The Light of Christ

Drifting · **Joined:** Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:52 am **Posts:** 7308

gdemetz wrote:

I think that you could perhaps assume that it is good advise and counsel to follow, etc., unless they are specifically stating that it is a doctrine of revelation, or quoting scripture.

When was the last time a Conference speaker stated that what he was saying was a doctrine of revelation? Packer tried it last year I think, saying the the Proclamation on Marriage was revelation. But the Church edited that bit out when the talk was published in the Ensign and on-line because he was wrong.

I think it may have been 1978 - but even that wasn't a revelation, it was the reversal of a revelation that the Church now admits it doesn't know whether it was a revelation or not, nor when, where, how or why it came into being.

So since then, all Conference content including the Prophets words have just been 'good advice'?

gdemetz · **Joined:** Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:59 am **Posts:** 1681

I think that it is fair to state that the proclamation was a revelation even though it was basically not a new one.

Drifting · **Joined:** Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:52 am **Posts:** 7308

gdemetz wrote:

I think that it is fair to state that the proclamation was a revelation even though it was basically not a new one.

*Bong*

Not true.
The Proclamation On The Family is specifically NOT revelation.
It may be doctrinal, but it certainly isn't classed nor claimed as a revelation.

gdemetz · **Joined:** Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:59 am **Posts:** 1681

No. It absolutely is a revelation, but it was not a new one as I stated. The doctrines which they referred to in the proclamation were revealed in this modern dispensation.

Drifting · **Joined:** Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:52 am **Posts:** 7308

gdemetz wrote:

No. It absolutely is a revelation, but it was not a new one as I stated. The doctrines which they referred to in the proclamation were revealed in this modern dispensation.

Sorry, but you and Packer are wrong. The Church corrected Packers phraseology because he misspoke when claiming it as a revelation.

In fact the only actual revelation on marriage coming via a Mormon Prophet instructed us that we should have multiple wives so that we can multiply and replenish the earth and that it wasn't adultery as long as these additional wives were virgins and as long as wife number one consented.

But feel free to show where the proclamation on the family was originally a revelation...

thews · **Joined:** Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:26 am **Posts:** 2757

gdemetz wrote:

If you had the Spirit, whoops, never mind that! One is written ion the D&C as a revelation, and the others are not.

Your "Spirit" born of magic rocks through Joseph Smith's stove-pipe hat and magic rocks is nothing more than a bad case of gas.

gdemetz · **Joined:** Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:59 am **Posts:** 1681

Wrong again! You guys just love to stay on this post and be argumentative because apparently you have nothing better to do! Of course, the doctrines referred to in the proclamation are revelations received in this dispensation! They are revelations given to modern prophets in the church! Do you think that apostate Christendom revealed that we have heavenly parents?!?

Drifting · **Joined:** Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:52 am **Posts:** 7308

gdemetz wrote:

Wrong again! You guys just love to stay on this post and be argumentative because apparently you have nothing better to do! Of course, the doctrines referred to in the proclamation are revelations received in this dispensation! They are revelations given to modern prophets in the church! Do you think that apostate Christendom revealed that we have heavenly parents?!?

*yawn* links please...*stretch*...references...*sigh*...quotes...*Zzz...Zzz...Zzz...*

gdemetz · **Joined:** Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:59 am **Posts:** 1681

No, this time you do the work! You have the family proclamation, right?
So, you try to find anything from apostate Christendom which talk about heavenly parents!

Albion · **Joined:** Mon May 07, 2012 3:43 pm **Posts:** 1077

Seems to me you are once again advocating something from Mormonism as being factual simply because of its absence from Christian scripture.

gdemetz · **Joined:** Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:59 am **Posts:** 1681

Mormonism is Christian, believes in Christian scripture and expounds Christian scripture. Apostate Christendom tries to twist and pervert the scripture to fit their own beliefs and basically denies the "restitution of all things" as prophesied in the Christian scriptures.

ludwigm · **Posted:** Mon May 14, 2012 1:36 am

gdemetz wrote:

Mormonism is Christian, believes in Christian scripture and expounds Christian scripture.

As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.

expound (v.tr.):
1. To give a detailed statement of; set forth
2. To explain in detail; elucidate

BTW We believe the Bible (the basic Christian scripture) to be the word of God far as it is translated correctly.

Albion · **Joined:** Mon May 07, 2012 3:43 pm **Posts:** 1077

"We believe the Bible to be the word of God in so far as it is translated correctly." Translation: "We believe the Bible to be the word of God in so far as we can use it to support our false additions to it and when it doesn't we claim to right to take those passages out of context." I wonder why Joseph Smith sought to include so much of this badly translated book into the Book of Mormon...even in the ancient language of King James. I wonder, too, why the Mormon Church doesn't do its own "correct" translation? Wait as minute, didn't Joseph Smith do just that and declare it "finished"? I suspect the Mormon Church would use it except for the ridicule that would be heaped upon them by the scholarly world.

gdemetz · **Joined:** Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:59 am **Posts:** 1681

Albion, you keep avoiding the points which I make and continue to try to discuss things of which you don't know what you are talking about! Joseph Smith was martyred before he could finish the translation! Also, one has to be very naïve to not know that there are errors in the Bible!

Albion · **Joined:** Mon May 07, 2012 3:43 pm **Posts:** 1077

Sorry, gdemetz, Stephen was a martyr....Joseph Smith was in jail after being attacked by a mob and some of his associates fighting back with guns. Hardly the stuff of martyrdom. Recheck you Mormon history...he declared his so-called Inspired Version finished.

gdemetz · **Joined:** Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:59 am **Posts:** 1681

Hello?!? I am very familiar with that history! They tried to defend themselves from the murderers, but they were still martyrs!!!

Themis · **Joined:** Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:43 pm **Posts:** 6122

Albion wrote:

Sorry, gdemetz, Stephen was a martyr....Joseph Smith was in jail after being attacked by a mob and some of his associates fighting back with guns. Hardly the stuff of martyrdom. Recheck you Mormon history...he declared his so-called Inspired Version finished.

Martyr is just a word that many may define differently. To me it is pointless to argue it. Joseph got murdered by a mob. He didn't deserve it even though he made mistakes and had a lot of responsibility for his circumstances. He tried to fight them off and I applaud him for it. I would have done the same. Even his calling out for any masons in the crowd for help was a smart, though desperate, thing to do, but then he was in a desperate circumstance.

Albion · **Joined:** Mon May 07, 2012 3:43 pm **Posts:** 1077

In essence I do not disagree with what you say but to put the man in the company of real martyrs for the Christian faith (albeit from my perspective a corrupted Christian faith) is a stretch too far for me.

thews · **Joined:** Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:26 am **Posts:** 2757

gdemetz wrote:

Hello?!? I am very familiar with that history! They tried to defend themselves from the murderers, but they were still martyrs!!!

Was Biggie Smalls "martyred" too? How about Jesse James? Joseph Smith sent word back to come save him and first attempted to run away before he was shot. You can't even acknowledge simple facts without running away (see below), so how is it anyone should listen to your so-called knowledge of Mormon history when you obviously only know the versions you're told to believe?

Quote:

1) Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon using occult seer stones he owned before the supposed angels appeared to him through a stove-pipe hat. The first seer stone was found by looking through the green stone of a necromancer (Sally Chase).

2) The "first" vision has so many versions you must accept the version you're told to accept while rejecting the previous versions.

3) The Book of Abraham is an absolute farce and has nothing to do with the pagan documents the LDS church hides from you... nothing.

4) Polygamy is a requirement in the Joseph Smith version of heaven and anyone (according to the D&C) who rejects it will be damned.

5) LDS doctrine is racist and there is no doubt about that. While they will tell you that "dark" doesn't mean skin color, if you accept that then why were the rules changed in 1978? It does mean skin color... wake up.

6) The Kinderhook plates (a known hoax) were translated by Joseph Smith... how do you rationalize this?

gdemetz · **Joined:** Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:59 am **Posts:** 1681

Thews, you and Albion appear to have been brainwashed by anti Mormon propaganda. I suggest you check out FAIR about your claims! Your arguments are also so shallow! Of course, anyone who has been commanded to practice polygamy and doesn't would be damned, however, it was only a small percentage who were allowed to practice it! Do you think that Joseph would teach all the rest that they were damned?!? The rest of your arguments are shallow also; just check out FAIR!

Albion · **Joined:** Mon May 07, 2012 3:43 pm **Posts:** 1077

gdemetz, I am not quite sure just what your last post directed at me is addressing since I'm not sure I have posted much on the adulteries of the early Mormon Church lived under the guise of "Celestial marriage". Perhaps you are referring to the shoot out at Carthage Jail. I make no apologies for the mob that attacked the jail...their action was not lawful but then neither was Smith's action in destroying a free press that put him there in the first place. My own view is that it would have been better had Smith lived so that Mormonism would likely have died a natural death like so many other weird American religions prevalent at that time. Just think, if they had gone into the appliance business like the Amana Colonies your wish might be fulfilled and there would be a Mormon in every kitchen.

The Light of Christ

Who is online