Mormons; why don't you have crosses in your churches?

[Answersplease]

Don’t look now, but if it’s exegesis, it’s not false. The word you want is eisegesis, and that is what you do.

Post #373 clearly shows very little interpretation by me, I still proved ParkerD’s exegesis to be false.

The “curse” was “open rebellion against God.” The mark of the curse for the Amlicites was that they placed a red dye on their foreheads.

I utterly fail to see how.

You are saying that you are smarter or more righteous than your past leaders, because it is clear what they thought.

catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9901qq.asp

Bruce R. McConkie maintained “Negroes are not equal with other races” in spiritual matters and that this is God’s law, not man’s. The future prophet Spencer W. Kimball claimed that in just fifteen years from the time of their conversion he had seen Indian people who accepted the Mormon gospel become “white and delightsome.”

But the civil rights movement had its effect the LDS Church. Black leaders urged boycotts of the state of Utah and all Mormon Tabernacle Choir products. The NAACP brought discrimination charges against the Utah Boy Scouts for prohibiting a black member from assuming a senior patrol position. College athletes refused to play Brigham Young University teams. Groups protested at the church’s twice-yearly general conferences in Salt Lake City.

Mormon leadership finally acknowledged that many, perhaps most, of the converts to the Church in Brazil had some degree of black ancestry. While their donations helped build the São Paulo Temple, they were not permitted to attend it.

By 1978, increased social repudiation of racism, coupled with Mormon evangelization in areas with large populations of racially mixed ancestry, led to one of the most drastic reversals in Mormon belief and practice: Those with Negro blood were allowed to attend the temple, and worthy black men could also hold the priesthood.

Don’t know why I’m trying this, though.

Because you know your past leaders are right in their exegesis, and you are in denial using any kind of eisegesis to try to prove it.

 

[ParkerD]

I have looked into John Wycliffe. I’ll still have to get back to you on William Tyndale.

To summarize what I’ve learned. John Wycliffe, did indeed translate the Bible into his language, using the Latin Vulgate. From what I’ve been able to learn, this was not necessarily the result of the controversy surrounding John Wycliffe.’

He was a teacher at Oxford University. He also had connections to the ruling family in England. John of Gaul, Duke of Lancaster, uncle of Henry V, among others, and not necessarily a friend of the Church. John Wycliff’s followers were the Lollards, who also were not friends of the Church.

Because of his position, John Wycliffe preached, publicly.
He had three views which were in direct opposition to the faith:

1. He believed the clergy should not be able to own any property. He further believed that any property the clergy held was gained illicitly, and the State should be able to confiscate any property held by the clergy.
2. He insisted on the Bible as the rule of faith (apparently the precursor to Sola Scriptora).
3. He denied the real presence of the Eucharist - his belief was close to what would become the Lutheran position, consubstantiation. For this, he lost his popularity with the people, bot not his contemporaries at Oxford.
4. He was excommunicated, but buried in a Catholic cemetery, so his remains were ordered to be removed.

Okay, Parker, so bringing him up proves what? From a Catholic point of view, the three views he publicly espoused are heretical. The views he publicly espoused resulted in his excommunication. What did you expect me to say?

I support his excommunication, I hope he repented before his death. I am a Catholic, what did you expect me to say?

I’ll get back to you on Tynsdale.

In Christ,
Michael

Hi, Michael,
Thanks for your thoughts. I didn’t have a preconceived idea of what you thought about Wycliffe. I like that he wanted the common people to be able to read the Bible. I of course can see why he was excommunicated, but I was more interested in his interest in translating the Bible into English which I think was important, and a good thing.

 

[guanophore]

:tsktsk::tsktsk:

Stop cunfusing this poor guy with your mormon doctrines ParkerD!

Zundrah, I realize the question that was posed about Mormonism was a little off your topic (you asked about Christian symbols), but I think it was a sincere desire to learn more about the Mormon beliefs. It was appropriately answered by a Mormon who is knowledgeble and able to answer it, and the inquirer was given information on where to go.

This is the NC forum, and that it the type of exchange that is supposed to happen here. This section is for discussion, comparing, and contrasting of differing beliefs. Having information, in itself, does not have to confuse anyone.

SOUNDS GREAT TO ME; let’s start round one now! Me versus all of you catholics and mormons!

You are presenting an adversarial attitude, which is not conducive to getting your needs met, on CAF, or off!

…listen why don’t you go and worship Mary or something?

You have just criticized Mormons for not having crosses, and now you are advising someone to commit a mortal sin. You have not progressed in your RCIA yet to realize that encouraging others to commit a mortal sin also constitutes a mortal sin for yourself. It is not appropriate even to make jokes about such serious offenses against God.

Showing charity, speaking with kindness, loving responses toward others, seeking to hold the dignity of others above our own are more indicative of a “Christian life” than the presence of a cross in the vicinity.

I strongly urge you to consider what Publisher has pointed out, Zundrah.

 

[ParkerD]

Post #373 clearly shows very little interpretation by me, I still proved ParkerD’s exegesis to be false.

You are saying that you are smarter or more righteous than your past leaders, because it is clear what they thought.

Because you know your past leaders are right in their exegesis, and you are in denial using any kind of eisegesis to try to prove it.

Answers,
I suppose I’ll make another attempt to discuss this issue. Those who are familiar with the Book of Mormon are familiar with the visit of Christ to a group of 2,500 people in the Americas after His ascension in the Holy Land. After His visit, the book of 4 Nephi describes a very peaceful period of time that lasted about 200 years, when everyone was righteous in the area that is described. There was no contention, and there were no “Lamanites” or “any manner of -ites.” (v. 17) They are described by Mormon as being “an exceedingly fair and delightsome people.” (v. 10)

When this society began to break down, Mormon describes that some of the people took upon themselves “the name of Lamanites; therefore there began to be Lamanites again in the land.” (v. 20)

Now, guess what is lacking in all the descriptions that follow? Any mention of skin color!

Read these two verses:
45 And it came to pass that when three hundred years had passed away, both the people of Nephi and the Lamanites had become exceedingly wicked one like unto another.

Moroni 9:20 And now, my son, I dwell no longer upon this horrible scene. Behold, thou knowest the wickedness of this people; thou knowest that they are without principle, and past feeling; and their wickedness doth exceed that of the Lamanites.

Here is a passage in Mormon 5 that is going to be misunderstood by someone with an agenda of divisiveness:

15 And also that the seed of this people may more fully believe his gospel, which shall go forth unto them from the Gentiles; for this people shall be scattered, and shall become a dark, a filthy, and a loathsome people, beyond the description of that which ever hath been amongst us, yea, even that which hath been among the Lamanites, and this because of their unbelief and idolatry.
16 For behold, the Spirit of the Lord hath already ceased to strive with their fathers; and they are without Christ and God in the world; and they are driven about as chaff before the wind.
17 They were once a delightsome people, and they had Christ for their shepherd; yea, they were led even by God the Father.
18 But now, behold, they are led about by Satan, even as chaff is driven before the wind, or as a vessel is tossed about upon the waves, without sail or anchor, or without anything wherewith to steer her; and even as she is, so are they.

“Dark” people as the term is being used by Mormon does not refer to skin color. It refers to what is going on in their hearts. Mormon had lived through a period of time when all the people were wicked, and robbery and lawlessness were rampant.

In Alma 37, we find the following passage about “works of darkness”:

22 For behold, the Lord saw that his people began to work in darkness, yea, work secret murders and abominations; therefore the Lord said, if they did not repent they should be destroyed from off the face of the earth.
23 And the Lord said: I will prepare unto my servant Gazelem, a stone, which shall shine forth in darkness unto light, that I may discover unto my people who serve me, that I may discover unto them the works of their brethren, yea, their secret works, their works of darkness, and their wickedness and abominations.
24 And now, my son, these interpreters were prepared that the word of God might be fulfilled, which he spake, saying:
25 I will bring forth out of darkness unto light all their secret works and their abominations; and except they repent I will destroy them from off the face of the earth; and I will bring to light all their secrets and abominations, unto every nation that shall hereafter possess the land.

Compare those with the following Bible verses:

Isaiah 29:15 Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord, and their works are in the dark, and they say, Who seeth us? and who knoweth us?

Romans 13:12 The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.

“Dark people” in Mormon’s use of the term means the kind of people that are described by Isaiah and by the apostle Paul in the two verses above. It has nothing to do with skin color.

You asked about the children of the people who were doing works of darkness. They wouldn’t be “born” with a “heart of darkness” (absolutely not–they would be born pure and innocent), but if they weren’t taught by their parents then as they got older they would participate in those kinds of works. That is what the Bible means when it says “visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;” (Exodus 20:5)

You probably won’t get this, but I’ve tried my best. Sorry it doesn’t make sense to you.
(Maybe it will–I hope so.)

 

[guanophore]

Oh no… I’m not hostile…

You may not be aware of feeling hostile, but your actions are hostile. It is common, for a person with your condition, to disconnect from oneself. This is one of the skils needed for survival during trauma. Later in life, when you are away from the trauma, some of the skills used to survive it become counterproductive.

Catholioc …that’s good! At least you are not mormon!

This is a prejudiced and disrespectful comment.

… LOL - we are all sinner s but let’s thank the good mercifull Lord that he does not treat us the way we treat each other!

Yet, He commands us to treat others as He has treated us, therefore, when we fail t show the same generosity of spirit to others as He has to us, we are falling short of His desire for us.

HA HA HA!

I’m not catholic! lol

One of the main points of the parable of the good Samaritan is that we are to treat everyone as our neighbor, and love others as we love ourselves. You seem to be missing the point in your reply here. You stated that you felt like “beating up” Mormons. The suggestion was made (a very good one) to substitute another group of people. This is a good method for identifying prejudice at work. Your reply does not indicate that you have recognized your prejudice, and lack of charity.

are you serious? Or just like five or six years old?

Although I did not write this, I think it is instructive for you to realize that you do come across very immature when you write the types of things you have in this thread.

I clearly said that I was just expressing emotion when I said about beating up mormons,

You did express a feeling (anger), but you also expressed a violent thought. Jesus taught that the thoughts of our hearts are just as critical as our actions. “if you lust (for a woman” in your heart you have committed adultery with her already". Using this principle, if you think about wanting to beat up Mormons, then you are already guilty in your heart. Familiarity with a person is not an excuse to be rude to them.

So stop being a meanie to me! …truce?

People that object to your provocative behaviors are not “meanies”. They are trying to give you feedback about how you come across.

I think it is important for you to realize that you have this pattern. You say something insulting and provocative towards others, then when they respond, you apologize, and ask for a “truce”. Often you state that you did not mean it the way it came across. I would like to suggest that it is possible for you to change this dynamic of interacting with othersm and that CAF is a very good place for you to practice another way of relating to people. You don’t need to insult or provoke people in order to get connected.

You did express a feeling (anger), but you also expressed a violent thought. Jesus taught that the thoughts of our hearts are just as critical as our actions. “if you lust (for a woman” in your heart you have committed adultery with her already". Using this principle, if you think about wanting to beat up Mormons, then you are already guilty in your heart.

 

[Jerusha]

Perhaps, Parker, I might take you more seriously if your “ministry” were more focused on overcoming racism, anti-Catholicism, and intergenerational hatred among your own people.

 

[guanophore]

Yep, yep, mormons say that they are the one true church so obviously they want to out do the chatholics! No, I wont let them! I may be protestant but we must stand together against these cults! Amen!

Zundrah, it is not accurate to say that you are “protestant” when you have joined RCIA. You are a catechumen, that is one who is in spiritual formation to come into full communion with the Catholic Church. As such, it is also important for you to refrain from making insulting remarks about Protestants, Catholics, Mormons, and any one else who thinks or believes differently than you.

If you want to “stand against these cults” then it is more appropriate for you to do so over in the apologetics section. NC is for the exploration and discussions of differences. If you are unable to engage in such exchage charitably, it is best that you refrain.

This is how I see it;

Protestant split away from the pope out of a dispute of doctrines,

When you read more about history, you will find that doctrine had very little to do with the Reformation, especially in the beginning. Most of the factors related to the sinful and impious behavior of persons in positions of authority, claiming to represent the Catholic faith, and not doing so. The doctrinal changes came later, and most were an effort to purge what Protestants perceived as “sin” in the Church.

By the way, all the Reformers had crosses in their churches, and Luther, like yourself, continued to carry and pray his Rosary until HIs death.

but mormons didn't even split up from them, but instead they just made up their own faith because they wanted to have the AUTHORITY!... A new prophet, a new church... ect

I understand the point you are trying to make, but it is impossible for the founders of Mormonism not to have been influenced by Protestantism.

Mormons; they want us to believe thast christ wasn't good enough but their "Joseph Smith" came and saved the day! :rolleyes: What a load of "gobbledy goop"! :D

I dont’ think this is true, but since it has nothing to do with the thread topic, I suggest that it have it’s own.

If you cannot address the point in a more mature and charitable manner, however, it might be better not to discuss it at all.

Just because protestants split from the pope, that doesn’t mean that I’m going to believe what some cult says over the catholic church! I know who I would rather trust!

If this is true, then you might be benefitted to begin my embracing your identity as a Catholic Catechumen. Identifying yourself as a Protestant, after you have declared your intention to become Roman Catholic, is misleading and disingenuous. So is refusing to look at your prejudices from the point of view of being Catholic

…is this a joke? What is a quaker? Is it another protestant denomination? I’m a methodist!

I don’t believe the Quakers were welcome in Europe, which is the main reason they came here. They were escaping from religious persecution when they landed on Plymouth Rock! It is understandible that you are not farmiliar with them I think they are uniquely American. Publisher will correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Publisher]

Friends were in contact fairly early with the Mennonites. There were Friends meetings in Germany and Holland…but most of the “Reformerrs” really didn’t see much difference between the odd Quakers and the strange Mennonites.

English persecution drove Friends to America eventually. William Penn had become “convinced”. The king of England owed his father a large amount of money but gave him a parcel of land in America, what became Pennsylvania. Friend William opened up his new colony to all who were persecuted…Mennonites, Moravians, and Brethren. Along with Rhode Island, Pennsylvania was a haven of religious tolerance.

Mary Dyer and two of her male companions had been hanged on Boston Common prior to Pennsylvania being established I believe…many Friends in America went through rough treatment…mostly jail time and having their ears cut off or tongue bored through.

 

[guanophore]

You do sound pretty juvenile—if not worse. The Quakers are a well-known Chritian movement older than Methodists, and many early colonizers of North America were Quakers. You can read more about them here.

Zundrah is inexperienced and not educated about Christian history, but is trying to learn. She grew up without any exposure to Christian faith, and has just less than two years, I think, of experience as a Methodist. She lives in England, and does not know much about the history of religion in the US, either.

What are you saying Zerius!? :snowing:

In addition to using rather primitive methods to engage others, you seem to lack knowledge of what is generally known.

 

[zerinus]

Zundrah is inexperienced and not educated about Christian history, but is trying to learn. She grew up without any exposure to Christian faith, and has just less than two years, I think, of experience as a Methodist. She lives in England, and does not know much about the history of religion in the US, either.

Yes, thank you. I did realize that afterwards, although I was not aware of it at the time I made that post.

 

[dianaiad]

I never said that, that came from your own mind, it shows how you think.

No sir, I was pointing out the fallacious argument you were using; acknowledging the point you were attempting to make.

I just said Satan could outdo do me in a quoting contest, to prove how silly ParkerD’s bragging was. Do you think bragging about being able to outdo someone in a quote contest easily is appropriate for a mormon leader to do?

Actually, you were throwing out a red herring, sir. It does not matter who can outquote you; you can be outquoted. In your response you did two things: first, you admitted that you were ‘outquoted,’ that is, you were incorrect about something, and then you attempted to deflect attention from that fact by comparing anybody who dares to do so with Satan himself.

Standard, classic fallacious argument.

Read my reply to ParkerD’s exegesis of Alma chapter 3.

Again. If it is exegesis, it’s not wrong. That’s why it is called ‘exegesis,’ not eisegesis.

 

[dianaiad]

In a kangaroo court the defendant is usually denied the right to certain procedures that allow him to defend himself and the outcome of the trial is predetermined.

Yes.

And?

An open debate, has no predetermined outcome, and you have access to the same rights as anyone here.

Your comparing this debate to a kangaroo court is just an excuse.

Indeed?

Please look very closely at the rules of this forum. Examine what is allowed under those rules and what is not allowed under those rules…and look at the sort of language that is permitted to Catholics defending Catholicism, as opposed to the sort of language that is permitted to non-Catholics defending their own faiths.

At your own posts, for instance.

This is a moderated forum that is heavily weighted toward Catholicism, and THAT IS AS IT SHOULD BE, don’t get me wrong. It is your forum, and though I do remind people from time to time that this specific sub-forum is for the discussion of non-Catholic religions, the forum rules remain the same: under 'Conduct Rules," rule #7 states: “Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectfurl of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board.”

Please note: *there is no rule that says that anybody, Catholics or non–have to be respectful of anybody else’s faith. *

More people attempt to be even handed in here than do else where, but…it is still rather onesided. For instance, how often have you and others here called Joseph Smith horrific names? How often have you and others shown incredible disrespect for our faith? How often have you called our leaders frauds, criminals, murderers even…right down to deserving the persecutions and the deaths that they suffered?

No, I’m not talking about saying “I don’t agree with that,” or “I think that Joseph Smith was either a false prophet” or “I think the Book of Mormon is not scripture…” and then giving reasons why. I’m talking about saying things like “Joseph Smith was a con-man” or a criminal, or a murderer, or a pedophile, or deserved his death, or any number of other things that, if I wrote them about any of the Popes, would get me banned from CAF for life…as it should.

If this forum were the ‘free and open debate’ you claim for it, the rules would be the same for everybody. They aren’t, and that’s just plain fact. The forum rules are right here on top of the page. Go look 'em up.

I’m not complaining about it, oddly enough. It’s a Catholic forum, and frankly, the rules as they exist here are about the only way you guys are going to have a place where it is possible to discuss Catholicism without the trolls coming in. Your right, your privilege, and I’m fine with that.

Just understand, please, that those of us who are NOT Catholic are also aware that we come in here under different rules than you do. You may say things about our faith that we cannot say about yours. You may behave in a manner that we may not follow. You may use insults that are barred to us.

We must respect your faith. You have no limit upon the disrespect you may show ours.

When the rules are different, then the debate is not 'open" or without a predetermined outcome, NOR do we have access to the same rights as anyone here.

I understand the rules. I may even agree with them–mostly. That does NOT mean I have to pretend that they are something they are not.

 

[sweetnay]

Yes.

And?

Indeed?

Please look very closely at the rules of this forum. Examine what is allowed under those rules and what is not allowed under those rules…and look at the sort of language that is permitted to Catholics defending Catholicism, as opposed to the sort of language that is permitted to non-Catholics defending their own faiths.

At your own posts, for instance.

This is a moderated forum that is heavily weighted toward Catholicism, and THAT IS AS IT SHOULD BE, don’t get me wrong. It is your forum, and though I do remind people from time to time that this specific sub-forum is for the discussion of non-Catholic religions, the forum rules remain the same: under 'Conduct Rules," rule #7 states: “Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectfurl of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board.”

Please note: *there is no rule that says that anybody, Catholics or non–have to be respectful of anybody else’s faith. *

More people attempt to be even handed in here than do else where, but…it is still rather onesided. For instance, how often have you and others here called Joseph Smith horrific names? How often have you and others shown incredible disrespect for our faith? How often have you called our leaders frauds, criminals, murderers even…right down to deserving the persecutions and the deaths that they suffered?

No, I’m not talking about saying “I don’t agree with that,” or “I think that Joseph Smith was either a false prophet” or “I think the Book of Mormon is not scripture…” and then giving reasons why. I’m talking about saying things like “Joseph Smith was a con-man” or a criminal, or a murderer, or a pedophile, or deserved his death, or any number of other things that, if I wrote them about any of the Popes, would get me banned from CAF for life…as it should.

If this forum were the ‘free and open debate’ you claim for it, the rules would be the same for everybody. They aren’t, and that’s just plain fact. The forum rules are right here on top of the page. Go look 'em up.

I’m not complaining about it, oddly enough. It’s a Catholic forum, and frankly, the rules as they exist here are about the only way you guys are going to have a place where it is possible to discuss Catholicism without the trolls coming in. Your right, your privilege, and I’m fine with that.

Just understand, please, that those of us who are NOT Catholic are also aware that we come in here under different rules than you do. You may say things about our faith that we cannot say about yours. You may behave in a manner that we may not follow. You may use insults that are barred to us.

We must respect your faith. You have no limit upon the disrespect you may show ours.

When the rules are different, then the debate is not 'open" or without a predetermined outcome, NOR do we have access to the same rights as anyone here.

I understand the rules. I may even agree with them–mostly. That does NOT mean I have to pretend that they are something they are not.

I thought you were gonna take a vacation

 

[dianaiad]

I thought you were gonna take a vacation

I’m back.

 

[guanophore]

 The differentiation between the Nephites and the Lamanites had to do with which group was spiritually dead because they didn't follow the guidance of the Holy Ghost beginning in 588 BC, but all that changed in about 90 BC when many Lamanites began joining the true church of Christ and received the Holy Ghost in their lives.

I have read some amazing things on these Mormon threads. This is the first time I have heard of Church existing “BC”. I always thought that Jesus built the Church, and that He gave the HS after His resurrection. To find that these things actually happened 90 years before He was born is quite eye opening.

 

[Answersplease]

Yes.

And?

Indeed?

Please look very closely at the rules of this forum. Examine what is allowed under those rules and what is not allowed under those rules…and look at the sort of language that is permitted to Catholics defending Catholicism, as opposed to the sort of language that is permitted to non-Catholics defending their own faiths.

At your own posts, for instance.

This is a moderated forum that is heavily weighted toward Catholicism, and THAT IS AS IT SHOULD BE, don’t get me wrong. It is your forum, and though I do remind people from time to time that this specific sub-forum is for the discussion of non-Catholic religions, the forum rules remain the same: under 'Conduct Rules," rule #7 states: “Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectfurl of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board.”

Please note: *there is no rule that says that anybody, Catholics or non–have to be respectful of anybody else’s faith. *

More people attempt to be even handed in here than do else where, but…it is still rather onesided. For instance, how often have you and others here called Joseph Smith horrific names? How often have you and others shown incredible disrespect for our faith? How often have you called our leaders frauds, criminals, murderers even…right down to deserving the persecutions and the deaths that they suffered?

No, I’m not talking about saying “I don’t agree with that,” or “I think that Joseph Smith was either a false prophet” or “I think the Book of Mormon is not scripture…” and then giving reasons why. I’m talking about saying things like “Joseph Smith was a con-man” or a criminal, or a murderer, or a pedophile, or deserved his death, or any number of other things that, if I wrote them about any of the Popes, would get me banned from CAF for life…as it should.

If this forum were the ‘free and open debate’ you claim for it, the rules would be the same for everybody. They aren’t, and that’s just plain fact. The forum rules are right here on top of the page. Go look 'em up.

I’m not complaining about it, oddly enough. It’s a Catholic forum, and frankly, the rules as they exist here are about the only way you guys are going to have a place where it is possible to discuss Catholicism without the trolls coming in. Your right, your privilege, and I’m fine with that.

Just understand, please, that those of us who are NOT Catholic are also aware that we come in here under different rules than you do. You may say things about our faith that we cannot say about yours. You may behave in a manner that we may not follow. You may use insults that are barred to us.

We must respect your faith. You have no limit upon the disrespect you may show ours.

When the rules are different, then the debate is not 'open" or without a predetermined outcome, NOR do we have access to the same rights as anyone here.

I understand the rules. I may even agree with them–mostly. That does NOT mean I have to pretend that they are something they are not.

I said it was an “open debate”, I did not say it was a “free” debate, you put words in my mouth and that is deceptive.

If you think there are some rules that prohibit you from giving a proper defense then state them on the thread, shoe the link and the exact rule itself.

 

[Answersplease]

No sir, I was pointing out the fallacious argument you were using; acknowledging the point you were attempting to make.

Actually, you were throwing out a red herring, sir. It does not matter who can outquote you; you can be outquoted. In your response you did two things: first, you admitted that you were ‘outquoted,’ that is, you were incorrect about something, and then you attempted to deflect attention from that fact by comparing anybody who dares to do so with Satan himself.

Standard, classic fallacious argument.

Again. If it is exegesis, it’s not wrong. That’s why it is called ‘exegesis,’ not eisegesis.

Show links and post the definition of a red herring, and a “classic fallacious argument”.

And you did’nt answer if you thought it was proper for a mormon leader to go bragging about being able to out quote someone.

 

[Answersplease]

You asked about the children of the people who were doing works of darkness. They wouldn’t be “born” with a “heart of darkness” (absolutely not–they would be born pure and innocent), but if they weren’t taught by their parents then as they got older they would participate in those kinds of works. That is what the Bible means when it says “visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;” (Exodus 20:5)

The children were to be distinguished from the other groups, it does’nt say that they will be distinguished at a later time after they were taught to behave rebelliously by their parents.

If the “curse” is “open rebellion” against your mormon god or a self-inflicted mark,
then why do the verses say the “mark” was “set” (placed) by your mormon god himself? (see next verse)

Alma 3:7
…and the Lord God SET a MARK upon them…

If the “curse” is “open rebellion”, then how do you DISTINGUISH between a good newborn baby and an “openly rebellious” newborn baby? (see the next verse)

Alma 3:8
And this was done that their seed might be DISTINGUISHED from the seed of their brethren…

 

[paperwight]

Friends were in contact fairly early with the Mennonites. There were Friends meetings in Germany and Holland…but most of the “Reformerrs” really didn’t see much difference between the odd Quakers and the strange Mennonites.

English persecution drove Friends to America eventually. William Penn had become “convinced”. The king of England owed his father a large amount of money but gave him a parcel of land in America, what became Pennsylvania. Friend William opened up his new colony to all who were persecuted…Mennonites, Moravians, and Brethren. Along with Rhode Island, Pennsylvania was a haven of religious tolerance.

Mary Dyer and two of her male companions had been hanged on Boston Common prior to Pennsylvania being established I believe…many Friends in America went through rough treatment…mostly jail time and having their ears cut off or tongue bored through.

There are still Quakers in Britain - my neighbours are Quakers, and I grew up near a Quaker Meeting House in Brighton, on the South Coast of England, which was built in the 18th Century, I think.

I don’t know if these communities have continued from the original Quakers, though - I suppose it could be that they have been ‘seeded’ from other countries after more-or-less dying out here after the persecution.

 

[zerinus]

I have read some amazing things on these Mormon threads. This is the first time I have heard of Church existing “BC”. I always thought that Jesus built the Church, and that He gave the HS after His resurrection. To find that these things actually happened 90 years before He was born is quite eye opening.

It might not be so amazing if you read the Book of Mormon—or it might be even more amazing!