hylander

I find it interesting that while Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons
*frequently* appear on the list... (it is by no means universal
actually)... these lists do differ quite a bit. Some point out
Unitarians and others various branches of Baptists and it seems that to
even be a true "non-denominationalist", one has to accept this kind of
list. It is interesting that some sects are on the grey line or are
"debatable" as true Christians.

What I'm hearing is that if Mormons merely denounced the doctorine of
becoming "Gods", being basic "biblical" (not termed trinity but often
equivalent in terms of three coequal individually & collectively God.),
they would be accepted by many....if they denounce offending
name/scripture/bad reputation of "Book of Mormon", they'd be accepted
by another segment. (the latter I find trivial though to a definition
of "Christianity" as there are a variety who use all kinds of
publishings etc).

Anyhow, I'm not a proponent of the latter idea at all...but I think the
former is a big disconnect in terms of what many perceive...the
Godmakers being a most damning piece of unChristian-like publication. I
don't think Jesus Christ would ever approve of something like that. He
was a friend to Samaritans and all kinds of "unofficial"s who also
basically "knew" who He was. (woman at the well for example). So many
Mormons are so offended by that material that it seems Christians will
almost NEVER have much luck with nearly ANY kind of persuasion if
tactics like that continue.

All these "bad religion" lists...surely, there can be imposters etc
etc....and misguided etc etc (from various perspectives)...but as
someone taking on a new Christian type "conversion" perspective...I
really find this odd and not very Spirit inviting.

These "unchurches" (like uncolas) or "non-denominationals" are in fact
quite denominational. It's misleading to me and not very logically
consistent nor spiritually appealing. Of course, such "bad religions"
list will go up the heirarchy into the high echelons of ministeries and
kept out of public eye were some to listen to what I'm saying....but it
would only create shock and surprise when it is discovered and it seems
a fault very wide has been created that will only mend perhaps when
Jesus returns...which I believe may be quite soon as most all I think
would agree here.

John

jeff shirton

That's a strange comment, IMO.

I used to be a "non-denominationalist", and there was *never*
any discussion about "accepting" any kind of "list".

So what exactly are you talking about, if you don't mind my asking?


Well, I don't know if I'd refer to that as "merely"...


One has to wonder why you want to be "accepted by many".
It seems to me that one would best want to be accepted by
*God*.

But you have to remember that any given critic of Mormonism
can only criticize those unorthodox beliefs that he's *aware*
of. For instance, I don't think the average person on the street
could even *tell* you want LDS soteriology was, that they
could judge whether or not it was Biblical.

It seems to me that most heretical "Christian" groups are those
*precisely* who have additional "works", be they the JW's
("Awake!" and other WatchTower Publications), or the SdA's
(Ellen G. White's books), or the Moonies (Moon's books),
etc.

I'm afraid I simply don't accept the rationalization that is
equivalent to, "But Johnny's mom let's *him* play on the
construction site, so I should be able to as well!"

The woman at the well was hardly a "leader" of the Samaritans, remember.
And remember how brutal Jesus was to the Pharisees, who were the
leaders who represented the "real" religion at the time.

I don't believe that just because a message is reacted "negatively" to
by some recipients, that such is "prima facia" evidence that Jesus wouldn't "approve". IMO.


Well, first of all, the Godmakers wasn't created as "persuasion"
directed at *LDS*.

Second of all, it seems to be a very inappropriate bit of generalization
if LDS are going to react to *ALL* critics simply due to one particular
film put out by *one* particular organization.

Seems to me it sounds more like an excuse not to listen to the critics at all.

Well sure, if your beliefs are on the receiving end of the criticism,
then certainly it isn't very comforting to hear.

I'm sure that the Pharisees found Jesus' assertions "not very Spirit
inviting", but does that mean that it actually wasn't?

Btw, I find it interesting that LDS criticize others for judging
heretical groups as "non-Christian", yet they themselves will
"include" individuals such as myself as "having accepted the
portion of the truth given to him", even though my beliefs
diametrically *OPPOSE* LDS doctrines.

It seems to me that LDS tend to be too reticent to stand up for
truth and alienate others who believe differently, so as to give
in practice an "anything goes" attitude, that it's okay no matter
*what* you believe (since you will inevitably learn LDS beliefs after you die!).

I would disagree, of course:

From http://www.m-w.com:

Denomination 4 : a religious organization uniting local
congregations in a single legal and
administrative body

I have to wonder what definition you are using for "denominational"
to assert that non-denominational churches *are* in fact "denominational".


<Chuckle> That's funny!

I guess the irony that is lost on you is that the LDS church
started out *exactly* the same way as "non-denominational"
churches started out, namely for whatever reason they didn't
want to affiliate with any of the other denominations which
already existed (Joseph Smith's actual response was as
follows: "I was answered that I must join none of them, for
they were all wrong, and the Personage who addressed me
said that all their Creeds were an abomination in his sight,
that those professors were all corrupt, that: 'they draw near
to me with their lips but their hearts are far from me, They
teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form
of Godliness but they deny the power thereof.'), and then
proceeded to start up a new church of his own.


--
Jeff Shirton jshirton at cogeco dot
ca
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
"[T]he gospel is not that man can become god,
but that God became a man." -- James White
Challenge me (Theophilus) for a game of chess at Chessworld.net!

hylander

Well, it's funny then that one of the very first meetings I went
to...was all about 1) no clergy donation (very similar to LDS) but then
the week after, someone hands me a "bad religions" list. A few days
later, I'm reading websites from various Christian ministeries and they
all have various "bad Christian sects" listings. There is of course
nothing authoritative about the lists other than a gut feel from each
ministry. And I suppose this is all fine and dandy...every church has
perhaps had it's run in with a group that argues that it's theology is
so off base as to not include it as an "acceptable"/"100% real gospel"
based faith and instead put it on a pagan's/bad religions/new agers
listing of pseudo-Christianity. But it is often exaggerated...and some
don't realize how "new age" they in fact really are themselves and so
it seems hippocritical. (much like the Pharisees)

Of the four or five I've been to church with, I've come across their
"list" at some point. I can't believe this for a moment.

Just what I said. Why did I bring up the Godmakers and
non-denominational churches? I've obviously had run-ins with them and their literature.


Feel free to snip the word out then. It's roughly the same...perhaps
you'd say, "a bit more". What if the whole church were to somehow
"repent" and do the "right thing" (hypothetically). I'm sure that would
not "merely" be enough...since, as a people, I mean they have this huge
amount of baggage and history etc etc etc...they are so "this way" and
"that way", Mountain Meadow Massacres, sinful polygamies of the past
etc etc. They'd have to totally denounce it entirely...not just excise
parts out and swap in new. Basically, require them to reculture since
that's what Jesus would have them do. (but if one reads of Paul's
travels and challenges, I find the logic most use there would be simply
wrong). Do you all leave your father and mother and sister etc for your
faith? Some of you do and some don't. Family values is not monopolized by Mormons.


They would be accepted by many as having been "saved" or accepted by
God. Of course that is what matters most....but it seems one is either
"with" or not with "the truly grace based saving full gospel churches"
(based on "bad religion list of the week") which I find front page on
many a Christian ministry site. Do I need to google these for you?


How does that follow?


Where are you going with this? Some academic pursuit into details that
attributes some -ology name is relevant how to the topic here? I'm not
following the course of thought on this.


Ok. Do you know where in the Bible there is a verse that self-refers
and defines it's contents? I don't think "adding to" or "from" the
gospel is being referred to here either necessarily because of adding a
book per se. Some churches have publications, while not scripture, that
also "add to" and "subtract from" gospel in more subtle ways and much
more effectively and some do so without even the use of written word.
They preach from the pulpit things that are contrary to scriptures all
the time. The Bible in it's originality, came without a TOC. Not that
I'm justifying either way but it seems the BoM certainly *could* be
adding as well. Nothing nearly as much as what the church itself does
incidentally and sometimes not near as much as what other churches do
without using an extra "book".


I'd agree but if Johnny isn't wrong either, it isn't rationalizing at
that point. Rationalizing assumes something is wrong to begin with
which has to be logically and loosely (and somewhere fallaciously)
explained. I'm not saying that BoM is ok because of the questionable
practices of others. If it is wrong to be adding or detracting from the
message of the gospel itself, then of course it's wrong no matter how
it's sliced...but if adding a book is not really adding or subtracting
from the gospel(or whatever other standard), then it is. Of course, the
gospel's scope and description by the example of the bible is quite
extensive. The bible does itself include many useless geneologies and
the enumerations of the various tribes in the Book of Numbers....is
how relevant? Did you know that roughly the same warning scripture in
Revelation about adding is also in Deuteronomy?


remember.

Sorry, why would she have to be? I feel a bit set up for a straw man
based on "leaders" here. As soon as I say yes or know, then you have
this context of church leader that you can contend with which you would
have introduced and I have accepted. Why is it relevant, she was a
member of a faith that was different and accepted different things and
her faith was not criticized at all...it was her sins. She at least
knew about a Messiah and Jesus was able to confirm her
question...something few others would even consider and were totally
closed minded to. I'm not saying that it is necessarily true that a
kind of "heretical faith" is necessarily going to be as faithful as
this woman. I can think of some that wouldn't be. I do think many
"castaways" of mainstream Christianity however will be much like this
woman with some clue about the Messiah and a way of recognizing Him and
I think this will be true of the Second Coming/Advent/whatever in many
ways. Some will be doubters...regardless of their professed sect or
"Christianhood"./ being saved. (although I'd say those who truly
believe that have decent chances too).

That can be certainly seen on both "sides" so to speak of the
Mormon-Christian 'fence'. In fact, you have Sadducees too. But we have
defined the "fence" here artificially...it could be JW's and Mormons or
Mormons and Christians or Christians and Moonies or whoever...


True. But it's the message itself, not the reaction I refer to that I
think/feel/have the Spirit telling me(or not based on the circular
logic that do only if I'm truly saved by grace) .....that Godmakers is
not a message that Jesus would approve of by virtue of it's a) lack of
truth, b) lack of Christlike technique/whatever c) Spirit. It feels of
a very competitive wordly view of a group of people who are trying hard
to believe the best they can. I almost feel it is what one does with
the rules they commit to as "thinking" they are serving God with and
their "spirit" than the actual rules themselves. (if that makes sense).
(and of course, you are going to throw in the meme of not saved by
rules but by some grace...which must be not on the bad religion list of
"grace based/faith based" etc. (or that rather such *is* Jesus and the
other's are not Jesus/the Bible's way)

Never thought or said it was.....it's that we are incidentally exposed
to it and such looks underhanded and deceitful for a professed
faith...(and in fact many faiths "use it" as one source in their fight against heretics).


Didn't you say I should be more concerned about what God thinks (or
along those lines) than what is "appropriate"? I haven't said
*ALL*...if you read what I said, I was careful not to absolutize my
argument. (such are typically easily proven false by a small
example)...but I think in general...it IS true that most LDS who are
raised LDS unless they are disaffected by being thrown out for
immoralities or other disagreements will tend to shun churches that use
that particular kind of persuasion or exposition on them or who first
entreat them and later see that stuff by accident. So basically, moral
issue disaffected members of Mormon faith will be arriving at these
looser lifestyle faiths. Perhaps it isn't moral standards that save but
it's part of Christian lifestyle...isn't it to avoid sin even after
being saved or similar?

I'm giving two examples of things that are major turn offs...not that
all criticism is like this or that I have made any excuse for those who
are LDS to not heed criticism. On the contrary, I find there are things
that I personally find are more intriguing and worthy of consideration
in terms of what LDS should listen to more in terms of criticism. I
find a lot of arguments to be a lot more compelling and possibly
true....(but also possibly misunderstood).. I do think that
"figuratively" sacrificing the sacred cows (as was done by some
Christian missionaries literally in India IIRC) of other faiths is very
amenable to Christ's message and a lot more "Old Testament" in nature.
There are criticisms of Christianity in general that seem just as
burning...ie: why in the Old Testament there are so many harsh
punishments and intolerances the apologetics must rationalize today WRT
to topics like fornication and the *** issue.


That doesn't make the criticism just necessarily either.

And I'm sure He found their accusations at His trial not very inviting.
So either way.....I guess it would be moot then....but it goes back to
the question of the criticism itself being very Christlike. I don't
think so. Not that Christ was always a soft and easy person. No, he
constantly refers to them as vipers and throws the moneychangers out as
oft quoted examples...but was His message just then? Are other churches
doing similar things with their money? ie: look at televangelism. In
some ways, it appears both are about as bad and in fact, so are some of
the so-called non-denominations in some ways who pocket the excess funds.


It's interesting from both perspectives yes. I haven't forgotten both
my perspectives there. I just wanted to address the LDS perspective once again.


I find some truth in that on both sides there again.

Well, they are organizations. Do they have a legal non-profit status?
Are there administrations at all? Even if they have perfect rotations
with equal time share or democratic like votes? You've stated a
definition but haven't qualified the non-denominationals against it.
You'd also need to define each term in that definition until you reach
of level of very low ambiguity in terms.


I have to wonder still how non-denominationals do not qualify by your
definition. Can you give me an example of how they do not qualify?

What's funny is what might be perceived as your arrogance to
laugh....;>

Hrmph! "lost on me". More arrogance it seems. At least you have a nose
single to the Kingdom of Heaven...or at least pointing that way! ;>

Not exactly IMHO. An interesting point...not one that I haven't thought
of before though. He didn't go on to claim that a good list of
denominations were valid/didn't matter and a bad list was invalid. He
summarily dismissed them all. That seems a little different to me.

John

Sounds fun. Maybe I will some time. What's your rating?

woody brison

In the first century A.D., the Apostles were killed, and
thus the Christian church was decapitated. God knew that
it would not remain live on the earth; but He knew that
its traditions would spread far and wide.

Without the Apostles, the bishops tried to keep things
going but they didn't know how to pray and get the answers
like the Apostles could (for instance, Acts 1:24), and so
the Christian church, without its connection to heaven,
wandered doctrinally and procedurally until it basically
lost most of its power.

The Apostles used to be able to lay their hands on sick
people and heal them, even raise the dead sometimes, like
Jesus did sometimes. They used to be able to preach, and
tongues of fire would rest upon the hearers. Such things
all disappeared after they were gone. Some of the bishops
became world-wide leaders of the various schisms, even tho
no bishop had any such power while the Apostles were
present; they were the "general" authorities, bishops
are only local authorities.

It was a long night of famine for the word of the Lord
(Amos 8:11) during which we had such "Christian" events
as the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Plagues, which
the church was powerless to stop. We LDS call this period
of history, "the Great Apostacy". "The Dark Ages" is
another name for it which we agree is a good one.

In the early 1800's, God restored the Christian church to
the earth in all its authority. It is the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints. We would have just called
ourselves the Christians, but that name was still in use
by the traditional believers of the early church, so we go
by the handle of "Latter-day Saints". Sometimes people
call us the Mormons because of the Book of Mormon which
God gave to us, but that isn't really a good name for the
Lord's church, Mormon was a great prophet but he didn't
give his life for the church and the whole world.

Hopefully this will give you some glimmer of what we are
and how Christian we are. We LDS kind of laugh when
people say we are not Christian. As it says in the Book
of Mormon,

Mosiah 16:8-9 But there is a resurrection, therefore
the grave hath no victory, and the sting of death is
swallowed up in Christ. He is the light and the life
of the world; yea, a light that is endless, that can
never be darkened; yea, and also a life which is
endless, that there can be no more death.

We believe in Him totally, but we're "not Christian"
according to some self-appointed judges. We don't usually
badmouth other religions. We know that most of them are
sincere, they only live without the whole truth because
they don't know where to find it, and we work quietly to
bring it to the world as they are ready to receive it. Of
course, there are a few really bad cults out there, like
Jonestown. We stand ready to help when we can.

It's a sound doctrine and we can well defend it; Jesus
taught it, and Paul, and John, and the rest. Over the
centuries of the Great Apostacy, this doctrine was rejected
along with numerous others, but traces of it still can be
found in the scriptures that have survived.


The Book of Mormon is a summary of Nephite sacred history.
The Nephites were a nation of Israelites who lived on the
American continent from around 600 BC to AC 400. You know
that the Jews in the Old World largely rejected Jesus. Well,
these Israelites, who were of the tribe of Manassah, accepted
Him; he was revealed to their prophets, just as he was
revealed to the prophets among the Jews, but the Nephites
listened. So their sacred history is a much deeper look at
Christianity than the New Testament, in some aspects.

It wasn't purely a matter of prophecy for the Nephites; after
his resurrection, Jesus came to visit them, and he identified
them as one part of his "other sheep", as mentioned in John
10:16. The last prophets of the Nephites put this historical
summary together, and cached it in the earth; in 1820 God
called a young man named Joseph Smith as a prophet, and
directed him via an angel to get the book and translate it
into English. It has never been interpolated or translated
by anyone who wasn't a prophet of God. It comes to us as a
pure package. You can get a free copy if you don't have one;
see http://www.mormon.org/topic/index/0,13650,3572-1-B,00.html
(a subsidiary website to lds.org) and scroll down to the
last entry under Book of Mormon. If you want to meet our
missionaries, that will be delightful; if not, they will still
be happy to send you a copy of the book.

Or you can read it online: http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/contents


"The Godmakers" was created by one Ed Decker, who is a bit
unhinged if you ask me. It is based on a lot of very long,
long stretching of the facts, to the point where it's not
fact anymore, it's fiction, and very bizarre fiction at that.
It boils down to cutting somebody down, for money, in such a
way as to appeal to those who want avoid believing our
teachings. Sort of like the ostrich syndrome. He will pay
money to anyone who can give him a little pile of sand to
stick his head into. Decker made money on the deal I guess.

We try to live by the Holy Spirit. Every day, every hour.


seems


Oh, yes, we're tracking the signs of the times quite
closely. I'd love to discuss it with you if you're
interested. Just beware, this is a public forum, so all
kinds of people post here, not all of them LDS. Especially
on alt.religion.mormon; I suggest that to continue this in
a positive light, trim to just alt.religion.mormon.fellowship

Wood

jeff shirton

And what "meeting" was that?
For someone who seems to make a lot of generalizations, you
don't seem to be willing to offer anything in the way of specifics.

Okay, let's test your hypothesis...
Please point me to websites which show the "bad Christian sects"
listings made by the:

1) PCA;
2) LCMS;
3) RCC; 4) ECUSA;

Now *that* is an interesting claim.

Please quote from these web sites where they claim their list
is based on nothing but a "gut feel". (I'm sure you wouldn't
simply be just *assuming* that was the case, in absence of
any information at your disposal, right?)

You have a mocking sounding tone, as if you didn't believe that
there was such a thing as "absolute truth", that something could
be compared with it and determined to be "wrong".

I would agree that Mormonism would need a *complete* overhaul
in order to be in accordance with the teachings of Jesus.

What does anything have to do with "reculturing"?!


Why do you care whether or not others consider you to be "saved'? I certainly don't.

No, I don't think so...
I'm starting to get the idea that you are simply googling a
non-representative sample of off-beat groups. That would be
kind of like a critic of Mormonism googling up a bunch of the
tiny splinter groups which have spun off of Mormonism.


You made it sound like various groups label Mormonism
as "unChristian" based only on one or two points which
they may have vocalized. It may be that they are ignorant
of other LDS teachings, and had they known more about it,
could list off a whole *slew* of criticisms which prevent
Mormonism from being Christian.


"Where [I'm] going" is that you make it sound like they only
have one or two "mere" problems with Mormonism, but
the differences and problems might be far more than are being vocalized.


Soteriology is the study of salvation, which is *pretty*
important in this discussion. You make it sound like
some esoteric, irrelevant chit-chat or something.


Do you even *think* about your straw-man arguments before
you blindly repeat them?!

Who claimed that there *was* any such thing?!

Whatever you say...

Who are "they"?
Are you referring to fringe sects, or referring to mainstream Christianity?
If the latter, what "contrary to the Scriptures" are you referring to?


You just figured that out, did you?

So are you claiming that it's *okay* to "add" books to the church's
collection which alter doctrine?!


I disagree that they are "useless".
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree here.

Um, *yeah*. I think I noticed.
It's hardly surprising to find the same warning (1) at the end of
the Law (we're not supposed to add to it), and (2) at the end of
written revelation (we're not supposed to add to it). And yes,
I'm also aware that the NT wasn't written in chronological order,
but I'm certain that God knew what the placement of books would be.


She wasn't out teaching heretical doctrine, that Jesus would have
to rebuke her like He rebuked the Pharisees.


The relevance was that she wasn't teaching her beliefs.

The "fence" is Christians and non-Christians.

How do you know it's the "Spirit" telling you?!
Do you know how many of completely contrary faiths and
belief systems all claim "the Spirit"?! Feelings are an
entirely unreliable way of judging truth, since it is
completely subjective.

The *BIBLICAL* way to determine truth is to conform your
beliefs to the Scriptures (Acts 17:11, 2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:19-21, etc.)

What's that supposed to mean?

I would disagree.

So you say.

That's completely subjective on your part.

Oh, I get it...
You get to claim the *real* "Spirit", and those of others get
courtesy quotes, "spirit". You just proved how entirely subjective
and unreliable the "Spirit" is, when evaluated outside of the Bible.
Why is your "spirit" any better than theirs?

So I'm not allowed to go by the Bible's teaching?!
Why do you apparently show such contempt and disrespect for my beliefs?

Then why did you talk about "persuasion" and "Godmakers" in the same thought?

And many Christians consider the LDS presentation of the
Bible and "gospel of Christ" to be "underhanded and deceitful",
in the way they redefine terms to sound orthodox, by the way
they "bait and switch" once one accepts the BoM, then emphasizing
the D&C & PoGP, etc. etc.


Yes, but you were the one who brought up the subject.

Technically true...
But the way you capitalize "NEVER" and "ANY" seems to
put your qualifiers of "nearly" into the category of
"practically unnoticed". Seems to me you sent out a
mixed message. It almost looks intentional, as if you wanted
the privilege of making an (almost) universal claim (so much
so that you "shouted" the absolute words), yet still put in the
qualifiers so you couldn't be so accused.

I think LDS who have been indoctrinated all their life will probably
mostly remain LDS *regardless* of whether or not they've seen Godmakers.

"Looser lifestyle faiths"?
Are you referring to what Paul described as:

Gal 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the LIBERTY wherewith Christ
hath made us FREE, and be NOT ENTANGLED AGAIN
WITH THE YOKE OF *******.

Are you claiming that "stricter is better", John?
Is that your argument?
If that's the case, then the Pharisees were right!


The above is 100% Christian doctrine.
Why are you bringing it up, as if there was any disagreement
about it?

(Or are you hinting at the straw-man that "salvation by grace"
is "license to sin"?)

What on earth are you talking about?!

For one thing, there is *tons* of mercy in the OT, if you have
the eyes to see it.

Second of all, what does fornication or homo***uality have
to do with anything? Christianity recognizes that both behaviours
are proscribed in both the OT and the NT.


You haven't given me any reason to agree with you.

???
Can you please give me some examples of your false accusation,
and by that the names of such "non-denominations", rather than
perhaps the names of a few, non-representative *individuals*?

It amazes me that you are apparently trying to blacken the
reputation of millions of evangelizers and missionaries based
on a *handful* of corrupt individuals.

"Organizations" are not necessarily "denominations".


A "denomination", by definition (see above) are a group of churches
linked by an administrative body. They are all run by some "head"
administration, the smaller churches simply being local congregations
of the larger group. Like we find with the RCC (and yes, I'm aware
that RC's don't consider it to be a denomination), the LCMS, the PCA,
the ECUSA, etc. etc.

You haven't qualified the *denominational* aspect of it.
Why should I have to disprove something you haven't even proven to begin with?!

It appears sufficiently unambiguous to my reading.

Can you give me an example of how they *do* allegedly qualify?
Why do I have to disprove something you haven't even proven?


I'm sorry that you apparently feel the need to engage in
name-calling. That speaks volumes, IMO.

Again, I'm sorry that you apparently feel the need to engage
in name-calling.


<sigh>
More name-calling.

I guess the discussion's over, since you apparently have
nothing relevant to the discussion to contribute?


???
How so?!

If you put 5 churches on the "bad" list, then you're bad, but if
you put them *all* on the "bad" list, that's somehow better?!

Please tell me you're joking...

--
Jeff Shirton jshirton at cogeco dot
ca
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
"[T]he gospel is not that man can become god,
but that God became a man." -- James White
Challenge me (Theophilus) for a game of chess at Chessworld.net!

gene fuller

Well, at least in the English language. I am pretty sure that at least a
portion of the many translations into the other languages in which is is
available were translated by someone not sustained as a Prophet. Inspiration
of God, we can claim, but for them to be prophets, well ----.


But sometimes it takes a while, and once in a while the request falls into a
crack. This system is manned by fallible humans. <G>

john lemings

You just let your scriptures do it for you:

"I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong;
and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an
abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that:
'they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me,
they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of
godliness, but they deny the power thereof.'"
(JS-H 1:19)

You just let your prophets/presidents, apostles, elders, etc. do it for you:

"Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the "whore of
Babylon" whom the Lord denounces... as having corrupted all the earth by
their fornications and wickedness. And any person who shall be so wicked
as to receive a holy ordinance of the gospel from the ministers of any
of these apostate churches will be sent down to hell with them, unless
they repent of the unholy and impious act. If any penitent believer
desires to obtain f****veness of sins through baptism, let him beware of
having any thing to do with the churches of apostate Christendom, lest
he perish in the awful plagues and judgments, denounced against them.
The only persons among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people who
have authority from Jesus Christ to administer any gospel ordinance are
those called and authorized among the Latter-day Saints. Before the
restoration of the church of Christ to the earth in the year 1830, there
have been no people on the earth for many generations possessing
authority from God to minister gospel ordinances. We again repeat.
Beware of the hypocritical false teachers and imposters of Babylon!
- Apostle Orson Pratt
(The Seer, Vol.2, No.4, p.255)

"The Roman Catholic, Greek, and Protestant church is the great corrupt
ecclesiastic power, represented by great Babylon which has made all
nations drunk with her wickedness, and she must fall, after she has been
warned with the sound of the everlasting gospel. Her overthrow will be
by a series of the most terrible judgments which will quickly succeed
each other, and sweep over the nations where she has her dominion, and
at last she will be utterly burned by fire, for thus hath the Lord
spoken. Great, and fearful, and most terrible judgments are decreed upon
these corrupt powers, the nations of modern Christendom; for strong is
the Lord God who shall execute His fierce wrath upon them, and He will
not cease until He has made a full end, and until their names be blotted
out from under heaven."
-Apostle Orson Pratt
(Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, p.84 - p.85)

"But returning to the general corruption that has prevailed
nationally, politically, and religiously, under the name of
Christianity, leaving out Christ and his Apostles, I do think there has
been no idolatry in the world, under any form or system, that could
surpass it. It is the mystery of iniquity, the great whore of all the
earth. It has brought the whole earth under a lasting curse, having
departed from the laws of God, changed the ordinances, and broken the
everlasting covenant, in consequence of which the earth is destined to
be burned, and few men left."
-Apostle Parley P. Pratt
(Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p. 41)

"How long has this order of things existed, this dreadful apostacy,
this class of people that pronounced themselves Zion, or Christians,
without any of the characteristics of Zion? It has existed for some
six**** or seven**** centuries. It has spread itself and grown and gone
into the four quarters of the earth. It is the great ecclesiastical
power that is spoken of by the revelator John, and called by him the
most corrupt and most wicked of all the powers of the earth, under the
name of spiritual Babylon, or in other words Babel, which signifies
confusion. This great and corrupt power is also represented by John as
presenting a golden cup to the nations, full of all manner of filthiness
and abominations." She is termed, in other places, by the same prophet,
"The whore of all the earth," making the nations drink of the wine of
the wrath of her fornication. Some three centuries ago there came out
sortie excellent men, named Martin Lather, John Calvin and many others
that might be mentioned, who protested against the wickedness and
abominations of the Church wherein they had been educated, and of which
they had been members. Because of their protestations against the mother
Church they were called Protestants. They pronounced her the whore of
all the earth; they declared that she had no authority, that she had
none of the blessings and gifts which characterized the ancient
Christians. They came out and established other Churches... But among
all these Churches where are the characteristics of Zion? We hunt for
them in vain."
-Apostle Orson Pratt
(Journal of Discourses, Vol. 14. p. 346)

"We talk about Christianity, but it is a perfect pack of nonsense."
-Apostle John Taylor
(Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 167)

"Myself and hundreds of the Elders around me have seen its pomp, parade,
and glory; and what is it? It is a sounding brass and a tinkling
symbol; it is as corrupt as hell; and the Devil could not invent a
better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nine****th
century."
-Apostle John Taylor
(Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 167)

"If the Catholic religion is a false religion, how can any true religion
come out of it? If the Catholic church is bad, how can any good thing
come out of it? The character of the old churches have always been
slandered by all apostles since the world began."
-Prophet Joseph Smith
(History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 478)

This revisionist history that Woody and other LDS apologists like to
present that the LDS church doesn't "badmouth other religions" is pure
nonsense. The LDS church and her prophets/apostles fired the first shot
and the above quotes are only a sampling of what her leaders have said
about Christianity. If only the LDS church's apologists would come
clean about their own history and and stop attempting to revise it to
make it more "faith promoting", perhaps their claims would be more
credible? While they attempt to revise Christian history in order to
make room for an alleged "restoration" in 1830, they conveniently
"forget" their own.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

woody brison

I'll share with you a little insight I came up with a while back.
While watching my bishop struggle with some problems that I
thought could have been handled better, I was reading about the
leaders of the Church back in the 1830's, struggling with
problems -- with about the same level of competency. When the
Church was new, the membership around 500, say, the total
experience of the leaders didn't amount to any more that you
could find in a typical ward of 500 out in the boonies somewhere,
say, Alabama or Ghana. (The leadership in a typical ward in
Orem would probably have considerable more ability and experience
than the whole Church did in 1832.) What this means is, the
Apostles today are super leaders, but your bishop is probably as
good a leader as Sidney Rigdon was, or David Whitmer, or Parley
Pratt. As the Church has grown, it has matured, the top
leadership has gotten far better, the lower leadership has
gotten about as good as the top leadership was back when.
Shocking? but think: David Whitmer (equivalent to Stake
President) was in charge of some Church funds, and he misused
them, and the way he handled the problem was to absent himself
from the meetings, and start consorting with antimormons, and
when he was called before the high council to explain, he just
resigned his membership, with insults. Not many stake presidents
would exhibit such incompetency today!

Now, to come back to the translation of the Book of Mormon: it
is today available in something like 100 languages. The Prophet
doesn't have time to do all those translations, but there are
people who do, and they have the ability, too, and they may be
just as good at translating English into Swahili or whatever,
as Joseph Smith was at translating Nephite into English. The
prophet has the keys, being technically the Prophet, Seer,
Revelator and Translator, but he delegates some of that power
to these workers. And they work by the same power: the power
of the Spirit, as they make the translations. "Would God that
all the Lord's people were prophets, and that the LORD would
put his spirit upon them!" Num. 11:29. Are we sure that Brother
Jones, of the Salt Lake 1173rd Ward, part of the Mayan or
whatever translation committee, is not a prophet?

But when the committee has finished their work, I'm fairly
sure that their result is reviewed by others, and it's looked
over by the Prophet before it's approved. If the translation
was wrong, I think the Lord could make it known. Thus, I
think the jist of my statement is true: The Book of Mormon
has "never been interpolated or translated by anyone who wasn't
a prophet of God." It has never been reinterpreted by anyone
who wasn't directed by the Holy Spirit, or deleted things like
the 7th commandment so they could do what they want and not be
criticized by folks who can read.

Believe it or not, I've seen a Bible in current use (in another
religion), where Exodus 20 was modified and the 7th commandment
deleted. The 10th had been split in two so the count would
still be ten.

I realize your remark was part cute and part true; I just wanted
to expound a little. Thanks, I feel better now

Wood

john lemings ...

The word "creed" doesn't appear in the KJV at all. Shouldn't it be an
abomination, in the sight of one whose faith is Bible-based, to ground
a religion on totally un-Biblical philosophies of men?

Jesus was only paraphrasing scriptures we both accept:

"... [T]his people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips
do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear
toward me is taught by the precept of men:" and

"[i]n the last days ... men shall ... hav[e] a form of godliness, but
deny[] the power thereof...."

pure


When a Bible-believer says Bible-based reasoning is "revisionist
history," one may well suspect he's out of really good arguments.

gary0

john lemings

The word "Jehovah" doesn't appear in the KJV either, but is that not
what the LDS claim is Jesus' name in the Old Testament?

The creeds are built upon the foundation of scripture not vice-versa.

Or he is telling the truth


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----