ChristianForums banned Christ.

[Mustard Seed]

OT and perhaps some NT writings. It was not BOM, D and C. etc.

Any chance of writtings NOT found in the NT or OT?

 

[oftenbuzzard]

25Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:

26Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?

27And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

28And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they went: and he made as though he would have gone further.

29But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them.

30And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.

31And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.

32And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

33And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them,

34Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.

--Luke 24


Yeah, that damned subjective burning of the heart that fooled those "gullible" Apostles.

27And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

This is no example of a burning bosom confirming what is or is not Scripture. Jesus was teaching them the texts they already accepted as Scripture and showing that He is the fulfillment of them.

This is a response to teaching/explaining of the Scriptures experienced by believers... NOT skeptics having confirmed that something written by Moses and the prophets is Scripture.

Right phrase, but Wrong situation...

TRY AGAIN.






like these big fonts?

 

[no avatar]

5 ¶ Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.

--Jer. 17:5

Only a fool thinks they can understand God's will through just a book and their mind.

It does help if you read all the book, though, not just a few passages out of it.

It's a shame that you left off at verse 5, when verse 6 goes so nicely with it.

Jeremiah 17:5-6
5 Thus saith the LORD; Cursed [be] the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.

6 For he shall be like the heath in the desert, and shall not see when good cometh; but shall inhabit the parched places in the wilderness, [in] a salt land and not inhabited.

 

[Mustard Seed]

This is no example of a burning bosom confirming what is or is not Scripture. Jesus was teaching them the texts they already accepted as Scripture and showing that He is the fulfillment of them.

This is a response to teaching/explaining of the Scriptures experienced by believers... NOT skeptics having confirmed that something written by Moses and the prophets is Scripture.

[size=]Right phrase, but Wrong situation...[/size]

It's an example of the Holy Spirit confirming the truth of something. I never said that it was confirming the truth of the scriptures quoted. The fact that you think that's what I was saying demonstrates both your ignorance of the issue at hand and the points of relevancy. We're mocked for using the burning of the bosom, or heart, as a verification for those things we've experienced. Yet I demonstrated here that even when the MENTAL capacities of these men were clouded, DESPITE the fact that they'd been in clear, concistant, contact with the Lord. Their KNOWLEDGE failed them to merely identify, in close physical contact, a man they'd been with for THREE YEARS. The Scribes had studied their scriptures MORE than the apostles. Yet they lacked the spirit. They refused to feel the truth so they could NOT perceive it. Even the apostles could not, throught their mental faculties, perceive that it was the Lord they were talking with untill right before he vanished. The spirit testified to the divinity of Christ yet even then his disciples didn't notice the bigest hint, the burning of their hearts, untill AFTER He left.

TRY AGAIN.

like these big fonts?

You are the one who needs to try again. First try to truly comprehend THEN try to formulate a response.

And I don't mind the size but the colors you're chosing leave something to be desired.

 

[Mustard Seed]

It does help if you read all the book, though, not just a few passages out of it.

It's a shame that you left off at verse 5, when verse 6 goes so nicely with it.

Jeremiah 17:5-6
5 Thus saith the LORD; Cursed [be] the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.

6 For he shall be like the heath in the desert, and shall not see when good cometh; but shall inhabit the parched places in the wilderness, [in] a salt land and not inhabited.

Hypocrite. You condemn me for not going to the next verse but you ignore the one after the one you add.

Clearly you are trying to imply that since the Saints led by Brigham went to the desert by a "salt land" that they automaticaly fall into the category of of the man who is like a "heath in the desert" that will inhabit the "parched places in the wilderness." You forget the fact that God led the Israelites to a "parched place" next to the most salt saturated land (and water) on the face of the planet. If ever a people were placed by someone they followed in a land of little water equal to or greater to the desolation the LDS found in Utah it would be the Israelites.You also forget the promise made by the Lord--

1 The wilderness and the solitary place shall be glad for them; and the desert shall rejoice, and blossom as the rose.
2 It shall blossom abundantly, and rejoice even with joy and singing:{The Mormon Tabernacles Choir is the longest contiuously runninng radio broadcast in the world with the program "Music and the Spoken Word"} the glory of Lebanon shall be given unto it, the excellency of Carmel and Sharon, they shall see the glory of the LORD, and the excellency of our God.
3 ¶ Strengthen ye the weak hands, and confirm the feeble knees.
4 Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God will come with avengeance, even God with a recompence; he will come and save you.
5 Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped.
6 Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing: for in the wilderness shall waters break out, and streams in the desert.
7 And the parched ground shall become a pool, and the thirsty land springs of water: in the habitation of dragons, where each lay, shall be grass with reeds and rushes.{Of all the many thousands of acers of wetlands in the Wasatch front almost all of it was created out of what was once desert shoreline to the saltiest sea in the western hemisphere.}


--Isa. 35:1-7 ~ with MS's commentary.


So, in the new light of what I've stated and demonstrated, let's look at even MORE of the context that you hypocriticaly left of. you finished up verse six on the salt land. Now lets go on to verses seven and eight.

7 Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is.
8 For he shall be as a tree planted by the waters, and that spreadeth out her roots by the river, and shall not see when heat cometh, but her leaf shall be green; and shall not be careful in the year of drought, neither shall cease from yielding fruit.

Utah would be a case in point. We have, in the last two years, started to leave a major literal drought. Now I could also demonstrate the spiritual side of drought in this world by detailing the position of the western world, or the whole world, and contrast it with various aspects of our interface with things pertaining to abiding or disobeying commandments of God. We're not perfect, by any means, but I don't think you'll find a more staunche supporter of Judeo-Christian traditional values in all the world, certainly the theological bases differ but in terms of potency for size I think you'd be hard pressed to find any other group that could beat us overall. Back to the physical drought. We went through over half a decade of terrible drought yet there'd be few things to indicate such as you passed through Utah during that time. With regards to "yielding fruit" I don't think there are many if any areas you can find in which good fruit is not being produced to some degree or another. In terms of births, converts, productivity etc.. Does it have it's ups and downs? Of course, everything in this world has increases and decreases in terms of rates of growth. But we've not stoped growing, and there's no indication of such a stop or reversal. In the almost two centuries since Joseph Smith founded the church it's continued it's fruitfullness despite many expulsions, poverty, persecution, an extermination order, its establishment in some of the most unwanted parts of the US fronteir, etc..

So please stop with the hypocrisy about not reading far enough untill you are willing to demonstrate that you are not doing such, and that I am.

 

[godrulz]

How can you tell what an objective truth is? How can you tell that it's a subjective feeling based on objective truth? How do you know the subjective feeling you have is not merely the subjective manifestation of a form of intellectualism? What a fool you are to think we can, without any reference ever to anything subjective formulate anything purely objective? And if we can only approach objectivism but never really reach it then have we ever really left subjectivity?

How do you interpret a science text book, English literature, a novel, etc.? What is more important? Reading, comprehension, exegesis, etc. or your feelings/bias?

 

[godrulz]

Any chance of writtings NOT found in the NT or OT?

Spurious gospels (Thomas, etc.) or apocryphal writings or pagan literature are not 'Scripture'. Peter referred to Paul's writings as Scripture. Some letters from Paul may not have made it into the canon. A passing reference to these does not justify accepting every extra/contrabiblical extant religious document (this line of reasoning to try to validate Mormon revelation is similar to your wrong assumption that the Gospel was lost and required restoration in the 1800s?!).

 

[no avatar]

Hypocrite. You condemn me for not going to the next verse but you ignore the one after the one you add.

Clearly you are trying to imply that since the Saints led by Brigham went to the desert by a "salt land" that they automaticaly fall into the category of of the man who is like a "heath in the desert" that will inhabit the "parched places in the wilderness." You forget the fact that God led the Israelites to a "parched place" next to the most salt saturated land (and water) on the face of the planet. If ever a people were placed by someone they followed in a land of little water equal to or greater to the desolation the LDS found in Utah it would be the Israelites.You also forget the promise made by the Lord--

1 The wilderness and the solitary place shall be glad for them; and the desert shall rejoice, and blossom as the rose.
2 It shall blossom abundantly, and rejoice even with joy and singing:{The Mormon Tabernacles Choir is the longest contiuously runninng radio broadcast in the world with the program "Music and the Spoken Word"} the glory of Lebanon shall be given unto it, the excellency of Carmel and Sharon, they shall see the glory of the LORD, and the excellency of our God.
3 ¶ Strengthen ye the weak hands, and confirm the feeble knees.
4 Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God will come with avengeance, even God with a recompence; he will come and save you.
5 Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped.
6 Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing: for in the wilderness shall waters break out, and streams in the desert.
7 And the parched ground shall become a pool, and the thirsty land springs of water: in the habitation of dragons, where each lay, shall be grass with reeds and rushes.{Of all the many thousands of acers of wetlands in the Wasatch front almost all of it was created out of what was once desert shoreline to the saltiest sea in the western hemisphere.}


--Isa. 35:1-7 ~ with MS's commentary.


So, in the new light of what I've stated and demonstrated, let's look at even MORE of the context that you hypocriticaly left of. you finished up verse six on the salt land. Now lets go on to verses seven and eight.

7 Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is.
8 For he shall be as a tree planted by the waters, and that spreadeth out her roots by the river, and shall not see when heat cometh, but her leaf shall be green; and shall not be careful in the year of drought, neither shall cease from yielding fruit.

Utah would be a case in point. We have, in the last two years, started to leave a major literal drought. Now I could also demonstrate the spiritual side of drought in this world by detailing the position of the western world, or the whole world, and contrast it with various aspects of our interface with things pertaining to abiding or disobeying commandments of God. We're not perfect, by any means, but I don't think you'll find a more staunche supporter of Judeo-Christian traditional values in all the world, certainly the theological bases differ but in terms of potency for size I think you'd be hard pressed to find any other group that could beat us overall. Back to the physical drought. We went through over half a decade of terrible drought yet there'd be few things to indicate such as you passed through Utah during that time. With regards to "yielding fruit" I don't think there are many if any areas you can find in which good fruit is not being produced to some degree or another. In terms of births, converts, productivity etc.. Does it have it's ups and downs? Of course, everything in this world has increases and decreases in terms of rates of growth. But we've not stoped growing, and there's no indication of such a stop or reversal. In the almost two centuries since Joseph Smith founded the church it's continued it's fruitfullness despite many expulsions, poverty, persecution, an extermination order, its establishment in some of the most unwanted parts of the US fronteir, etc..

So please stop with the hypocrisy about not reading far enough untill you are willing to demonstrate that you are not doing such, and that I am.

That scripture compares and contrasts two different "men". One who doesn't trust in the Lord, and one who does, and the fruits of each. It doesn't say one will become the other.

And I don't look at church growth as "fruit". What would be fruitful would be for them to denounce, and repent of, their heretical beliefs and recognize that the world according to God is much larger than the LDS church (if, indeed, the LDS church was God's church (or even part of God's church.))

 

[Mustard Seed]

That scripture compares and contrasts two different "men". One who doesn't trust in the Lord, and one who does, and the fruits of each. It doesn't say one will become the other.

I never said one will become the other. I never implied it was saying that. I'm simply saying that your insinuation that to come to a desert and live by a land of salt doesn't mean that one has forsaken the Lord or been forsaken of the Lord. We also fail to meet the requirements of being in a land with no inhabitants. There were inhabitants here in Utah when we got here. We treated them far better than most any other group of settlers had or has. So your attempt to smear was utterly foiled by the demonstration that you are wresting the scriptures.

And I don't look at church growth as "fruit". What would be fruitful would be for them to denounce, and repent of, their heretical beliefs and recognize that the world according to God is much larger than the LDS church (if, indeed, the LDS church was God's church (or even part of God's church.))

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, hfaith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

--Gal. 5:22-23

 

[Mustard Seed]

A passing reference to these does not justify accepting every extra/contrabiblical extant religious document (this line of reasoning to try to validate Mormon revelation is similar to your wrong assumption that the Gospel was lost and required restoration in the 1800s?!).

And neither does it justify your refusal to accept them as scripture. My position is held plausible, your exclusionary view is without defense.

 

[godrulz]

And neither does it justify your refusal to accept them as scripture. My position is held plausible, your exclusionary view is without defense.

Should we include every spurious book that has a bit of truth in the canon of Scripture? There are strong reasons why many of these other writings were not deemed to be Scripture.

I have a wealth of MSS evidence. Where are the Golden Plates again? Why does the 1830 ed. of BOM differ in about 4000 places from more modern editions?

 

[Mustard Seed]

How do you interpret a science text book, English literature, a novel, etc.? What is more important? Reading, comprehension, exegesis, etc. or your feelings/bias?

Awareness of one's feelings and bias, and an awareness of such in all people who write in all professions, is one of the most needed objects to truly learn from any book. For if one is not aware of feelings and bias of their own, or that of the authors or translators then one's capacity to read, comprehend or exercise proper exegesis is not possible. I'm having a hard time thinking of anything of greater import than an awareness of my feeling, and those of others, in attempting any of the other items you suggest. Or do you think there exists a single science journal, text book or lit book that is 100% objective and demonstrably so? Again your stance is a fool erand. You have this dogmatic belief in both your capacity to sufficiently discern objective truth AND the capacity of other mortals, or other material items, to perfectly convey such on their own. And don't say you don't hold to that. Because if you don't then you have the only other available option of admitting that subjectivity is a key, even if small, component in your foundational view of things.

 

[Mustard Seed]

The Holy Spirit illuminates truth.

HOW? And how is that means not involve ANY subjectivity? How can you know it involves NO subjectivity?

He gives understanding to His revelation.

How does he do such through purely objective means?

Your problem is that you have a new 'revelation' that has no historical basis in the early church that contradicts the older revelation (not just complements or clarifies it).

You haven't the foggiest what the historical condition was sufficiently to make any such claim. It is a fool's assertion and has subjective dogmatic belief in your view of what history is, and that you have a sufficient grasp of such to make definative assertions that you are deluded sufficiently to hold to as though God spoke such to you as directly as he did to Moses.

I do not understand truth through my natural mind. We rely on the Spirit, teachers in the body of Christ (I Jn.; Eph. 4), sound translation/interpretation principles, etc. We do not rely on natural learning.

How can you prove that this is not subjective or, for that matter, any less subjective than my rational?

An anti-intellectual approach can lead to deception (you have a branch of 'apologetics/scholarship' for LDS beliefs, so why make an issue of this?).

I'm not taking an anti-intellectual. I'm taking an anti-psuedo-intellectual stance. You claim intellegence that you cannot back up. You are a hypocrite in claiming access to 'sufficient' objectivity to be the definative authority on these matters. YOU are the anti-intellectual for YOU are the psuedo-intellectual.

In Corinthians, Paul was against pagan, Greek philosophy, not divine revelation from God that requires the mind and study (2 Tim. 3:16) to comprehend.

I've never once said that we do not use our minds. What I've said is that to use our minds and pretend that that is always the Holy Spirit (your apparent view) is just as subjective and untenable as one incorporating other feelings connected with the mind.

Using your mind and heart to understand truth is not parallel to following pagan, heretical philosphy to find God.

Labels you apply from a base of finite, intrinsicaly heretical, philosophical constructs made by man and smashed into scripture to fool you into thinking it's all of God. That the 'understanding' you have was 'given' to you 'objectively' by the 'Spirit' 'through' your intellect but 'not from it'. What hogwash. The mere fact that you even pretend to be free enough of subjectivity to make the claims you make is absured.

 

[Mustard Seed]

Should we include every spurious book that has a bit of truth in the canon of Scripture? There are strong reasons why many of these other writings were not deemed to be Scripture.

And where did those "reasons" originate? Who defined these "reasons" as being sufficient? Who decides these things? How do they decide these things? Why can they no longer decide these things? Or if they can how do they know they're doing it the correct way?

I have a wealth of MSS evidence. Where are the Golden Plates again? Why does the 1830 ed. of BOM differ in about 4000 places from more modern editions?

I have a wealth of MSS evidence that's more closely tied to the Book of Mormon than any of your MSS evidence is to the Bible with regard to both actual original writtings and copies. Where shall we start? I've access to the transcript of the remnants of the original translation notes AND I'll soon have access to the original printer's manuscript transcript. And shortly they'll have an easy to access and compare compilation of EVERY publication of the Book of Mormon from the manuscripts tied to it's first publication up untill the 1981 revision. Then we could go through and see these so vital variances and compare them to those found in the MSS connected to the Bible.

Will you start then? Start demonstrating the horrible changes and demonstrate how they drasticaly change what the Book of Mormon says and utterly shows the implied attempts to cover up items which you likely must think somehow show that it was an evolving 'fabrication'.

Show us where these 4000 variations mess things up. And then defend them in light of Biblical variations.

 

[HerodionRomulus]

All this round and round about verses and mss is un-necessary.

Christianity is Monotheistic. Utah LDS is Polytheistic.
You cannot have multiple deities and be a Christian. Period.

 

[no avatar]

I have a wealth of MSS evidence that's more closely tied to the Book of Mormon than any of your MSS evidence is to the Bible with regard to both actual original writtings and copies. Where shall we start? I've access to the transcript of the remnants of the original translation notes AND I'll soon have access to the original printer's manuscript transcript. And shortly they'll have an easy to access and compare compilation of EVERY publication of the Book of Mormon from the manuscripts tied to it's first publication up untill the 1981 revision. Then we could go through and see these so vital variances and compare them to those found in the MSS connected to the Bible.

Will you start then? Start demonstrating the horrible changes and demonstrate how they drasticaly change what the Book of Mormon says and utterly shows the implied attempts to cover up items which you likely must think somehow show that it was an evolving 'fabrication'.

Show us where these 4000 variations mess things up. And then defend them in light of Biblical variations.

I have a wealth of that information, also. I can lay out where, in the original manuscript and in the original Palmyra edition of the BoM, the scripture is modalistic in nature. "Jesus Christ is God" was changed to Jesus Christ is the Son of God" in the second edition. "Mary, the mother of God" was changed to "Mary, the mother of the Son of God" in the second edition. Joseph Smith must have been planning early on, to move to a multiple God theology. Otherwise, why would he change the "word of God" like that from what he translated from the plates "by the gift and power of the Holy Ghost"?

So we go from one heresy (modalism) to a different one (polytheism), all in the course of 14 years. I don't think that even God changes His mind that fast.

I can supply all this information to whoever needs it.

BTW, you mean that you will have access to a copy of the original printer's manuscript, as I know for a fact that the RLDS church (which owns it) does not let anyone come within 10 feet of it, as it is stored in a locked vault, and even top-ranking historians from the RLDS and LDS church have only had access to it once in the last 10 years, or so.

 

[godrulz]

All this round and round about verses and mss is un-necessary.

Christianity is Monotheistic. Utah LDS is Polytheistic.
You cannot have multiple deities and be a Christian. Period.

The bottom line is that Judeo-Christianity is strictly monotheistic. Smith clearly taught the plurality of gods. There is no need to debate further. Mormons must play semantical games (like saying they are Christian because they use the name of Christ in their title or they redefine monotheism to suit their bias) to have a claim to Christianity.

The blindness on these precious people is grievous.

 

[oftenbuzzard]

Yeah but in Mormonism ya get

• a secret handshake
• magical underoos
• and an initiation conducted by the Chef BoyarDee twins

 

[godrulz]

Yeah but in Mormonism ya get

• a secret handshake
• magical underoos
• and an initiation conducted by the Chef BoyarDee twins

The Masonic connection should also scare Mormons. Joseph Smith had a vivid imagination, but he was not a prophet of God. Fortunately, Mormons do not riot like Muslims when we question their 'prophet'.

 

[oftenbuzzard]

The Masonic connection should also scare Mormons. Joseph Smith had a vivid imagination, but he was not a prophet of God. Fortunately, Mormons do not riot like Muslims when we question their 'prophet'.

Here are the words of his mother, Luck Mack Smith, describing his boyhood imagination (pre-golden plates)

During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of travelling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life with them.

(Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet, and his Progenitors for Many Generations, 1853, page 85).

Tapir-Back Riders

Dear Sir or Madam will you read my book?
It took me years to write, will you take a look?
It's based on a novel by a man named Joe
And the main idea is the Lamanites were
Tapir-back riders
Tapir-back riders

See, the Nephites came to the promised land
And those dang exmos just don't understand
That when they said "horse" they meant something else
But it all makes sense if you know that they were
Tapir-back riders
Tapir-back riders

I know the whole thing doesn't hold up well
If you take it literally, but what the *heck*
There’s this group of guys that work at FARMS
And they can save the whole thing by postulating Tapir-back riders
Tapir-back riders

They say the book is really history
If so where's the proof? Ah, a mystery
External evidence is perpetually due
Apparently the best that they can do is
Tapir-back riders
Tapir-back riders

What the folks at FARMS don’t seem to understand
Is we want the truth, not sleight of hand
The Church asks for all, but gives nothing back
The best they have to offer is a team of hacks with
Tapir-back riders
Tapir-back riders