Why Mormonism will Surrender to Homosexuality

Renew America ^ | Feb. 13, 2013 | Linda Kimball

[MeOnTheBeach]

You posted versus which do not say what you said.

This was going to be the response no matter what I said. Good day.

[Colofornian]

yet another Mormonism-bashing thread

Yet another bashing perceived "bashers" comment, eh?

It never fails to amaze me how others will bash somebody for being "anti-fill-in-the-blank-ism"...all the while they are being "anti" whatever they perceive...

Why do your bashing comments...why do your "anti" comments warrant some special elistist rank?

[Colofornian]

Here’s a radical idea: Pick a church YOU like, and go there. Let your neighbors pick churches THEY like, and let them go there. I think that concept is embedded in some old document this country used to pay attention to.

Here's a radical idea: Pick comments you like, and post them. Let your neighbors pick concepts, ideas, and comments they like, and let them express them....IF you're so anti-negativism, that is...I think that concept is embedded in some old document this country used to pay attention to...Ya know the First Amendment.

See how "fun" that is...

The fact that you honor only one of the above shows how two-faced, inconsistent, and hypocritical you are.

[Elsie]

I meant a bit more current than 1831.

If nothing newer shows up; will you concede that it MUST still be in force?

[Elsie]

So the two that I posted SIDE BY SIDE have no differences that leap out at you?

Then let your seeing eye dog read it to you!

[Elsie]

Sorry about the snarky just above; MY dog misspelled the title!

Of COURSE not; since MORMONism claims the KJV as one of their scriptures.

What was posted was from the JST.

[svcw]

huh?
No, I said what I said, because you posted verses that had nothing to do with what you said.

[Colofornian]

Mormons are not generally characterized as promoters of socialism

Review the late 19th century multiple "United Order" socialist towns the Mormon leaders ran throughout Utah.

Yeah, the Mormons halted those...but Joseph Smith...in Lds "scripture" (D&C)...referenced them as "everlasting"...therefore, it's not like Mormons can even now bash what Smith called "everlasting."

Those United Orders, btw, had some indirect influence on the formation of Communism in the Soviet Union...via an author who investigated them firsthand...and then whose book influenced the Soviet communistic pioneers.

[Elsie]

This was going to be the response no matter what I said.

Try it and see.

[metmom]

Since when did pointing out truth and error deteriorate into being called *bashing*?

[metmom]

Here’s a radical idea: Pick a church YOU like, and go there. Let your neighbors pick churches THEY like, and let them go there.

I think that concept is embedded in some old document this country used to pay attention to.

Here's another radical idea.

Telling people the truth of their spiritual destination of they don't receive Christ as the Bible says one must do to be saved.

No church membership or adherence ever saved one soul.

[Colofornian]

Mormons also state that Jesus Christ came to Earth three times and each time His message was unsuccessful [fattigermaster]

Gonna have to ask for references for that one. [T.P. Pole]

1. Jesus came to Middle East. Mormons say Jesus failed in that mission to keep a church together...Mormons say it apostatized after disciples died off. Joseph Smith boasted he was the ONLY man who knew how to keep a church together --that Jesus didn't do it; Paul didn't do it.

2. Lds say Jesus came to South or Central America. Started a church there. But they died off in warfare. (Jesus "failure" #2...per Mormonism)

3. Mormons say Jesus came yet again -- this time to upstate NY...when Joseph was either 14 or 16 yo... No church immediately resulted from this visit...Actually, after a child was born to Smith, he was taking classes with his wife (1827) I recall to join the Methodist church.

So here that was 6-8 yrs AFTER the Mormon Jesus came again...still no church!

So per Mormonism...3 visits...2 church failings/apostasies...And it wasn't the supposed 3rd visit that jumpstarted a church...that was linked to the Book of Mormon...a "message" that the Mormon Jesus did NOT leave with Smith...that (start of the church) supposedly came thru gold plates & a urum & thummim...

[Servant of the Cross]

LOL. You ARE good. Or is it BAD?

[Hoodat]

The two you posted side by side were not comparable. One of them was written by Joseph Smith. The one I posted came from the Bible link at the same LDS site. You intentionally substituted Joseph Smith's version in place of the one that is actually in use.

I don't think it's fair to condemn Catholicism because of the actions of Pope John XII, nor do I think it's fair to condemn the Southern Baptist Convention because of their past support of slavery. And it certainly isn't fair to give a false portrayal of Matthew 24 as it appears in the Mormon Bible.

[Hoodat]

The reason I posted Woodruff’s 1890 declaration was in support of another poster’s claim about a 19th century declaration against polygamy. In no way was I making any claims as to the effectiveness of said declaration, only that it existed.

[Colofornian]

(To Elsie): The two you posted side by side were not comparable. One of them was written by Joseph Smith. [Allow me to finish that sentence: "One of them was written by Joseph Smith..." as supposedly REVEALED (as in REVELATION) to him by the Mormon god in 1831."

You may have a period at the end of this comment, but you did not finish the sentence...Hence, the "help" I just gave...

When you go to the Lds.com link Elz provided, you see the following description: "An extract from the translation of the Bible as revealed to Joseph Smith the Prophet in 1831: Matthew 23:39 and chapter 24."

(To Elsie): You intentionally substituted Joseph Smith's version in place of the one that is actually in use.

You, Hoodat, make it sound like you're referencing some Bible commentary written by the opinionated hand of Joseph Smith.

Hmmm...Is it that...
...you have troubled with the word "revealed" (as in "revelation")?
...or that you may fail to realize that the Lds church regards it as the "IV" (Inspired Version)?
...and that this Bible version would be in even greater usage by the Lds church had they actually ever secured copyright to it? ... [it's held by the old RLDS..known as the Community of Christ now]

I don't think it's fair to condemn Catholicism because of the actions of Pope John XII, nor do I think it's fair to condemn the Southern Baptist Convention because of their past support of slavery.

If ANY Pope were to teach something heretically regarded by Catholics across the board, yet were none of these Catholics to call it heresy, then yes, it'd be fair game to condemn Catholics for hosting heresy.

Southern Baptists have apologized for what their spiritual leaders said and did in the 19th century; in contrast, I don't see Mormons apologizing for what Brigham Young said and did in the 19th century. Furthermore, what Young & other Lds "prophets" did was supposedly done as THE direct "mouthpiece" of the Lord...tantamount to "Scripture." Young said that he had never preached a sermon that couldn't, upon review and correction, fail to be considered the same as "Scripture." You won't find ANY Southern Baptist claims to such sermons -- either then or now.

You can't hold what is obviously regarded as human opinion by a lowly servant-preacher the same level as a hierarchical "prophet" of the Mormon gods...who the Mormon leaders have said umpteen hundred times that the Mormon gods would never allow a Mormon "prophet" to lead them astray...

(I don't think you could claim the same "inerrancy" applied to any Southern Baptist leader of the 19th century)

[Elsie]

You ARE good. Or is it BAD?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xJkUyotSc4

[Elsie]

You intentionally substituted Joseph Smith's version in place of the one that is actually in use.

Hello!!!

---

See some differences between GOD's Word and the Joseph Smith's 'translation'

---

 

 

 

 

JOSEPH SMITH—MATTHEW An extract from the translation of the Bible as revealed to Joseph Smith the Prophet in 1831: Matthew 23: 39 and chapter 24. Jesus foretells the impending destruction of Jerusalem—He also discourses on the second coming of the Son of Man, and the destruction of the wicked.

 

 

 

 

I thought this was clear enough.  Well, some background is in order.

 

 

Joseph Smith received a 'revelation' from GOD that he was to correct the errors in the KJV.

HE did, evidently, in his JST.

 

So the question NOW becomes: Why doesn't SLC accept the JST as 'scri[pture' and instead uses the OBVIOUSLY flawed KJV?

[T. P. Pole]

Thanks for the reply. I appreciate your attempt to speak for another. I am going to disagree with your response, however. Mormonism teaches that there have been multiple times that Christ's church with all its power and authority has been on the earth. We generally refer to them as "dispensations." We teach that various prophets have had the authority to provide saving ordinances.

[Side note here - I understand that this is not agreed with in the orthodox Christian world, but Mormons believe that there are ordinances, such as baptism, that are required to be saved, and that they must be performed by someone with the proper authority from God]

We also teach that the wickedness of men has caused that this authority be removed from the earth for a time. We generally refer to things like "the dispensation of Adam" or "the dispensation of Moses." Or Enoch, or Noah, or Abraham. And Christ.

But we also teach that in each of these the authority was removed from the earth.

We consider this to the the "dispensation of the fullness of times" when all things are restored, never to be taken from the earth again. This dispensation is connected to Joseph Smith.

And so, Mormons would consider each of these, and there are more than three, to be a time when Christ came to earth to establish His church, all of which expect this last one, the authority was later removed from the earth.

I'll mention why I asked for references - every now and then you will find someone who believes that maybe one of the earlier prophets was actually Christ in for a trial-run (or some such other craziness). Let me be clear - this is not something that mormons teach, and cannot be reconciled within mormon doctrine, but it is something you might hear about in late night conversations amongst the crazy. I was wondering if that is what the original poster was referring to, and therefore was asking for references to back up that mormons actually state such a thing officially.

[Tennessee Nana]

And then after 1890 Woodruff continued to practice polygamy and “married” more Moemoin women and fi8nally died still in polygamous relationships

as did EVERY Mormon “prophet and president” after him until 1945 when the last polygamous pro$it Heber Grant died...

along with Woodruff et al Mormon “apostles” and elders and members of the top quorum of 15 in SLC lived with extra women as “wives” too...

All that the proclamation of 1890 did was fooled congress into voting Utah into the union as a new state...

about 1895 another proclamation was necessary because of all the continued “illegal habitation” AKA polygamy going on and so many apostles etc arrested and jailed...

after 1900 yet another proclamation or 2 were again necessary...

in all this though the utterer and signers of the proclamation ie Woodfuff and the later the Mormon pro$its never obeyed their own proclamations but kept right own committing adultry and bigamy a crime in all the US states...

even though Mormon doctrines command them to obey the laws...

well I guess the laws that they want to..

and I guess any of the laws that Brigham Young might have bothered to obey..

LOL