Posted on 09/02/2009 3:44:41 PM PDT by greyfoxx39
If I wanted to pray to some non biblical fantasy based “Man God” and his committee of fellow “Gods”, I would pick Zeus and his team, much more interesting...
Are you totally ignorant of your church's history that you claim to be so proud of?
“Kimball (past lds prophet and president) always kept an eye out for romance. ‘Brethren,’ he instructed some departing missionaries, ‘I want you to understand that it is not to be as it has been heretofore. The brother missionaries have been in the habit of picking out the prettiest women for themselves before they get here, and bringing on the ugly ones for us; hereafter you have to bring them all here before taking any of them, and let us all have a fair shake.”
“Plural marriage... is calculated in its nature to severely try the women even to nearly tear their heart strings out of them...” - Journal and Autobiography of Joseph Lee Robinson, p. 50
“I think no more of taking another wife than I do of buying a cow, and if you want to build up the kingdom you must take more wives.” - Apostle Heber C. Kimball, quoted in Jennie Anderson Froiseth, ed., The Women of Mormonism: or the Story of Polygamy As Told by the Victims Themselves, 1886; see Abanes, One Nation Under Gods, p. 295
- The Lion of the Lord, by Stanley P. Hirshon, pp. 129-130
Would YOU like being considered the equivalent of a cow? Thats how your prophets viewed you.
Meant to ping you...
Amazing isn’t it.
Facts mean nothing.
If ignorance is bliss, some people are REALLY blissful.
One could just as easily say this:
Yes Mohammed was inspired. He was inspired by God. God does not prosper the cause of a false prophet. The success of the House of Saud is an indication of the source of it’s inspiration.
Accuracy does count, but numbers are also important.
In the book of Daniel chapter 2 the Lord compares his latter day church to a stone that rolls forth to fill the whole earth. You can not do that without numbers. A church that grows in numbers is only one of many qualifying signs of the true church of God. A church that is losing membership each year does not qualify to be the true church of God.
In the heat of the Missouri “Mormon War” of 1838, Joseph Smith made the following claim, “I will be to this generation a second Mohammed, whose motto in treating for peace was ‘the Alcoran [Koran] or the Sword.’ So shall it eventually be with us—‘Joseph Smith or the Sword!’ ”[1]
It is most interesting that a self-proclaimed Christian prophet would liken himself to Mohammed, the founder of Islam. His own comparison invites us to take a closer look as well. And when we do, we find some striking—and troubling—parallels. Consider the following.
Mohammed and Joseph Smith both had humble beginnings. Neither had formal religious connections or upbringing, and both were relatively uneducated. Both founded new religions by creating their own scriptures. In fact, followers of both prophets claim these scriptures are miracles since their authors were the most simple and uneducated of men.[2]
Both prophets claim of having angel visitations, and of receiving divine revelation to restore pure religion to the earth again. Mohammed was told that both Jews and Christians had long since corrupted their scriptures and religion. In like manner, Joseph Smith was told that all of Christianity had become corrupt, and that consequently the Bible itself was no longer reliable. In both cases, this corruption required a complete restoration of both scripture and religion. Nothing which preceded either prophet could be relied upon any longer. Both prophets claim they were used of God to restore eternal truths which once existed on earth, but had been lost due to human corruption.
Both prophets created new scripture which borrowed heavily from the Bible, but with a substantially new “spin.” In his Koran, Mohammed appropriates a number of Biblical themes and characters—but he changes the complete sense of many passages, claiming to “correct” the Bible. In so doing he changes many doctrines, introducing his own in their place. In like manner, Joseph Smith created the Book of Mormon, much of which is plagiarized directly from the King James Bible. Interestingly, the Book of Mormon claims that this same Bible has been substantially corrupted and is therefore unreliable. In addition, Joseph Smith went so far as to actually create his own version of the Bible itself, the “Inspired Version,” in which he both adds and deletes significant portions of text, claiming he is “correcting” it. In so doing he also changes many doctrines, introducing his own in their place.
As a part of their new scriptural “spin,” both prophets saw themselves as prophesied in scripture, and both saw themselves as a continuation of a long line of Biblical prophets. Mohammed saw himself as a continuation of the ministry of Moses and Jesus. Joseph Smith saw himself as a successor to Enoch, Melchizedek, Joseph and Moses. Joseph Smith actually wrote himself into his own version of the Bible—by name.
Both prophets held up their own scripture as superior to the Bible. Mohammed claimed that the Koran was a perfect copy of the original which was in heaven. The Koran is therefore held to be absolutely perfect, far superior to the Bible and superceding it. In like manner, Joseph Smith also made the following claim. “I told the Brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding its precepts, than by any other book.”[3]
Despite their claim that the Bible was corrupt, both prophets admonished their followers to adhere to its teachings. An obvious contradiction, this led to selective acceptance of some portions and wholesale rejection of others. As a result, the Bible is accepted by both groups of followers only to the extent that it agrees with their prophet’s own superior revelation.
Both Mohammed and Joseph Smith taught that true salvation was to be found only in their respective religions. Those who would not accept their message were considered “infidels,” pagans or Gentiles. In so doing, both prophets became the enemy of genuine Christianity, and have led many people away from the Christ of the Bible.
Both prophets encountered fierce opposition to their new religions and had to flee from town to town because of threats on their lives. Both retaliated to this opposition by forming their own militias. Both ultimately set up their own towns as model societies.
Both Mohammed and Joseph Smith left unclear instructions about their successors. The majority of Mohammed’s followers, Sunni Muslims, believe they were to elect their new leader, whereas the minority, Shiite Muslims, believe Mohammed’s son was to be their next leader. Similarly, the majority of Joseph Smith’s followers, Mormons, believed their next prophet should have been the existing leader of their quorum of twelve apostles, whereas the minority, RLDS, believed Joseph Smith’s own son should have been their next prophet. Differences on this issue, and many others, have created substantial tension between these rival groups of each prophet.
Mohammed taught that Jesus was just another of a long line of human prophets, of which he was the last. He taught that he was superior to Christ and superceded Him. In comparison, Joseph Smith also made the following claim.
“I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him, but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.”[4] In light of these parallels, perhaps Joseph Smith’s claim to be a second Mohammed unwittingly became his most genuine prophecy of all.
[1] Joseph Smith made this statement at the conclusion of a speech in the public square at Far West, Missouri on October 14, 1838. This particular quote is documented in Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History, second edition, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1971), p. 230–231. Fawn Brodie’s footnote regarding this speech contains valuable information, and follows. “Except where noted, all the details of this chapter [16] are taken from the History of the [Mormon] Church. This speech, however, was not recorded there, and the report given here is based upon the accounts of seven men. See the affidavits of T.B. Marsh, Orson Hyde, George M. Hinkle, John Corrill, W.W. Phelps, Samson Avard, and Reed Peck in Correspondence, Orders, etc., pp. 57–9, 97–129. The Marsh and Hyde account, which was made on October 24, is particularly important. Part of it was reproduced in History of the [Mormon] Church, Vol. III, p. 167. See also the Peck manuscript, p. 80. Joseph himself barely mentioned the speech in his history; see Vol. III, p. 162.”
[2] John Ankerberg & John Weldon, The Facts on Islam, (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1998), pp.8–9. Eric Johnson, Joseph Smith & Muhammed, (El Cajon, CA: Mormonism Research Ministry, 1998), pp. 6–7.
[3] Documentary History of the [Mormon] Church, vol.4, pp.461.
[4] Documentary History of the [Mormon] Church, vol.6, pp.408–409.
Quick question - how does one "translate" from one language to another, one character at a time?
Let me get this straight:
You directly worship Jesus,
but you won't directly pray to Him?
May I suggest you just start praying directly to Him in song? I mean doesn't worship include praying to Him in the form of praise?
And if you're going to have to deal with this legalistic quandary --
--"My Book of Mormon shows me it's OK to pray directly to Jesus; my Bible shows me it's OK to pray directly to Jesus; but my leaders tell me it's a 'no-no.'"
-- Then just pray directly to Jesus through song and praise & then if any other Mormons or Mormon leaders interrogate you by asking, "We're you praying directly to Jesus?" -- you could say in defense, "No, I was just worshipping Him...surely you heard the tune.")
Well, that's a good question....perhaps the Skousen brothers have an answer to it?
"The ink on these manuscripts was so faint that special ultra violet and infra red photography had to be used to bring out the text and the editing marks, yielding a few hundred very interesting changes stemming mostly from copy errors when a printer's manuscript was prepared for delivery to the printer of the original 1830 edition.
This whole endeavor seems to me to be the latest revision of mormon history.
[Hey, ya better send a "memo" quick to God...He might want to have His Son give a retraction when He raised the "silly" ("silly" in your eyes, that is) question, "when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?" (Luke 18:8)]
Anyway, just tell Elohim to tell Jesus that Jesus has nothing to worry about. You've got it all under control. And that no true church of the future will lose members 'cause of your dictum: A church that is losing membership each year does not qualify to be the true church of God.
Magic hat...
But if you are trying to use such fallacious standards to prove that the LDS is the “true church” (the irony in typing that alone kills me LOL) you may want to run that by the Catholic Church as well as the Muslims, each numbering over a billion adherents and growing.
Unless you are willing to allow for other “true churches”, of course then what would be the point...
I am thinking we all need to go to mass now. Or dig up some prayer rugs.
Using his standards of course...
Fact allergies, its an epidemic among LDS members...
Keeping members a challenge for LDS church
Mormon myth: The belief that the church is the fastest-growing faith in the world doesn’t hold up
By Peggy Fletcher Stack
The Salt Lake Tribune
Updated: 06/22/2006 04:14:18 PM MDT
The claim that Mormonism is the fastest-growing faith in the world has been repeated so routinely by sociologists, anthropologists, journalists and proud Latter-day Saints as to be perceived as unassailable fact.
The trouble is, it isn’t true.
http://www.sltrib.com/lds/ci_2890645
The Deseret News published the membership of the Church as of October 1st, 2008 in the 2009 Church Almanac to be 13,428,061, or an increase of around 234,000 members. This would mean an average of 26,000 people joined the Church a month for the first nine months of 2008. . . . . Membership growth slowed in 2008 and will likely be around 10,000 people less than the previous year.
There are numerous other sources showing the membership declining, not being reflected because many of those who leave face a bureaucratic gordian knot of paper work to have their names removed from the roster - thus falsely inflating the ‘membership’ . I’m sure Jonesie can point these out in greater detail to you.
Keeping members a challenge for LDS church
Mormon myth: The belief that the church is the fastest-growing faith in the world doesn’t hold up
By Peggy Fletcher Stack
The Salt Lake Tribune
Updated: 06/22/2006 04:14:18 PM MDT
The claim that Mormonism is the fastest-growing faith in the world has been repeated so routinely by sociologists, anthropologists, journalists and proud Latter-day Saints as to be perceived as unassailable fact.
The trouble is, it isn’t true.
http://www.sltrib.com/lds/ci_2890645
The Deseret News published the membership of the Church as of October 1st, 2008 in the 2009 Church Almanac to be 13,428,061, or an increase of around 234,000 members. This would mean an average of 26,000 people joined the Church a month for the first nine months of 2008. . . . . Membership growth slowed in 2008 and will likely be around 10,000 people less than the previous year.
There are numerous other sources showing the membership declining, not being reflected because many of those who leave face a bureaucratic gordian knot of paper work to have their names removed from the roster - thus falsely inflating the ‘membership’ . I’m sure Jonesie can point these out in greater detail to you.
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.