The Church in the Americas and the Great Apostasy

[Telstar]

Gamaliel did not have to be an expert in Christianity to recognize irrational paranoid bullying when he saw it. Do you need the Acts reference or can you run a search on the name Gamaliel?

Let me help you.

*[29] But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men. [30] The God of our fathers hath raised up Jesus, whom you put to death, hanging him upon a tree.

[31] Him hath God exalted with his right hand, to be Prince and Saviour, to give repentance to Israel, and remission of sins. [32] And we are witnesses of these things and the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to all that obey him. [33] When they had heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they thought to put them to death. [34] But one in the council rising up, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, respected by all the people, commanded the men to be put forth a little while. [35] And he said to them: Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what you intend to do, as touching these men.

[36] For before these days rose up Theodas, affirming himself to be somebody, to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all that believed him were scattered, and brought to nothing. [37] After this man, rose up Judas of Galilee, in the days of the enrolling, and drew away the people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as consented to him, were dispersed. [38] And now, therefore, I say to you, refrain from these men, and let them alone; for if this council or this work be of men, it will come to nought; [39] But if it be of God, you cannot overthrow it, lest perhaps you be found even to fight against God. And they consented to him.*

Gamaliel was certainly not referring to ‘irrational paranoid bullying’, as you describe it. He knew that the whole council just wanted to kill them all, and be done with it. He was simply reminding the other members of the high council that if these men were anything like those that had followed other ‘false messiahs’, then they would eventually disperse, disappear, and be forgotten, as if they had never existed, also. But, if they really spoke the truth, then the council itself would not only be guilty of persecuting them (and killing them, if that’s what they decided to do), but they would be even more guilty of fighting against God, Himself, than they already were by their promoting the killing of Jesus, if He really was the true Messiah.

Your comparison of those circumstances with this thread is ridiculous. This thread is a civil discussion of beliefs from both sides of the aisle. While it may seem to get a little confrontational at times, there are certainly no lynch mobs looking to make martyrs of anyone for their beliefs. So, I think you can check your persecution complex at the door.

 

[smirknoff]

Honestly, you do not know? You are defending mormons, and you do not know their claim of legitimacy…that the mormon church is a restoration of true christianity…just one of such claims…similar to the JWs, the SDAs, the Oneness pentecostals…among others.

Gamaliel did not have to be an expert in Christianity to recognize irrational paranoid bullying when he saw it.

Since Telstar is misconstruing my reply to Pablo’s question as complaint about "persecution,persecution, I have reposted the original context.

My point is that Gamaliel wasn’t an expert on Christianity nor ultimately a defenderer of Christianity. As one of the renowned writers of the Talmud, Gamaliel was standing up for his own Jewish values and beliefs … as do the other gentler Catholic posters on this forum whom you and Steve168 embarrass with your prideful belligerence.

 

[smirknoff]

He merely refers to himself as a ‘theist’.

Definition of THEISMHe certainly seems to use all of their typical buzzwords and phraseology, such as ‘jackmormon’, which is a unique term that only LDS use to refer to Mormons that have ‘apostatized’ and left the church.

^^^^ [No, telstar, no! Jackmormon was a phrase from anti-mormons to refer to a.nonmormon who was a friend to Mormons. Kind of like how sheet-head kkks refer to non-racist whites as “n*****r-lovers.” Mormons do NOTthe use the phrase to describe a Mormons who has “apostacized”. They use it to describe a Mormons who is in bad standing for smoking, drinking, not going to church, etc.]]
​

​

 

[Telstar]

I respectfully accept your apology. To admit that one was mistaken takes motors guts than many folks have. I hope that we can continue the discussion in greater clarity and respect.

—----------------
Thomas Jefferson was sometimes a Deist, which is the only type of theist which I will say categorically that I am not.

I am not “hiding” my religion, Steve and Telstar. I am refusing to tell you what it is, in order to get you to respond to what I say rather that to what you have been told that I believe. Ian order to converse with me without looking foolish, you are going to have to read and think. Does that frustrate you?

So, you weren’t ‘hiding’ your religion, you were just refusing to say what it was so we wouldn’t prejudge you by those beliefs? My apologies, but that’s a hilarious contradiction, but it certainly doesn’t ‘frustrate me’ at all. Now, you’re claiming to be Amish? This just gets better and better, all the time. I didn’t realize that the Amish were so enamored with defending LDS beliefs. Do you also follow the BoM as they do? If you do, I have to admit that I was completely unaware of that fact.

You certainly wouldn’t have to worry about me ‘prejudging’ you by your beliefs (if you really are Amish) because I don’t really know enough about what the Amish believe. I’d have to do some homework to familiarize myself with their beliefs. (They make awesome pastries and other baked goods, as well as phenomenal furniture, from what I’ve heard from friends in Pennsylvania and Ohio, though. ) But, I don’t think there are any Amish in New England, at least not in Massachusetts (that I know of).

Perhaps you should start a thread to discuss something of your own beliefs, instead of just commenting on what LDS believe. I’d love to learn more about it. That doesn’t mean that I won’t challenge those beliefs against what my Church teaches (that is the focus of this forum), but it’s always good to test what we believe against what others believe. It’s good ‘spiritual exercise’ for the soul, that makes us really think about things from a different perspective to see how they compare. It often helps us appreciate what we choose to believe, even more.

(Sorry if my responses tend to be slow in coming, but, I’m also trying to cook supper while I’m responding to posts.)

 

[smirknoff]

Thistime your instinct about me was correct, English. Yes, I am kidding about being Amish. Kitchen Amish don’t use the internet.

 

[Telstar]

Originally Posted by Telstar View Post
He merely refers to himself as a ‘theist’.

Definition of THEISM He certainly seems to use all of their typical buzzwords and phraseology, such as ‘jackmormon’, which is a unique term that only LDS use to refer to Mormons that have ‘apostatized’ and left the church.
​

​

​

 

[Telstar]

smirknoff:

In case anyone besides telestar missed the joke, no, I am not “claiming” to be Amish. Afaik Amish do not post on the Internet, English.

I didn’t think they did… but it was your ‘story’ and I didn’t want to just ‘assume’ that you were FOS.

 

[smirknoff]

I didn’t think they did… but it was your ‘story’ and I didn’t want to just ‘assume’ that you were FOS.

That’s courteous of you and I apologize for my initial response, which I since edited.

Cheers.

 

[smirknoff]

I sit corrected. Mea Culpa! I’ve never heard anyone except Mormons use it, usually in a derogatory way, so I guess I assumed it was always a bad thing (this just proves why we should never ‘assume’).

Side note: Dang, it’s really hard to try to fix quotes that have been completely eviscerated on this forum! :crying: LOL

Yeah, it’s fun learning things. We got off to a rocky start but maybe you’re ok.

 

[Telstar]

That’s courteous of you and I apologize for my initial response, which I since edited.

Cheers.

No problem. If I misjudged your intentions on this forum, then I apologize. I love your new professed ‘religion’. Perhaps it’s a bit more accurate than the last one, at least.

 

[smirknoff]

glad you like it. I have heard more folks self-identifying as jackmormons then getting labelled so by others.

Can I get away with changing my professed religion every day as a gag, or should I just go back to “theist?”

 

[Miriam1947]

No problem. If I misjudged your intentions on this forum, then I apologize. I love your new professed ‘religion’. Perhaps it’s a bit more accurate than the last one, at least.

Gone, gone, gone. Another bites the dust. I think the moderators took at look and found a previously banned poster with a new I.D.

 

[pablope]

No problem. If I misjudged your intentions on this forum, then I apologize. I love your new professed ‘religion’. Perhaps it’s a bit more accurate than the last one, at least.

Originally Posted by smirknoff
That’s courteous of you and I apologize for my initial response, which I since edited.

Cheers.

Speaking of where is Waldo…Where is Smirknoff? He seems to have disappeared.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Speaking of where is Waldo…Where is Smirknoff? He seems to have disappeared.

All traces of him.

 

[Miriam1947]

Speaking of where is Waldo…Where is Smirknoff? He seems to have disappeared.

All traces of him.

Please see post 286.

 

[Telstar]

Gone, gone, gone. Another bites the dust. I think the moderators took at look and found a previously banned poster with a new I.D.

Whoa!!! The past couple of pages make me look like I was talking to myself!



Hmmm… it does look like I might have been right, after all.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I sit corrected. Mea Culpa! I’ve never heard anyone except Mormons use it, usually in a derogatory way, so I guess I assumed it was always a bad thing (this just proves why we should never ‘assume’).

Side note: Dang, it’s really hard to try to fix quotes that have been completely eviscerated on this forum! :crying: LOL

You aren’t guilty of anything. The term has changed its meaning to how you understand it. Growing up (LDS) it was used specifically used as a description of a Mormon who didn’t keep the word of wisdom (smoke and/or drank) and/or didn’t go to church.

The original meaning was what smirknoff posted, but that usage of it went out decades ago. Maybe smirknoff was trying to be all retro, but he/she is the only modern Mormon (or former Mormon) I’ve heard use the term as he/she was using it. Which, seeing as the current derogatory usage would apply to them, I can understand how it would be rejected as having a different meaning than it does.

 

[Telstar]

You aren’t guilty of anything. The term has changed its meaning to how you understand it. Growing up (LDS) it was used specifically used as a description of a Mormon who didn’t keep the word of wisdom (smoke and/or drank) and/or didn’t go to church.

The original meaning was what smirknoff posted, but that usage of it went out decades ago. Maybe smirknoff was trying to be all retro, but he/she is the only modern Mormon (or former Mormon) I’ve heard use the term as he/she was using it. Which, seeing as the current derogatory usage would apply to them, I can understand how it would be rejected as having a different meaning than it does.

Thank you, Rebecca!

I thought that it was meant as a very derogatory term from the way I saw other Mormons use it in the past, on a different forum. It seems to rank right up there with the term ‘plig’ (I think that’s it) that they also use, that refers to members of the FLDS, in a far from flattering way. I’m sure they must have some real doozies to describe Catholics and other Christians, too.

As always, I really appreciate getting honest information from you and other former LDS that are willing to share the truth about what they were taught to believe. It has certainly helped me to understand and get a better perspective on it, without all of the ‘whitewashing’ that most current LDS tend to use to cover up the real truth. It was always so frustrating for me to try to get honest answers from my LDS friends on other forums. They usually gave the typical responses that I’ve seen posted here, by other LDS. It never really helped me to understand them at all. But, your (name removed by moderator)ut has helped me immensely.

 

[KathleenGee]

A banned Mormon came on as ‘fly’…and was soon gone…his tone recognized immediately.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Thank you, Rebecca!

I thought that it was meant as a very derogatory term from the way I saw other Mormons use it in the past, on a different forum. It seems to rank right up there with the term ‘plig’ (I think that’s it) that they also use, that refers to members of the FLDS, in a far from flattering way. I’m sure they must have some real doozies to describe Catholics and other Christians, too.

I don’t recall hearing any derogatory terms towards never-Mormons. A few times in its early history its leaders would spit out the word Christian as though it should be a derogatory term. But modern Mormons… I haven’t heard anything other than putting all of Christianity under an umbrella of a “great apostasy”.

As always, I really appreciate getting honest information from you and other former LDS that are willing to share the truth about what they were taught to believe. It has certainly helped me to understand and get a better perspective on it, without all of the ‘whitewashing’ that most current LDS tend to use to cover up the real truth. It was always so frustrating for me to try to get honest answers from my LDS friends on other forums. They usually gave the typical responses that I’ve seen posted here, by other LDS. It never really helped me to understand them at all. But, your (name removed by moderator)ut has helped me immensely.

Thanks Telstar.