ChristianForums banned Christ.

[Mustard Seed]

Did you see and understand the word "transcript"?

Did you see and understand the word "transcript"?

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.

Those changes do not effect a change in our theology. It reads correctly either way. I'll look into the transcript I have and see if it sheds light on that. I'm not at my home at the moment. But there's no changing of our belief. We believe both versions to be accurate depictions of our view of God.

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.

You once again failed to actualy read and comprehend what I said. Here it is again--

"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."

I was never claiming to have the actual copies. The project that was done to publish the TRANSCRIPT was done WITH the cooperation of the Community of Christ (formerly titled the RLDS Church, 'R' Standing for 'Reformed')

Here's reference to the project--

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=insights&id=193

 

[oftenbuzzard]

I was never claiming to have the actual copies. The project that was done to publish the TRANSCRIPT was done WITH the cooperation of the Community of Christ (formerly titled the RLDS Church, 'R' Standing for 'Reformed')

Reorganized Latter Day Saints !!!!

 

[no avatar]

Those changes do not effect a change in our theology. It reads correctly either way. I'll look into the transcript I have and see if it sheds light on that. I'm not at my home at the moment. But there's no changing of our belief. We believe both versions to be accurate depictions of our view of God.


You once again failed to actualy read and comprehend what I said. Here it is again--

"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."

I was never claiming to have the actual copies. The project that was done to publish the TRANSCRIPT was done WITH the cooperation of the Community of Christ (formerly titled the RLDS Church, 'R' Standing for 'Reformed')

Here's reference to the project--

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=insights&id=193

Once again, you dismiss the meat of the post and focus on the nit-picky details. :dizzy:

Going from Jesus being God to him being the Son of God to being one of a plurality of Gods is quite a difference. I am so thankful that even though Joseph Smith changed the church's theology, he left the BoM alone. That way, the 40 or so years I spent in the RLDS church weren't a sham. It is interesting, to say the least, how the LDS defend their theology when not one bit of it is found in the BoM, which is supposed to be the fulness of the gospel.

And, in case you missed it above, RLDS stands for Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

 

[Mustard Seed]

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'.

If only you knew how many cartoons and articles, as inflamitory or more so, are published by substantive papers in SLC Utah. If any of these articles were about Christians, or Jews, Blacks or Catholics all hell would break loose. And everyone would hear about it.

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

Quote:


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).

She wasn't saying that he was imagining these things NEITHER was she saying he had an overactive imagination. The fact that you take the word "imagine" so out of context is even more evidence of your inanity and confusion of mind.

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

When you can't formulate substantive logical retort you simply resort to lyrical assertions that hold as much water as a broken cistern. In similar fashion to the capacity for the retention of wisdom in your mind.

 

[Mustard Seed]

Reorganized Latter Day Saints !!!!

What, praytell, is the massive difference between the wording? If it was reorganized then there was an attemtpt to reform.

 

[godrulz]

What, praytell, is the massive difference between the wording? If it was reorganized then there was an attemtpt to reform.

What is the official legal name?

 

[Mustard Seed]

Once again, you dismiss the meat of the post and focus on the nit-picky details. :dizzy:

I wasn't dismissing the bulk of your post in pointing out that error respecting the transcript. The fact that you think that seems to demonstrate that you missed the core argument in my post.

Going from Jesus being God to him being the Son of God to being one of a plurality of Gods is quite a difference.

He's both. He's God AND the Son of God. Christians believe that yet you permit them (you) to carry the title of monotheist. He's not three, but he's one made up of three, that are infact one. Ask an orthodox Jew or a devout scholarly muslim if they think that Christians can ascribe to the title of monotheism with the same degree of certainty as Jews or Muslims and you will find the vast majority questioning the status of the Trinity as constituting pure monotheism. Fortunately it's not what the Jews or Muslims or traditional Christians say of God or what is or isn't proper belief and worship of Him.


Touching upon the errors, and others you've yet to bring up, here's a quote and reference to a response to like criticisms--

"It is also ironic that current critics of the Book of Mormon take Joseph Smith to task for the addition of words referring to Christ as the Son of God, when earlier critics of the same volume complained of the lack of such clarification. A complete reading of 1 Nephi 11:21, 32, and 13:40 should reveal to the reader that the addition of the words "Son of God" was necessary in the context of those verses and certainly the chapters they are found in. Because it is not very clear in these verses as they appeared in the 1830 edition that Christ is the subject, but other similar verses are more clear when read in context, then of course it makes sense that "Son of God" was added only in those verses where necessary. For example, clarity is not a problem in Moroni 4:3, 5:2 and 10:4, which verses speak of God the Father, and Mosiah 16:5 and Alma 11:38-39 speak of Christ.

http://www.fairlds.org/apol/bom/bom21.html

I am so thankful that even though Joseph Smith changed the church's theology, he left the BoM alone. That way, the 40 or so years I spent in the RLDS church weren't a sham.

I find it interesting that you think Smith fell but that the Book of Mormon has redemptive value. Do you think such comes from mere coinsidence?

It is interesting, to say the least, how the LDS defend their theology when not one bit of it is found in the BoM, which is supposed to be the fulness of the gospel.

Simply because you cannot see it there does not mean it is entirely absent from it. No doubt you would assert that you see things in the Bible that the literal critics of that book cannot, and will not, see. (I would hope such would be the case if you still claim Chrisitianity.)

And, in case you missed it above, RLDS stands for Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

I appologize for the mix up. I find it odd that you, after being dissaffected from the Church, would defend the purity of it's name with such passion, especialy since it lost it's respect for it's name when it decided to leave it behind.

 

[Mustard Seed]

What is the official legal name?

It was the "Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" untill they decided to discard the name in favor of their new one, The Community of Christ.

 

[oftenbuzzard]

I appologize for the mix up. I find it odd that you, after being dissaffected from the Church, would defend the purity of it's name with such passion, especialy since it lost it's respect for it's name when it decided to leave it behind.

Defending the purity of it's name ???

... seems no avatar was just correcting the blunder of a LSD (SIC) member.

 

[Mustard Seed]

Defending the purity of it's name ???

... seems no avatar was just correcting the blunder of a LSD (SIC) member.

Since you seem oblivious to the fact, I've ignored a great many of your, and other's, intentional distortions of different asspects of my faith. Among these is an example like that you provided above. I can discern between what are substantive and/or deceptive attacks and what is merely to be attributed to the moronic and profaining nature of the likes of you, Sozo and Lighthouse. Thinking yourselves ever so clever, yet you're never quite clever enough to see that you can go around in your ignorant wallowing all day long for all I care, for nothing you are offering is really substantive or can operate on anything but the level of mud flinging. I'm not like those who go and burn and kill when a stupid cartoon by an infidel is created. Neither am I phased by your infantile retorts because they cannot stick. Some will imagine them sticking but those will be the ones most prone to the demagauge, and they will simply end up following the one most proficient at that art. The one who's been inciting hate, transgresion and evil since Eden.

 

[godrulz]

Defending the purity of it's name ???

... seems no avatar was just correcting the blunder of a LSD (SIC) member.

Remember one of the Star Trek movies where Kirk (on earth) said that weird Spock had too much LDS (vs LSD)? I wonder if many got the joke.

 

[no avatar]

Remember one of the Star Trek movies where Kirk (on earth) said that weird Spock had too much LDS (vs LSD)? I wonder if many got the joke.

My brothers and I all snickered under our breath(s). And that was in Star Trek 4: The Voyage Home.

 

[no avatar]

I find it interesting that you think Smith fell but that the Book of Mormon has redemptive value. Do you think such comes from mere coinsidence?

I spent most of my life loving and defending the Book of Mormon. I do think it contains inspirational passages, however, that does not make it scripture any more than Chicken Soup for the Soul is scripture.

The coincidence that I see (though I do not believe in coincidences) is that God works and moves in whomever He chooses. Maybe he chose to work through whoever (in part) wrote the BoM, knowing that it was going to be used to deceive large numbers of people, some of whom might even be elect.

I appologize for the mix up. I find it odd that you, after being dissaffected from the Church, would defend the purity of it's name with such passion, especialy since it lost it's respect for it's name when it decided to leave it behind.

Not all people who are disaffected grow to despise their former ties. There are many aspects of the RLDS church that I loved, and I mourn that I can no longer claim that fellowship.

 

[Mustard Seed]

Remember one of the Star Trek movies where Kirk (on earth) said that weird Spock had too much LDS (vs LSD)? I wonder if many got the joke.

That's probably one of my favorite lines in all of Star Trek, and I've seen a bit of Star Trek.

 

[Mustard Seed]

I spent most of my life loving and defending the Book of Mormon. I do think it contains inspirational passages, however, that does not make it scripture any more than Chicken Soup for the Soul is scripture.

The coincidence that I see (though I do not believe in coincidences) is that God works and moves in whomever He chooses. Maybe he chose to work through whoever (in part) wrote the BoM, knowing that it was going to be used to deceive large numbers of people, some of whom might even be elect.


Not all people who are disaffected grow to despise their former ties. There are many aspects of the RLDS church that I loved, and I mourn that I can no longer claim that fellowship.

I greatly respect your view. I find it sad that you've broken the most consequential and most truth filled former ties.

Have you by any chance had the opportunity to see or hear about the book Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling? I'd be curious to see a response from one such as yourself to that book. I'm not done with it. I'm waiting for my Father to finish it.

 

[Sarcastikus]

It appears that whether a text is scripture or not is a matter of interpretation. Even in the early church it was a point of contention among the competing groups who claimed to have a monopoly on the truth. Imagine how different Christianity would have been if the Gnostics or the Jewish-Christians (Nazarenes) would have won those early power struggles. If they would have won then what eventually evolved into what we now call orthodox Christianity would have been considered heretical.

In the 4th century The History of the Church by Bishop Eusebius 1 Clement is listed as a recognised book while Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation are disputed. The Syrian Orthodox Church had a different canon into at least (if I remember correctly) the 4th century, and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church included books such as 1 Enoch and Jubilees. In some cases the concept of canonicity was (and perhaps still is [i.e. LDS and (maybe) Christian Science]) not as rigid as it has become for most sects and denominations.

 

[Mustard Seed]

It appears that whether a text is scripture or not is a matter of interpretation. Even in the early church it was a point of contention among the competing groups who claimed to have a monopoly on the truth. Imagine how different Christianity would have been if the Gnostics or the Jewish-Christians (Nazarenes) would have won those early power struggles. If they would have won then what eventually evolved into what we now call orthodox Christianity would have been considered heretical.

In the 4th century The History of the Church by Bishop Eusebius 1 Clement is listed as a recognised book while Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation are disputed. The Syrian Orthodox Church had a different canon into at least (if I remember correctly) the 4th century, and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church included books such as 1 Enoch and Jubilees. In some cases the concept of canonicity was (and perhaps still is [i.e. LDS and (maybe) Christian Science]) not as rigid as it has become for most sects and denominations.

A well versed Buddhist. I served my mission in an area in California with a significant Buddhist constituancy and also an even slightly more significant Traditional Christian and Evangelical constituancy. I can't recall a time when I found one amongst either population that knew what you just stated. No one 'mongst the dogmaticly blinded in Traditional Creedal Christian tradition seems to be capable of even daring to conceed your above points of history.

godrulz,

I appreciate the neg points. They reveal a degree of sympathy for the eternaly circular thinkers. They are ever able to hide from themselves the circular nature of their arguments. It explains alot to see your view touching on the 'apologetic' direction they take. You dodge the central points better than they, but that's simply because you refuse to engage them. At least they're straight forward in their attempts at making plausible their dogma.

 

[godrulz]

It appears that whether a text is scripture or not is a matter of interpretation. Even in the early church it was a point of contention among the competing groups who claimed to have a monopoly on the truth. Imagine how different Christianity would have been if the Gnostics or the Jewish-Christians (Nazarenes) would have won those early power struggles. If they would have won then what eventually evolved into what we now call orthodox Christianity would have been considered heretical.

In the 4th century The History of the Church by Bishop Eusebius 1 Clement is listed as a recognised book while Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation are disputed. The Syrian Orthodox Church had a different canon into at least (if I remember correctly) the 4th century, and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church included books such as 1 Enoch and Jubilees. In some cases the concept of canonicity was (and perhaps still is [i.e. LDS and (maybe) Christian Science]) not as rigid as it has become for most sects and denominations.

There are credible scholastic reasons why the canon of Scripture is what it is today. Just because some groups entertained other books does not mean it was truthful or credible.

 

[Mustard Seed]

There are credible scholastic reasons why the canon of Scripture is what it is today.

Then the delineation of such, and the process, should be doable. Why not do it for all to see. It could end all this debate regarding which editions of the Bible are sufficient and which are not.

Just because some groups entertained other books does not mean it was truthful or credible.

Conversly, just because other groups than the ones you are aligned with entertained other books does not mean that they are not truthful or credible NOR does it mean that all the books you accept are credible scripture.

 

[Normann]

TITLE OF THE WEBSITE: ChristianForums.com
SUBTITLE OF THEIR WEBSITE: Christian Forums is a multi-denominational Christian forum message board community uniting all Christians as one body.

Yet the truth divides!

Christ said...

Luke 12:51 “Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you, not at all, but rather division.

Matthew 10:34 "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword."

John 7:43 So there was a division among the people because of Him.

So ChristianForums.com banned Christ.

ChristianForums.com RULES state...

Christ exclaimed...

Matthew 23:33 “Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?

So ChristianForums.com swiftly banned Christ.

ChristianForums.com rules state:

Christ warned...

John 8:44 “You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.

And Christ turned to Peter and said...

“Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.”

So ChristianForums.com quickly banned Christ.

ChristianForums.coms rules state:

Christ made Himself clear...

Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.

And when the rich man asked Christ....

Luke 18:18 Now a certain ruler asked Him, saying, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 19 So Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. 20 “You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery,’ ‘Do not murder,’ ‘Do not steal,’ ‘Do not bear false witness,’ ‘Honor your father and your mother.’ ” 21 And he said, “All these things I have kept from my youth.” 22 So when Jesus heard these things, He said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” 23 But when he heard this, he became very sorrowful, for he was very rich. 24 And when Jesus saw that he became very sorrowful, He said, “How hard it is for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God! 25 “For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

So ChristianForums.com deleted Christ's words and quickly banned Christ.

I was wondering about CF because I was edited and one of my posts was deleted. All I did was call a false doctrine a "false doctrine" yet never made a personal attack on the individual that I replied to. I called the founder of a false doctrine a liar because he was a liar and it was proven in court before he died! Being it was proven in court I feel it then become fact and is coverd by free press to expose that fact to others. It seemed to me that CF was biased, very much toward the explaining away of the scriptures.

IN THE MASTER'S SERVICE,
Normann