Posted on 08/26/2007 2:54:35 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who is running for the Republican presidential nomination, on Tuesday in an interview with Nevada television station KLAS said that if elected president he would allow individual states to keep abortion legal, the Washington Post reports.
Romney earlier this month in an interview with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos said he supports a constitutional amendment that would ban abortion nationwide. According to the Post, the "two very different statements" reflect a "challenge" for Romney as he attempts to be a "champion of the antiabortion movement".
In an interview with the Associated Press Tuesday, Romney said that giving states control to "fashion their own laws with regard to abortion" should be the "next step" in the abortion debate. Top Romney advisers on Tuesday said the governor supports a two-tiered process in which states first would obtain authority to regulate abortion after Roe v. Wade -- the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court case that effectively barred state abortion bans -- is overturned. The second step would be a constitutional amendment that bans most abortions nationwide.
James Bopp -- an attorney who has represented antiabortion groups and a top Romney adviser on abortion -- said, "There's no flip-flopping. There's no contradiction. There's simply step one and step two." Jon Ralston, a columnist for the Las Vegas Sun who interviewed Romney for KLAS, said he believes Romney's "moral positions conflict" with his "states'-rights opinions," adding, "I don't see how you can be antiabortion, be in favor of a constitutional amendment and be in favor of states' rights". [click to read whole article]
(Excerpt) Read more at medindia.net ...
Kinda like prison isn’t it? You can have visitors, but you can’t get out.
Better than what happens to the Sons of Perdition now that is Hell!
Between here and the spriit world before Judgment day man has to work out his salvation.
Philip. 2
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
14 Do all things without murmurings and disputings:
It seems some wants to treat this lonly verse left in the scriptures as obsolete!
Exactly!
These Romney bashers see negativity where there is none.
Romney, recognizing that abortion right NOW is legal in 50 states, is advocating letting states outlaw or restrict abortion if they so choose.
And that is his second choice if he is unable to get a federal restriction or ban.
Some people are so blinded by their hate of Romney they can't even recognize a good thing.
Again an antatgonist trying to tell the LDS What they believe!
Exxxaccccctlyyy. Be very careful.
From http://www.exmormon.org/finnish.htm :
President Joseph Fielding Smith (President of LDS Church in the early 1970's) stated:
"Mormonism must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a Prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground. If Joseph was a deceiver, who willfully attempted to mislead people, then he should be exposed, his claims should be refuted, and his doctrines shown to be false..." Common sense will inform the diligent searcher that Smith was a liar, a treasure diviner, an adulterer, a false prophet who rewrote the Bible to include fabricated prophesies of him and the specious B of M (see chapter 50 additions in Genesis from the Joseph Smith translation of the King James Bible, bwahahaha). Here's a bit more to grind:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims that the name of the Church was given to Joseph Smith by revelation. However, when Smith first organized the Church in 1830, it was called the "Church of Christ," then four years later the name was changed to the "Church of Latter-day Saints," then in 1838, it was changed again, this time to the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", as it is known today. Joseph Smith claimed that he received many revelations from God, and he began to introduce many new doctrines to his new Church; one of the doctrines was polygamy, a practice that Smith denied publicly but practiced secretly. That doctrine was the obvious downfall of Joseph Smith, and he was killed in 1844 as a result of the polygamy controversy.
Now let's go back and look at this above information a little closer and in detail.
Joseph Smith claimed that after he had seen a vision of God the Father and Jesus Christ, he said that he told it first to a Methodist preacher and that it started the entire community, "all men of high standing" and "the great ones of the most popular sects," to persecute him bitterly, him being only a boy of 14 years of age. Wouldn't you think that kind of commotion would have caused someone somewhere to write about it? - At least the Palmyra Newspaper would have written something, since Joseph Smith claimed that "all men" were united to bring a "bitter and reviling persecution" against him. Not many important events took place in that little town, and even unimportant gossip was printed. But one searches in vain from 1820 on to find an account about a young boy's vision or persecution, or to find a story regarding the revival excitement that Smith later claimed was the reason why he went to the grove to seek God in prayer and received this fantastic vision. Joseph Smith said that he was told twice in this vision not to join any of the religions (see "Pearl of Great Price" 2:5-26), but it is interesting to note that in 1823, Joseph's mother, sister and two brothers joined the Presbyterian Church, and later Joseph himself sought membership in the Methodist Church, where his wife was a member. Records show that Joseph was expelled in 1828, because of his belief in magic and also because of his "money-digging activities."
Joseph's newly organized church started to publish its history as events took place. This publication was called the "Messenger and Advocate." Oliver Cowdery was the main writer and its accuracy was checked by Joseph Smith himself. In this publication Joseph tells how, after his brother Alvin's death, and after his mother, sister and two brothers had joined the Presbyterian Church, he started to seek religion and pray "if some Supreme Being existed" (vol. 1 p. 79). IF HE HAD HAD A VISION OF GOD THE FATHER AND HIS SON, JESUS CHRIST IN 1820, HE MOST CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE KNOWN BY 1823 OR 1824 THAT A SUPREME BEING EXISTED. By reading diaries, records, newspapers, etc., one seeks in vain to find any mention of this so-called "First Vision" story until 1842, when it was published in "Times and Seasons," 22 years after this vision supposedly took place. It becomes quite obvious that this report was an after-thought, since the Vision story talks about two separate gods and the Book of Mormon says that there is only one God; and that Jesus, God the Father and Holy Ghost are this one God. Examples: Alma 11:26-33; 18:26-28; Mosiah 15:1, 2, 5, etc. "The Book of Commandments" (now called "Doctrine and Covenants") was published in 1835 and it included lectures given in the School of the Prophets. Lecture 5 says God is a Spirit, and the Son only has the body of flesh and bones. (The lectures have later been removed from the "D&C" but they are available as a separate small book.) There is now an added footnote to this lecture 5, which says that Joseph received further light and knowledge in 1843 and THEN knew that God the Father also had a body of flesh and bones. That statement alone tells that there was no vision of the Father and the Son in 1820. Had there been a vision, he wouldn't have needed this "further light and knowledge" about the Father having a body of flesh and bones. It was not until 1844, that Joseph started to preach about a god who was once a man and progressed into godhood, and how men can also become gods. (See "Teachings by Prophet Joseph Smith" pp. 345-347).
Thus, there is absolutely no evidence for the first vision as it appears in the Pearl of Great Price, or that the vision was known to Mormons or non-Mormons prior to 1842 or thereabouts. It was not until the 1880's that this story was accepted by the Church. Prior to that time, we were able only to read denials about it. For example, in "Journal of Discourses," vol. 2, p. 171, in 1855, Brigham Young preached a sermon in which he said:
"LORD DID NOT COME TO JOSEPH SMITH, BUT SENT HIS ANGEL TO INFORM HIM THAT HE SHOULD NOT JOIN ANY RELIGIOUS SECT OF THE DAY, FOR THEY WERE ALL WRONG..."
John Taylor later said the same thing, see J. of D. vol. 20, page 167, on March 2, 1879. Heber C. Kimball in vol. 6, page 29, said:
"DO YOU SUPPOSE THAT GOD IN PERSON CALLED UPON JOSEPH SMITH, OUR PROPHET? GOD CALLED UPON HIM, BUT DID NOT COME HIMSELF..."
George A. Smith told the same story in the Journal of Discourses, vol. 12, pp. 333-334. One wouldn't really even have to dig deeper than that to find out that the claims of the Church today regarding Joseph Smith's so-called First Vision are not true, according to documentary evidence of the time, and Joseph Smith should - and these facts should - be exposed, just as Joseph Fielding Smith said they should.
Now let's look at the Book of Mormon. Early Mormon apostle Orson Pratt made a statement concerning the Book of Mormon:
" 'The Book of Mormon' must be either true or false. If true, it is one of the most important messages ever sent from God... If False, it is one of the most cunning, wicked, bold, deep-laid impositions ever palmed upon the world, calculated to deceive and ruin millions... The nature of the "Book of Mormon" is such, that if true, no one can possibly be saved and reject it; If false, no one can possibly be saved and receive it... If, after a rigid examination, it be found imposition, it should be extensively published to the world as such; the evidences and arguments on which the imposture was detected, should be clearly and logically stated, that those who have been sincerely yet unfortunately deceived, may perceive the nature of deception, and to be reclaimed, and that those who continue to publish the delusion may be exposed and silenced... by strong and powerful arguments - by evidences adduced from scripture and reason..." (Orson Pratt's Works, "Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon": Liverpool, 1851, pp. 1, 2.)
We hope to show clearly and logically, even though very briefly in this letter, that the Book of Mormon is not a divinely inspired record, but a 19th century product. Joseph Smith claimed that after he translated the gold plates, he returned them to an angel - so there is no way to inspect them or check the accuracy of the translation. Mormons often refer to the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. Most of these men left the Church, but claims are also made that even though they did, they never denied that they had seen an angel who showed them "the plates of the Book of Mormon." However, in the Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, page 164, Brigham Young stated:
"...witnesses of the Book of Mormon who handled the plates and conversed with the angels of God were afterwards left to doubt and to disbelieve that they had ever seen an angel."
Joseph Smith himself called these men wicked and liars and by many other demeaning names. In the Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, pages 114-115, George A. Smith lists those who have left the Church and mentions specifically, among others, "the witnesses of the Book of Mormon." Martin Harris later claimed that he had a better testimony of "the Shakers Book" than he ever had of the Book of Mormon. Reading about these witnesses, one is drawn to the conclusion that they were unstable men and easily convinced; for example, Martin Harris changed his religion at least eight times. Some of the others started their own religions later.
Its NOT uncomfotable to me MHGinTN!
I love my faith!
Now see fp, you missed the word "reside."
Now if you live in the mansion and you are not allowed out of your room, ever, and the Father lives in all the other rooms, but you are not free to visit Him, then wouldn't it be more likely that you are a prisioner, and that you don't "reside" there?
You are playing a game of semantics. It isn't a game I wish to play.
How 'bout you greyfoxx? You too, would rather have straight talk than hidden meanings. And you were absolutely right. Mormonism teaches that those in the Telestial kingdom are resigned to live outside the presence of God - - even though technically he can visit you.
Can you please post the last four revelations recieved by the Quorum of 12 that were doctrinal?
You Mormons claim to have prophecy to guide you, so lets see what the last four prophecies were, and what year they were received.
Let's now look at the Book of Mormon itself. The Book of Mormon presents problems that cannot be explained away. Regarding language: 1 Ne. 1:2, etc., states that Hebrews who left Jerusalem and came to the Americas spoke Egyptian. It is a known fact that Hebrews spoke Hebrew, and their records were kept in Hebrew. Egyptians were their enemies. It is as absurd to think that Hebrews would have written their sacred history in Egyptian as to think that American History would have been written in Russian. In Mormon 9:32, 34, it states that the language was "reformed Egyptian" and that no other people knew their language. There is no known language called "reformed Egyptian."
1 Ne.17:5 talks about fruit and wild honey being products of Sinai desert (called Bountiful). Not possible! 1 Ne. 18:1 talks about ample timber that Jews used to make a ship. There is not ample timber in that area. It was a desert; it still is a desert. 1 Ne. 2:6-9 mentions a river named Laman that flows into the Red Sea. There is no river there and there has not been since the Pleistocene era.
Botanical problems are many in the Book of Mormon. Wheat, barley, olives, etc., are mentioned, but none of these were in the Americas at that time.
North America had no cows, asses, horses, oxen, etc. Europeans brought them hundreds and hundreds of years later.
North America had no lions, leopards, nor sheep at that time.
Honey bees were brought here by Europeans much later. Ether 9:18, 19, lists domestic cattle, cows and oxen as separate species! They did not even exist in the Americas at that time.
The Book of Mormon also mentions swine as being useful to man. Maybe, but Jews would not think of swine as being useful or good; swine were forbidden, unclean animals to the Jews. Horses, asses, and elephants were not here either. And what on earth are "cureloms" and "cumoms"? No such animals have ever been identified anywhere. Domestic animals that are thought to be "useful" would hardly become extinct.
Ether 9:30-34 talks about poisonous snakes driving sheep to the south. The Book of Mormon tells that the people ate the snake-killed animals, all of them! (v. 34). Jewish people could not have eaten animals that were killed that way, since Mosaic law forbids it!
Chickens and dogs did not exist here at that time either. 3 Ne. 20:16 and 21:12 talk about lions as "beasts of the forests." Lions do not live in forests or jungles, and they never lived in the Americas. No silk and wool clothing (nor moths) existed, as 1 Ne. 13:7; Alma 4:6; Ether 9:17 and 10:24 indicate, at that time either. Butter is also mentioned, but it could not possibly exist, since no milk-producing animals were found in the Americas at that time.
Ether 15:30-31 says that after Shiz was beheaded, he raised up and struggled for breath!!?
In Ether, chapter 6, we learn that furious winds propelled the barges to the promised land for 344 days! Even if the winds were not "furious," but, for example, blew only 10 miles per hour, the distance traveled in 344 days would have been 82,560 miles, or more than three times around the world. Absurdity, to say the least! And why would the Lord instruct Jared to make a hole on top and bottom of each barge? (Ether 2:20.)
When Lehi left Jerusalem, according to the Book of Mormon, his group consisted of fewer than 20 people. Yet 19 years later the people had so prospered and multiplied in the promised land that they built a temple which "manner of construction was like unto the temple of Solomon: and the workmanship thereof was exceeding fine" (2. Ne. 5:16).
Looking at what the Bible says about the construction of Solomon's temple, we find that it took thirty thousand Israelites, a hundred and fifty thousand hewers of stone and carriers, three thousand three hundred supervisors (I Kings 5:13-16) and about seven years to build it. (See also I Kings 6.) And how many people could Lehi have had in his group after 19 years? The book further tells that in less than 30 years after arriving on this continent, they had multiplied so rapidly that they even divided into two great nations. Even the most rapid human reproduction could only have a few dozen in that brief time, and most of them still would be infants and children and about one-third older people.
LOL and the Father lives in all the other rooms, but you are not free to visit Him, then wouldn't it be more likely that you are a prisioner,
LOL and that you don't "reside" there?
LOMHO
I think one might try to visit but they would disintegrate because their soul could not endure the light of the Father.
Should read some enchanges that Moses has with the Lord in the OT!
Ex 3
6 Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.
Ex 34
29 ¶ And it came to pass, when Moses came down from mount Sinai with the two tables of testimony in Moses’ hand, when he came down from the mount, that Moses wist not that the skin of his face shone while he talked with him.
30 And when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone; and they were afraid to come nigh him.
31 And Moses called unto them; and Aaron and all the rulers of the congregation returned unto him: and Moses talked with them.
32 And afterward all the children of Israel came nigh: and he gave them in commandment all that the LORD had spoken with him in mount Sinai.
33 And till Moses had done speaking with them, he put a vail on his face.
34 But when Moses went in before the LORD to speak with him, he took the vail off, until he came out. And he came out, and spake unto the children of Israel that which he was commanded.
35 And the children of Israel saw the face of Moses, that the skin of Moses’ face shone: and Moses put the vail upon his face again, until he went in to speak with him.
“I read Ebenezer Robinson’s history you provided the link to and didn’t see where he thought Joseph was a crook. “
Basically Ebenezer claims 1) Joseph was engaged in trasure hunting in a house in Boston, in part to make up for the bad debts of his marketing schemes, 2)circulated bogus bills signed by Smith that Ebenezer helped overprint,3) had bank debts paid by the church and
4) Smith had his tithe revelation strictly to enrich himself and Rigdon to the tune of $1100 a year, about $90 a month when the average wage would have been about $20 a month.
He may not have used the word crook, but he came mighty close. Here are some excerpts, there is much more here
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/RigWrit/M&A/Return1.htm
*******************
We were informed that Brother Burgess met them in Salem, evidently according to appointment, but time had wrought such a change that he could not for a certainty point out the house, and soon left. They however, found a house which they felt was the right one, and hired it. It is needless to say they failed to find that treasure, or the other gold and silver spoken of in the revelation.
We speak of these things with regret, but inasmuch as they occurred we feel it our duty to relate them, as also some of those things which transpired under our personal observation, soon after.
[107]
Failing to secure the Salem treasure, and no demand for city lots, with their debts pressing heavily upon them, it evidently seemed necessary that some ways and means should be devised to extricate themselves from their present embarrassments. To this end a Banking Institution was organized, called the “Kirtland Safety Society” as we see by the following quotation from the history of Joseph Smith, jr. as published on the 823rd page of the “Millennial Star.”
“On the 2nd of November the brethren at Kirtland drew up certain articles of agreement, preparatory to the organization of a Banking Institution, to be called the “Kirtland Safety Society.”
President O. Cowdery, was delegated to Philadelphia to procure plates for the Onstitution; and Elder O. Hyde, to repair to Columbus, with a petition to the Legislature of Ohio, for an act of incorporation, which was presented at an early period of their session, but because we were “Mormons,” the Legislature raised some frivolous excuse on which they refused to grant us those banking privileges they so freely granted to others. Thus Elder Hyde was compelled to return without accomplishing the object of his mission, while Elder Cowdery succeeded at a great expense in procuring the plates, and bringing them to Kirtland.”
As stated above, Orson Hyde failed in securing a Bank Charter, but Oliver Cowdery returned with Kirtland bank bills printed to amount, it was said, of two hundred thousand dollars, which would be worthless unless some way could be devised by which they could be used. To meet this emergency, the following action was had, which we quote from Joseph Smith’s history, as found on page 843, “Millennial Star.” ......................
At the conclusion of the articles of agreement, Joseph Smith jr. proceeds to say:
“In connexion with the above articles of agreement of the “Kirtland Safety Society,” I published the following remarks, to all who were preparing themselves, and appointing their wise men, for the purpose of building up Zion and her Stakes, in the January Number of the Messenger and Advocate —
“It is wisdom, according to the mind of the Holy Spirit, that you should call at Kirtland, and receive
[108]
counsel and instruction upon those principles that are necessary to further the great work of the Lord, and to establish the children of the kingdom, according to the oracles of God, as they are had among us; and further, we invite the brethren from abroad, to call on us, and take stock in our “Safety Society;” and we would remind them also of the sayings of Isaiah, contained in the 60th chapter, and more particularly the 9th and 17th verses, which are as follows — “Surely the isles shall wait for me, and the ships of Tarshish first, to bring thy sons from far, their silver and their gold (not their bank notes,) with them, unto the name of the Lord thy God, and to the Holy One of Israel, because he hath glorified thee. For brass I will bring gold, and for iron I will bring silver, and for wood brass, and for stones iron. I will also make thy officers peace, and thine exactors righteousness.” Also 62nd chapter, 1st verse — “For Zion’s sake will I not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem’s sake I will not rest, until the righteousness thereof go forth as brightness, and the salvation thereof as a lamp that burneth. J. Smith, jr.”
Joseph Smith, jr. was elected Treasurer, and Sidney Rigdon was elected Secretary.
In accordance with the foregoing arrangements, quite a large number of the bills were brought into the printing office, and the word anti, in very fine type, was printed before the word Bank, and the sylable, ing, also in fine type, was printed after the word Bank, thus making it read, “Kirtland Safety Society Anti-Banking Co.,” in which form the bills were signed by Joseph Smith, jr., Treasurer, and Sidney Rigdon, secretary, and put into circulation as bank bills.
We wish our readers to bear in mind that these things have nothing to do with the gospel, but they seem to show us the weakness of poor human nature, and how easily men can be led astray when they cease to listen to the counsel of God, but are left to follow the dictates of their own will and carnal desires. The fruit of such conduct is exceedingly bitter, and the results most disastrous, as we will see further on.
We do not believe the members of the church generally knew the object of those brethren visiting Salem, and we did not know of the Revelation given at Salem until recently, when we saw it in the Millennial Star.
.......................................
The division in the church extended to Missouri. Several of the brethren who were disaffected with brother Joseph Smith jr. were living in Far West, but we adhered to him, feeling that it was necessary to do so in order to retain a standing in the church, and knowing the gospel to be true, we prized a standing in the church as above price, besides, we had a dream soon after reaching Far West which helped settle the matter in our mind.
We dreamed we saw a long piece of hewed timber apparently about 14 inches square, elevated upon blocks the right height for the master workman to lay off the frame work, and Brother Joseph Smith, jr., standing by it with a square and scratch awl in his hands laying out the work. After receiving this dream we felt confirmed in our desire to remain with and work for the Church, notwithstanding our better judgment taught us the city lot speculation and Bank business was contrary to the spirit of the gospel. Darkness and confusion followed these transactions as will be seen by the following proceedings of the High Council, which we copy from the history of Joseph Smith, as published in the “Millennial Star,” vol. 16, page 10, as follows:
“Minutes of a High Council held in the Lord’s House, in Kirtland, Monday, May 29th, 1837, ten o’clock A. M.
Isaac Rogers, Artemas Millet, Abel Lamb, and Harlow Redfield, appeared as complainants against Presidents F. G. Williams and David Whitmer, and Elders Parley P. Pratt, Lyman Johnson, and Warren Parish. Sidney Rigdon presiding.
[117]
COUNSELLORS.
John Smith, John Johnson, Jared Carter, John P. Green, Noah Packard, Oliver Granger, Joseph Kingsbury, Samuel H. Smith, Joseph Coe, Martin Harris, Gideon Carter, W. Woodstock.
President Rigdon then read the following complaint —
“To the Presidency of the Church of Latter Day Saints — We, the undersigned, feeling ourselves aggrieved with the conduct of Presidents David Whitmer and F. G. Williams, and also with Elders Lyman Johnson, Parley P. Pratt, and Warren Parrish, believing that their course for some time past has been injurious to the Church of God, in which they are high officers, we therefore desire that the High Council should be assembled, and we should have an investigation of their behaviour, believing it to be unworthy of their high calling — all of which we respectfully submit.
ABEL LAMB, NATHAN HASKINS, HARLOW REDFIELD, ARTEMAS MILLET, ISAAC ROGERS.
Kirtland, May, 1837.”
..................................
These proceedings were had in a little over one month after we left Kirtland.
We present these things to show that the course pursued by Joseph Smith, jr. and some of the heads of the church was contrary to the clear and express command of the Lord, and that David Whitmer and others had good reason for entering their protest, and withholding their influence from such an order of things.
The foregoing action of the High council at Kirtland clearly shows that they were devoid of the Spirit of the Lord, consequently any act of theirs, while in that condition, could not affect the spiritual standing of any person whom they might profess to deal with.
The High Council at Far West seemed to be in a similar condition, judging from the following proceedings had by them.
///////////////////////////
The above named committee reported to the High Council, at a subsequent meeting, but the sum agreed upon is left blank in the history, as printed. The amount they asked for was ELEVEN HUNDRED DOLLARS each per annum.
The question was warmly discussed by the members of the Council until near sundown. George M. Hinkle bitterly opposed it, as the church had always been opposed to a salaried ministry. A majority of the Council however, favored the measure, so that when the vote
[137]
was called, eleven voted for it, and one against it. But when it was noised abroad that the Council had taken such a step, the members of the church, almost to a man, lifted their voices against it. The expression of disapprobation was so strong and emphatic, that at the next meeting of the High Council the resolution voting them a salary, was rescinded.
We were present, and acted as clerk of the Council at both meetings, therefore know whereof we affirm.
//////////
We think we have clearly shown from the records, that the action taken by the church, in relation to David Whitmer, was illegal, and a violation of both the law of God and the law of the land, therefore, could not affect his spiritual standing in the least degree, but he retained his priesthood in full force and virtue, which he held equal with Joseph Smith, jr., according to the book of Doctrine and Covenants, for it says expressly: “Wherefore you (David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris) have received the same POWER, and the same FAITH, and the same GIFT like unto him;” (Joseph Smith, jr.) — D. C. 15:3.
We now dismiss that part of our subject and turn to another.
It will be remembered that on page 137 of the September number of THE RETURN, we gave an account of the High Council at Far West, in June, rescinding the vote which had previously passed, granting a salary to Presidents Joseph Smith, jr., and Sidney Rigdon, which left them without a salary. Therefore, four days after their declaration of Independence, Joseph Smith, jr., inquired of the Lord “how much thou requirest of the properties of thy people for a tithing?” notwithstanding it was already stated in a revelation in the book of Doctrine and Covenants what the Lord required of his people for a tithing, and he received the following:
TITHING REVELATION:
“Revelation given at Far West, Mo. July 8, 1838.
In answer to the question, O Lord, show unto thy servants how much thou requirest of the properties of thy people for a tithing?
1. Verily, thus saith the Lord, I require all their asurplus property to be put into the hands of the bishop of my church in Zion, for the building of mine house, and for the laying of the foundation of Zion, and for the priesthood, and for the debts of the presidency of my church; and this shall be the beginning of the tithing of my people; and, after that, those who have thus been tithed shall pay one-tenth of all their interest annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever,
[150]
for my holy priesthood, saith the Lord.
2. Verily I say unto you, it shall come to pass that all those who gather unto the land of Zion shall be tithed of their surplus properties, and shall observe this law, or they shall not be found worthy to abide among you. And I say unto you, if my people observe not this law, to keep it holy, and by this law sanctify the land of Zion unto me, that my statutes and my judgments may be kept thereon, that it may be most holy, behold, verily I say unto you, it shall not be a land of Zion unto you; and this shall be an ensample unto all the stakes of Zion. Even so. Amen. — D. C. 106.
There is no mention made of the poor in this revelation, and being personally acquainted with the circumstances under which it was given, we never could feel that the Lord ever gave it for the good of his people, neither can we believe it after seeing its practical workings for fifty years. We verily believe, if the Lord had anything to do with it, it was upon the principle set forth in the 14th chapter of Ezekiel; they evidently had “set up an idol in their hearts,” and the Lord answered them “according to their idols.”
We feel sure that had the High Council at Far West, carried out the resolution, and paid Joseph Smith, jr. and Sidney Rigdon, the salary they asked for, of eleven hundred dollars each per year, we would never have seen this tithing revelation. The church had been in existence over eight years, and had seen its purest, happiest days before that was given.
So they have told you what it means. They tell you in what way you should interpret the Bible, and that it is almost dangerous to read the Bible without the proper context of the other Standard Works?
In fact you own a Bible with footnotes that refer you to other Mormon scripture, right?
Either you believe that God is omnipotent and wouldn’t allow his Word to be corrupt, or you believe the Bible has become corrupt - and therefor believe in either a fallible God or a changeable God. Be careful.
+++++++++++=
Back in the 50’s when I was a little kid my folks gave me a Bible. KJV. With lots of footnotes. Footnotes from people wanting to help me understand the scriptures. According to the way you speak, it was,still is a good Christian bible.
I know that I donnot know, but I would bet that your Bible has footnotes from people who want to help you think correctly.
And please donot tell God he is either/or. He has more choices then you give him. He can even repent. [and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not. Jonah 3:10]
Not only did they divide into "two great nations," but throughout the book, about every three or four years, they had devastating wars that killed thousands (i.e., Alma 28:2). Starting after the first 19 years or so, Laman and Lemuel and their descendants and followers (!) turned dark skinned because of their disobedience (2 Ne. 5:21). According to the Book of Mormon, dark skin color was a curse from God! This change of skin color is happening throughout the book. In 2 Ne. 30:6 we read that if Lamanites accepted the true gospel, they became "white and delightsome" (and since 1981 printing of the Book of Mormon, they become "pure") but if they left this true gospel, they became "dark and loathsome." People's skin color does not change if they believe or do not believe! Nor is the skin color a curse!
The Book of Mormon teaches that Indians originated from these Jewish settlers. Indians are distinctly Mongoloid - they have the "Mongoloid" blue spot, specific blood traits, and their facial features are of typical Asian origin, not Semitic at all.
In Ether 7:8, 9, we read of steel and breakable windows (2:23) back in Abraham's time! Try to explain that to an archaeologist! Steel was not even developed until about 1400 years later.
At the end of the Book of Mormon, Moroni tells about a great battle that took place on the Hill Cumorah. Over two hundred thousand people, armed to their teeth, were killed on that hill. The story tells about their weapons, breastplates, helmets, swords, etc. Nothing has ever been found on that hill or anywhere else in this continent, as a matter of fact. Metal, helmets, swords, etc., do not disappear in a mere 1400 years. Before the LDS Church purchased the Hill Cumorah, it was literally dug full of holes and even caves, but nothing was ever found. (Joseph Smith even told about a cave inside of Hill Cumorah and how they - he and Oliver - went in and out of it. It supposedly had wagon loads of gold plates, Laban sword, etc.). It must have been really tough to collect for disposal all the things telling truths about the liar, Joe Smith. But record keeping is a Mormonism talent!
When people dig for worms in the Holy Land, they make discoveries. The Bible has been proven by archaeology, cities, places, coins, clothing, swords, etc., have been found, but not one single place mentioned in the Book of Mormon has ever been identified. There are still people in the LDS Church who believe that archaeology has proven, at least to a degree, the Book of Mormon. Some missionaries are still using slide presentations of ruins from Mexico and South America, implying that they prove the Book of Mormon. But they are from an entirely different time period. They are ruins of idolworshipers who offered human sacrifices.
In the mid 1970's, President Spencer W. Kimball made a statement that should have stopped these "faith promoting rumors." The Church News published it and it said to "stop looking for archaeological evidences for the Book of Mormon, for there is none," he said. Perhaps he finally realized that it was too embarrassing to insist on Book of Mormon archaeology since professors in the Church's own University had started to publicly deny that there was any truth to it. Professor Dee Green, in "Dialogue," summer of 1969, pp. 74-78, wrote: "The first myth we need to eliminate is that the Book of Mormon archaeology exists. Titles of books full of archaeological half-truths, dilettante on peripheries of American archaeology calling themselves Book of Mormon archaeologists regardless of their education, and a Department of Archaeology at BYU devoted to the production of Book of Mormon archaeologists do not insure that Book of Mormon archaeology really exists... no Book of Mormon location is known...
Biblical archaeology can be studied, because we know where Jerusalem and Jericho were and are, but we do not know where Zarahemla and Bountiful (or any location for that matter) were or are..." Many Mormon scholars have faced the truth and fully agree with Professor Green, but sadly enough, this "myth of the Book of Mormon archaeology" still surfaces from the general membership, who are not updated on these issues. Thomas S. Ferguson was a firm believer and he was sure that archaeology would prove the Book of Mormon. He was an attorney and believed that he knew how to weigh the evidence, once it was found. And a lot of "evidence" was found, but unfortunately for the LDS Church, the evidence did not have any connection to the Book of Mormon story. Thomas S. Ferguson spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and 25 years of his life as a head of "The New World Archaeological Foundation," funded by the Church. But in spite of all the efforts, by 1970, he had come to the conclusion that all had been in vain and that Joseph Smith was not a prophet and that Mormonism was not true.
Here was a man who had devoted his entire life, even before starting this foundation, to Mormonism. He had written a book called "One Fold and One Shepherd" in defense of Mormonism, but later he had to admit that the case against Joseph Smith was absolutely devastating and could not be explained away. "The Book of Abraham" was perhaps the final straw for him, as well as for many others who were more aware of the problems in Mormonism.
But there were others, i.e. B. H. Roberts, noted scholar in the Mormon Church and a General Authority, whose secret manuscript has only fairly recently been published, and who had come to question the Book of M ormon quite some time before Ferguson did. B. H. Roberts had written a typewritten manuscript "Book of Mormon Difficulties" of over 400 pages, sometime between 1922-1933, and in it he admitted that the Book of Mormon is in conflict with what is now known from 20th century archaeological investigation about the early inhabitants of America. After going into a lengthy explanation of impossibilities in the Book of M ormon he also says that he has come to discover things he didn't know earlier in his life, for instance, that Joseph Smith did have access to a number of books that could have assisted him and given him ideas for the Book of Mormon.
Rush has diddo heads because many people experience or feel the same way about something.
***
You are opperating buzz word emotions from something you think it means, and it had nothing to do with the understanding of men, it is an elevate realm understood by thoght power of the Holy Ghost of course I would not expect to respect this, it is for the lurkers to know where the LDS is coming from!
“”...Is there a God beside me? Yea, there is no God; I KNOW NOT ANY.” (Isa. 44:10)”
Actually that is from v8, but going to verse 10 (and beyond) puts it into context...
Isa. 44 (KJV)
8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.
9 ¶ They that make a graven image are all of them vanity; and their delectable things shall not profit; and they are their own witnesses; they see not, nor know; that they may be ashamed.
10 Who hath formed a god, or molten a graven image that is profitable for nothing?
...
17 And the residue thereof he maketh a god, even his graven image: he falleth down unto it, and worshippeth it, and prayeth unto it, and saith, Deliver me; for thou art my god.
So graven images are not gods, God doesn’t acknowledge them as legitimate and they are ‘profitable for nothing’. Issiah is denouncing idolatry and going beyond that takes his comments out of context. The same is true for Isaiah 43:10.
Those who become gods as we believe will not be God to us, they will not be the God of Isreal, they will be subjects of the God of Israel. There is none greater than our Father in Heaven and he is from everlasting to everlasting. As Paul said, to us there is but one God the Father.
You also have Joshua 22:22 declaring God is ‘The LORD God of gods’. How can he be the LORD God of gods without there being gods and without knowing of them and ruling over them? How utterly lame it would be to praise God by saying he is greater than an idol (as I already am). Taking those verses in Issiah as meaning more than a rejection of idols conflicts with that verse in our view.
Again it boils down to a matter of interpretation.
“It is interesting to note that about six weeks after Joseph Smith had preached this sermon (in April 1844), that men will and can become gods and that God was not God from all eternity, Joseph was killed!! Coincidence?”
And a Jew could just as easily say that Christ’s death coming so soon after his claiming to be divine show he was a blasphemer. The verse you cite was a command to the Jews to kill those who told them to ‘go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them’. It was not a prophecy that God would cause the death of such a person, and on top of that Joseph never taught to go after or server any other gods so the verse doesn’t even apply.
Would you like to try that concordance again.
“Either you believe that God is omnipotent and wouldn’t allow his Word to be corrupt, or you believe the Bible has become corrupt - and therefor believe in either a fallible God or a changeable God. Be careful.”
God let all of His creation fall into corruption. You your standard that would mean he isn’t omnipotent in a big way.
God has the power to force us all to do only that which is right, but he give us our freedom and allows us to do all manner of evil. He doesn’t stop us, but he does undo it later. Same pattern with the scriptures, he allowed men to edit them and remove parts, he didn’t stop them, he just resotred that knowledge later on.
No matter what you say MHGinTN,
I know beyond a doubt through the Power of the Holy Ghost that the Book of Mormon is True ,and because it is true, so is Joseph Smith a Prophet of the Lord Jesus Christ who restorted the Book of Mormon to earth again, and this is the Restored Church of Jesus Christ and nothing you are any one can do to take it from the earth again!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.