Posted on 05/09/2015 7:44:31 AM PDT by RnMomof7
Millions of sincere Catholics wear the brown scapular thinking by doing so it will help them spiritually. They believed the report that Mary made and is backing a salvation promise in connection with the brown scapular hundreds of years ago based on their religious traditions. Over the years wearing the brown scapular has been perpetuated by sincere Catholic leaders, such as the one in this video, but it is in complete futility that it is worn. It is a false hope and a spiritual snare. 
It is not based on God’s truth and is, therefore, just as deadly for the sincere Catholic as it is for the Hindu who bathes in the Ganges River thinking his sins will be washed away in the water or for the Muslim who kisses the black stone of Kaaba to be forgiven! [The picture to the right is Mel Gibson, the director of the Passion of Christ, wearing a brown scapular as he smokes.]
I too once wore the brown scapular as an Ex Roman Catholic. I know what it is like to be taught something and accept it as truth to find out later it is not only unscriptural, but anti-scriptural. It hurts, but TRUTH is what we must stand on to be safe. It takes humility in such cases to turn.
NOTE: At about 2:23 time-wise into the video, the speaker is quoted below. How could anyone deny that Mary is deified in Catholicism? Surely, this rampant idolatry is grieving to the Lord Jesus Christ and God the Father. This is what Catholicism teaches about the brown scapular:
And so, wearing of the brown scapular reminds us, should remind us, of three things. First, that we are children of Mary. Second of all, that we need to work for our Lady. And finally, it should be a garment of humility and penance. First, by the brown scapular we profess ourselves to be children of Mary. The scapular of our Lady is a badge or a uniform so to speak by which we profess to whom we belong and who we serve. Likewise, our Lady in turn by wearing the brown scapular, she recognizes us as her children, as her special children. And because of that, she consequently protects us and watches over us. The brown scapular should also remind us that we need to work for our Lady because the scapular, which means shoulder garment, was originally that, it was a garment worn by religious in order to protect their habit, their religious habit that they wore on a daily basis during those periods of work to keep it from getting dirty, stained, from ripping, etc. and so therefore the scapular is a working garb. And so this should remind us that there’s no room for lazy piety. If we wear the brown scapular and we consider ourselves our Lady’s children, there’s no place for lazy piety but rather we should fill our lives with good works. This brown scapular should remind us the need to faithfully fulfill our daily duties, and to make another adaptation of Scripture, to labor as good soldiers of the Immaculate. Finally, the third place, the brown scapular is also a garment of humility and of penance. So in a spirit of penance, we should accept all the difficulties of our state of life and all the sufferings that our Lady may want to send us. And the scapular will give us the strength to do this. In all of our difficulties, we can always grab onto our brown scapular, remind ourselves of our Lady’s protection, her watchfulness, her presence and especially at the moment of death, when we can call to mind our Lady’s promise of salvation. Our Lady of Mount Carmel, pray for us.
* Not a single word about Jesus was mentioned there.
* The brown scapular is 100% religious mythology and idolatry, as Mary is deified as a type of Savior.
* No Bible light shines from such brown scapular Catholic tradition.
In 22:9 Paul says that the men “beheld the light” (to men phos etheasanto), but evidently did not discern the person. Paul also says there, “but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me” (ten de phonen ouk ekousan tou lalountos moi). Instead of this being a flat contradiction of what Luke says in 9:7 it is natural to take it as being likewise (as with the “light” and “no one”) a distinction between the “sound” (original sense of phone as in John 3:8) and the separate words spoken. It so happens that akouo is used either with the accusative (the extent of the hearing) or the genitive (the specifying). It is possible that such a distinction here coincides with the two senses of phone. They heard a sound (9:7), but did not understand the words (22:9) [1930, pp. 117-118, parenthetical items in orig.]. (emphasis added by me)As the article points out, we actually have a similar event in which both types of reaction are described, letting us know that under this special kind of circumstance, people can indeed hear sound without hearing meaning, which is the key to understanding the two descriptions of Paul's story:
Quoted from this very helpful article which deals with the alleged Damascus Road contradiction extensively: https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=731
Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again. The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him.So in the two descriptions of Paul's experience, the Greek word akuo, to hear, could in one case be emphasizing that they heard something but didn't know what it was, and as Paul described it later, he uses akuo to make it clear they didn't hear the sound with any understanding. No contradiction in affirmed fact.
(John 12:28-29)
Not any more!!
God (thru Joseph Smith) removed them.
Use the Inspired Version now.
Uh; you DO; don't you??
I hear that SLC still tells it's people to use the KJV.
What's up with THAT??
HMMMmmm...
"Now the way he translated was he put the urim and thummim into his hat and Darkned his Eyes than he would take a sentance and it would apper in Brite Roman Letters. Then he would tell the writer and he would write it. Then that would go away the next sentance would Come and so on. But if it was not Spelt rite it would not go away till it was rite, so we see it was marvelous. Thus was the hol [whole] translated."---Joseph Knight's journal.
"In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us."
(History of the RLDS Church, 8 vols.(Independence, Missouri: Herald House,1951),"Last Testimony of Sister Emma [Smith Bidamon]," 3:356.
"I, as well as all of my father's family, Smith's wife, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, were present during the translation. . . . He [Joseph Smith] did not use the plates in translation."
---(David Whitmer,as published in the "Kansas City Journal," June 5, 1881,and reprinted in the RLDS "Journal of History", vol. 8, (1910), pp. 299-300.
In an 1885 interview, Zenas H. Gurley, then the editor of the RLDS Saints Herald, asked Whitmer if Joseph had used his "Peep stone" to do the translation. Whitmer replied:
"... he used a stone called a "Seers stone," the "Interpreters" having been taken away from him because of transgression. The "Interpreters" were taken from Joseph after he allowed Martin Harris to carry away the 116 pages of Ms [manuscript] of the Book of Mormon as a punishment, but he was allowed to go on and translate by use of a "Seers stone" which he had, and which he placed in a hat into which he buried his face, stating to me and others that the original character appeared upon parchment and under it the translation in English."
"Martin Harris related an incident that occurred during the time that he wrote that portion of the translation of the Book of Mormon which he was favored to write direct from the mouth of the Prophet Joseph Smith. He said that the Prophet possessed a seer stone, by which he was enabled to translate as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he then used the seer stone, Martin explained the translation as follows: By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin and when finished he would say 'Written,' and if correctly written that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used."
(Edward Stevenson, "One of the Three Witnesses,"reprinted from Deseret News, 30 Nov. 1881in Millennial Star, 44 (6 Feb. 1882): 86-87.)
In 1879, Michael Morse, Emma Smith's brother-in-law, stated:"When Joseph was translating the Book of Mormon [I] had occasion more than once to go into his immediate presence, and saw him engaged at his work of translation. The mode of procedure consisted in Joseph's placing the Seer Stone in the crown of a hat, then putting his face into the hat, so as to entirely cover his face, resting his elbows upon his knees, and then dictating word after word, while the scribes Emma, John Whitmer, O. Cowdery, or some other wrote it down."
(W.W. Blair interview with Michael Morse,Saints Herald, vol. 26, no. 12June 15, 1879, pp. 190-91.)
Joseph Smith's brother William also testified to the "face in the hat" version:"The manner in which this was done was by looking into the Urim and Thummim, which was placed in a hat to exclude the light, (the plates lying near by covered up), and reading off the translation, which appeared in the stone by the power of God"("A New Witness for Christ in America,"Francis W. Kirkham, 2:417.)
"The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret was the same manner as when he looked for the money-diggers, with the stone in his hat, while the book of plates were at the same time hid in the woods."---Isaac Hale (Emma Smith's father's) affidavit, 1834.
No ‘promise’; just a question...
And...
also... stop the anti-Protestant censorship.
An Irish priest is driving down to New York and gets stopped for speeding in Connecticut.
The state trooper smells alcohol on the priest's breath and then sees an empty wine bottle on the floor of the car. He says, "Sir, have you been drinking?"
"Just water," says the priest, fingers crossed.
The trooper says, "Then why do I smell wine?"
The priest looks at the bottle and says, "Good Lord! He's done it again!"
Here are differing accounts of JS' 'vision'.
None of them are right!
| Version Number When Published Brief Description |
Age/Year | Evil Power | Pillar of Light or Fire |
Number of Personages |
Father | Son | Question: Join What Sect |
Remarks |
|
Official Version,
Mormon scripture,
Pearl of Great Price
p. 47, 48, 1974 Ed. |
Age 14 1820 |
Yes | Yes Light |
2 | Yes | Yes | Join None | Lucy, Hyrum, Samuel, Sopronia Join Presbyterian Church 1820 |
| Paper by Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons March, April 1842 |
Same as item 1 above | |||||||
|
Letter from Joseph Smith
to John Wentworth, editor Chicago Democrat
1841 account Published March 1,1842 |
None given | No | No | 2 | ? | ? | No question, told all incorrect |
Joseph Smith's First Vision by Milton V. Backman Jr. Bookcraft, Appendix D. Ensign, Jan.1985, p. 16 |
| Both looked the Same They spoke |
||||||||
|
Dictated by Joseph Smith,
in hand of James Mulholland, 1838
|
Same as item 1 above, first known account of the official version. |
Ensign,
Jan. 1985 p. 14
|
||||||
|
Joseph Smith's diary of 1835, Recorded by
Warren Cowdery
Nov. 9, 1835, conversation of Joseph Smith with Joshua
|
Joseph, about 14 | No Tongue seemed swollen; heard someone; at first couldn't pray |
Yes Fire |
One, and then another like unto the first | ? | ? | No question, told sins are forgiven, Jesus Christ is the Son of God |
Joseph Smith's First Vision
by Milton V. Backman Jr. Bookcraft, Appendix B
|
| Second spoke. | ||||||||
| Saw many angels | ||||||||
|
Messenger & Advocate
by Oliver Cowdery supervised by
Joseph Smith
Feb. 1835
p. 77-79;
Also see Dec. 1834 p. 43
|
Joseph 17 1823 |
No | Yes | 1 |
No | No | No question told sin are forgiven | Note on pg. 78 that the revival was in 1823 (NOT 1820) so this must be the First Vision. |
| Messenger from God | ||||||||
|
Dictated by Joseph Smith
to F. G. Williams Summer to Nov. 1832
|
Joseph 14 or 16 | No | Yes | 1 | No | Yes | No question, told "None doeth good", sins forgiven |
Joseph Smith's First Vision
by Milton V. Backman Jr. Bookcraft, Appendix A
|
| Saw Lord (Jesus) he "spoke" | ||||||||
| Written by Joseph Smith, 1832 diary | Joseph 15 | No | Yes | 1 | No | Yes | No question, told sins forgiven all do no good |
Ensign,
Dec. 1984 pgs. 24-26
Jan. 1985 pg. 11
|
| Saw the Lord Jesus Christ (said He was crucified) | ||||||||
|
Early Church leaders
B. Young,
G. A. Smith,
J. Taylor
|
Joseph 15 | No | No | 1 | No | No | Join None | Journal of Discourses, 2:171; 18:239; 13:77,78; 20:167; 12:333,334 |
| Saw an angel, and asked the angel | ||||||||
The first three gospels are different.
Which one is 'right'?
Ummm... where's the ERROR?
Post the TRUTH as found in the Inspired Version that Joseph created.
We demand to see the TRUTH!
You'd make a VERY poor missionary!
They tell you to READ first; THEN pray about the BoM.
I'm sure that Storm prepper will post the data just as soon as possible.
The definition of a prophet is one that speaks for God ... so the entire scripture is written by a prophet .
Do you not understand the words "as was supposed"? Would you "suppose" they all knew that He was the Son of God or would you "suppose" they just "assumed" He was the son of Joseph as would be normal? The "as was supposed" is clearly there to indicate the thoughts of most of the people which would be natural. Are you that desperate to try to conjure up errors in scripture?
Yep words mean things
Just in case?
1 Corth2:But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
No kidding! Who knew? As long as it says you're saved... well, there you go! Never mind any of that sovereignty of God, or predestination, or grrace through faith stuff....
Hmmm. Wonder which Church Father interpreted that infallibly?
"Get your scapular here! Getcher red-hot scapular!"
:D
Hoss
Here ya go!
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.