaking about being diligent in preaching to the saints, and prophesying about the future situation of the same.

2 Thessalonians: 3*Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first

‘That day’ referring to Christ’s Second Coming.

And Peter:
Peter 2:1*But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

I’ve highlighted ‘bring in’ because it clearly prophesies that these things will not break away from the church (as many other scriptures prophesy), but be incorporated into it.

Possibly the clearest message, though, comes from John the Revelator:
Revelation 14:
6And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,

There have been dissenters among the flock from the very beginning. This indicates that there would be many that would teach heresy, and there have been many over the past 2000 years. The early Church fathers were in a constant battle against heresies, which was the reason that they finally decided that doctrines and dogma had to be sorted out and written down, to remove all false teachings so they wouldn’t grow worse. That’s why the Church is very protective of those doctrines, and will never change them. The Church might further explain them to make them more clear, but they can never be changed or removed. The Church has been charged with the responsibility to preach the true Gospel to the entire world and She has continued to do that, faithfully, ever since Jesus gave Her that mission through the Apostles.

The everlasting gospel cannot refer to the Law of Moses, as that is not everlasting, therefore it is clear that an angel after the time of Jesus’ mortal ministry will bring the gospel to the earth. If the gospel were already on the earth, or still here, this would be entirely unnecessary and impossible. Therefore, if the everlasting gospel needs to be returned to the earth, this is proof that whatever state any church that remains is in, it cannot be recognised by God, so He must send His gospel back to the earth.

While I agree that none of these specify any time, it is quite clear that a general apostasy is prophesied, and if it has not happened yet, then it is still to come.

No one in the Church has ever said that the Law of Moses was the ‘everlasting Gospel’. The Law of Moses ended with the New Covenant of Jesus Christ. He is the Living Word of God that can never be changed, the only Gospel of the New Testament. Where LDS get things mixed up is in not recognizing that Jesus is the Word of God. IMHO, the ‘great apostasy’ happened at the ‘reformation’. It’s obvious to anyone that looks at the thousands of Christian churches that exist now, with many thousands of different ‘versions’ of Christianity and pseudo-Christianity, that the faith has been watered down by all those that broke away from the one true Church.

I noticed that you didn’t include this one:

2 Corinthians 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Christ, whom we have not preached; or if you receive another Spirit, whom you have not received; or another gospel which you have not received; you might well bear with him.
Paul was being extremely sarcastic in his last phrase, because he was warning them that they should be careful to avoid anyone that contradicted the teachings that the Apostles had already given to them. Apparently, the Corinthians tended to listen to those with ‘itching ears’ that were contradicting the true Apostles. The red bold is obviously, very clear in its meaning.

 

[someguy14]

very clear in its meaning.

James 5:12

But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.

 

[Stephen168]

It’s pretty irrelevant: during the middle ages, translation of scripture was discouraged, the excuse used was misinterpretations, and a couple of groups were labelled as heretics when they did it.

Continuing your historical fantasy but you can’t tell me the first Bible translated into the common language of the people.

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.

Yes, a warning but he knew by God’s grace everything was going to be fine.
2 Timothy 4:1-4:

I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

We have seen throughout history that people have left the Catholic Church to join other groups because they like what others have to say; Joseph Smith for example.
2 Thessalonians 2:1-4:

Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Christ will not come until after the Anti-Christ has come.
2 Peter 2:1-3:

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.

There were false teachers in the first century right through to this day.; what they ‘bring in’ is condemned until the reformation when they left. Joseph Smith was not unique in this regard.
Revelation 14:6-7:

And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

The Catholic Church will take the Gospel of Christ to every nation; which they did.

You suffer from the fallacy of composition. There are no predictions of an apostasy of the Church taking place. Christ promised just the opposite. So no need for a restoration.
" 2 Thessalonians 2:15:

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

1Timothy 3:14-15:

Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

The Catholic Church is the foundation of truth that has held fast to its traditions both oral and written for 2000 years.

Since the time Joseph Smith restored the church there has been an unbroken line of Apostles and Prophets, with a continuous stream of revelations from God, interpreting and confirming all aspects of how His kingdom is to be re-established and organised.

The were no Mormon Apostles for the first five years of Mormonism. Joseph Smith would excommunicate them so fast that for many years there were not 12 of them. Joseph Smith could careless about having 12 Apostles.

 

[zaffiroborant]

"Naf623:

Since the time Joseph Smith restored the church there has been an unbroken line of Apostles and Prophets, with a continuous stream of revelations from God, interpreting and confirming all aspects of how His kingdom is to be re-established and organised.

The were no Mormon Apostles for the first five years of Mormonism. Joseph Smith would excommunicate them so fast that for many years there were not 12 of them. Joseph Smith could careless about having 12 Apostles.

I can’t find any evidence of this continuous stream of revelation either.

 

[Stephen168]

I can’t find any evidence of this continuous stream of revelation either.

Yes, the Mormon President does not prophesizes he give his opinion. Unless revelation means random thoughts.

 

[Telstar]

So when you speak to your friends you see them as a pillar of fire, or a burning bush?

I don’t think any of my friends would cause me to drop dead when I looked at their face, and, I’ve never claimed to see God, either. http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y39/Telstars/Smilies/roll.gif

‘as a man speaketh unto his friend’ to me clearly says that Moses was conversing directly with God and could see Him without difficulty.

You’re apparently sticking to your guns in calling God a liar, even though later in that same chapter He clearly says otherwise. Good luck with that. You’ll need it.

Genesis 32:30
“And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face”
Exodus 19:21
“And the Lord said unto Moses, Go down, charge the people, lest they break through unto the Lord to gaze, and many of them perish” (Notice only many of them would perish; presumably because “blessed are the pure in heart for the shall see God”)

The ‘many’ would be the ones that broke through. Presumably, the rest would run away when they saw the first ones drop dead. How hard is it to understand that? Moses was not even looking directly at God, but he still had to be protected, just seeing Him the way he did. The others would have died immediately, just like a non-Levite would if they touched the Ark of the Covenant. The line “blessed are the pure in heart for the shall see God”, might refer to those holy Saints who would see Jesus in visions. There have probably been thousands of them over the centuries. Or, it might just refer to those who will go to Heaven that will see God, then.

Exodus 24:10-11
“And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.
And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink”
Act 7:56
“And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God”

MotS

no, but I think it would be the least of his worries with me, or you, if we did.
‘blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God’: unless you believe this direct wrote from Christ to be false?
I’m just quoting from His scriptures, places where He has conversed directly with mortal men, and they have reported to have seen Him.

You’re not just quoting, you’re looking for phrases that can be interpreted the way you need them to be in order to make a point that contradicts God’s word. Like I said, God doesn’t appreciate being called a liar, or people that play tricks with His words in order to deceive others and lead them astray. Those who do it, especially while scoffing at Him, will not be happy when it’s time to pay the piper.

My point was that we don’t always understand anything about why God does anything, but when He gives us a law to follow, we do. You mentioned about black members holding the priesthood, and I pointed out that the precedent is set when only the Levites were permitted to hold it: equally arbitrary from our viewpoint, but we trust that God has His reasons. As to polygamy, while the subject is rarely particularly considered anymore; so far as I am aware the standpoint is that it is a perfectly accepted practise, as it was in Old Testament times, but that we defer to follow the laws of the land where we live where these do not prevent us from worshipping.

You were responding to someone else that mentioned those points. I was just commenting on your answer to him that pulled a comment from… ummm… the empty air, that had no connection to his post, whatsoever. That’s why I commented, “apples to oranges”. Since your ‘doctrines’ come from mortal men, I suppose it doesn’t matter if they change them, except for the poor souls that accept those things as true. So, God will be the one to sort it all out in the end.

Yes, he was punished for coveting another woman, for continuing to look at her instead of turning away, or going back inside, for lusting after her, and for murdering her husband. I see no record of any of the righteous men in the Old Testament being rebuked for polygamy. And if you think they were, consider that they continued, and were still seen fit to be prophets, which position would have been speedily removed after such a rebuke if they did not salter their ways.

Yeah…http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y39/Telstars/Smilies/roll.gif

 

[PaulDupre]

This whole conversation about “seeing God” is moot.

The Bible passages cited all refer to humankind never having seen God the Father.

Mormons and Catholics agree that all OT theophanies were of God the Son (Jesus) and not God the Father. Jesus is the God of the OT.

When Jesus said that no man has seen the Father, He was speaking the truth. Anything the OT patriarchs or prophets saw or conversed with was God the Son, not God the Father. All we know of the Father has been revealed to us in the person of the Son.

Jesus is the Word of God. The Father speaks to humankind solely through the Son, His Word.

 

[pablope]

]As far as the Israelites were concerned, yes; because the whole Golden Calf incident proved they were not ready to receive it’s fulness.

Nope, it was a moment of weakness for them.

however, the covenant made with Abraham shows a full and complete understanding of the gospel,

And how did you come to that conclusion? The Gospel has not been delivered yet, and yet Abraham has a full and complete understanding?

in addition to the bit where “The Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend”. Adam and Eve walked and talked with God; the city of Enoch was taken straight to heaven implying they were living the fullness of gospel truths.

What kind of gospel truth are you talking about?

Throughout the Old Testament it is clear that God revealed Himself in His fulness to prophet after prophet; they understood the fulness of the gospel.

Nope…the prophets were messengers of God to the people of Israel. The prophets only spoke when God ordered a message to be delivered.

And where is it in the OT where a prophet claims to have been delivered the full gospel?

I agree that those who were not prepared only received part: precisely the reason that Jesus taught in parables.

Nope…the parables were a teaching tool of Jesus…to impart lessons, principles…tohelp the listener to discover the deeper meaning and underlying truth of the reality being portrayed.

But the full gospel truth, it’s precepts, ordinances and requirements; as well as the entire glorious plan that God has laid out for us here on earth was well known to the prophets of the Old Testament because God revealed His will to them directly. It is told to us by Amos (3:7) that this is always the way God works, and nowhere is it suggested otherwise.

Nope…the OT was a precursor…to the Messiah and God’s plan of salvation to be revealed by Jesus.

Even if I were to agree with you that there is nothing new doctrinally to be received from God, the idea that He would stop conversing with people to give advice and interpretations is absurd.

And where is that implied? The CC declares no more public revelations or doctrines. It does not mean God stopped communicating. It continues to do this through the HS, as promised by Christ, to guide and guard His Church…into all truth.

So you also complain when reading the OT that only the tribe of Levi were permitted to officiate in Temple ordinances? We are not given God’s reasons for this either, yet you appear to accept that He has them without question. God’s will is what we follow, whatever this is, and wherever it may lead us.

The tribe of Levi was chosen…so what is your problem with it?

So, basically, if I have this right; instead of using the words of scripture, and the words of God to define your doctrine, teaching, ordinances and traditions; you use your existing traditions to decide how to interpret the scriptures. Seems completely topsy-turvy to me.

Nope…you still did not get it right.

 

[rainman10]

While I agree that none of these specify any time, it is quite clear that a general apostasy is prophesied, and if it has not happened yet, then it is still to come.
So then this general apostasy must be the Mormon church!
Historically?
Since the time Joseph Smith restored the church there has been an unbroken line of Apostles and Prophets, with a continuous stream of revelations from God, interpreting and confirming all aspects of how His kingdom is to be re-established and organised.
Goodness, an unbroken line of apostles and prophets for about 180 years, that is really convincing.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Naf623;8456113:

What one could do is find the closest Catholic Church, walk in, find the Crucifix, stand at the foot of it while looking up. The fulness of the Gospel will be presented there if one can find themselves into the proper mindset. “I am a helpless sinner, He has saved me from my sin” How can the Gospel message get any fuller than that?

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

The Gospel has not been delivered yet, and yet Abraham has a full and complete understanding?

I thought that you used to be LDS. What you describe is one of the basic tennets of the Book of Mormon, i.e. that prophets knew of Christ before he was born, and that many prophesies more specific to Christ’s mission and ministry were removed from the Tenach. The Trinity didn’t just come into existence in Year 1 AD.

 

[mwok]

So you would refuse to even pray about something to discover it’s true meaning or value, simply because your human brain sees no possibility that it could be true?
Basically that’s saying you know better than God, which patently is not true. If the Book of Mormon is, indeed, not true and not the word of God, what would you have to lose by taking the advice in James 1:5-6. I find it extremely odd that a church professing to believe in Jesus Christ, in His existence and resurrection, in God’s love for His children and in the teachings of the bible: both OT and NT of which provide doctrinal evidence for personal revelation from God; would teach it’s members that prayer to find out truth is unnecessary. I see only two reasons for this (which are really two sides to the same coin); either the church is afraid that it’s members will be told by God that it is not true; or that they will discover the truth of something else not included in that church’s teachings. what other possible reason could there be to encourage people not to pray for guidance?

But what you are asking is that I believe in the burning in the bosom. I believe even when I feel that God’s presence could not be farther from me, not because I feel warm and sticky(a mormon friend of mine likened his experience to being covered in warm honey). Now let me ask you this:

IF for arguements sake you went to Mass and the eucharist literally changed to flesh complete with dermis, epidermis and subcutaneous tissue; to blood complete with hemaglobin, plasma and leukocytes, BUT…
you were blind, so you could not see the change
you were deaf, so no one could tell you of the change
you could not smell nor taste, so you could not sense the change in those ways and
you had just had a oral surgery and were just coming off the anesthetic so you could not feel exactly what was in your mouth
would you believe there was a change?