| Author |
Message |
    
nulla (nulla)
Intermediate Member
Username: nulla
Post Number: 163
Registered: 3-2005
Posted From: 202.173.180.87
| | Posted on Thursday, June 02, 2005 - 2:32 am: | 
|
Why does the LDS and its site still show the facsimile copies one, two and three and clearly state on the header of each page of the book of Abraham.
“THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM
TRANSLATED FROM THE PAPYRUS, BY JOSEPH SMITH.
Why does the LDS also still show that Fac. 2, Fig. 7, shows an "ithyphallic" god that being Min a pagan deity. The crude drawing is a direct copy of this diety and is described on the lds in explanations that were given by Joseph Smith as:
Fig. 7. Represents God sitting upon his throne, revealing through the heavens the grand Key-words of the Priesthood; as, also, the sign of the Holy Ghost unto Abraham, in the form of a dove.”
Yes in Joseph Smith’s explanation of this drawing he calls it God which has been clearly described by scholars as Min.
Due to this site being open to all ages I see no need for myself to post details that may seem offensive.
That Joseph Smith would identify this promiscuous god who was believed to have engaged in incest with his own mother as "God sitting upon his throne" shows a complete lack of knowledge of what was before him when attempting to translate Egyptian
Most Christians would feel that it is obscene, even blasphemous, to have a drawing of the ithyphallic god Min identified in the Book of Abraham as "God sitting upon his throne"
All I have as a reply in the LDS section of factnet when asking "is the Book of Abraham a correct and true translation of the papyrus" is
“As far as the Book of Abraham, no -- but that is not all of the papyrus which Joseph had, it was one illustration. Joseph translated from sections which included red dye in the ink, and the sections which were permitted to be reproduced had only black dye. The illustration is an illumination, not the source manuscript. In fact, the papyrus dates back to about the time of the earliest known manuscripts of the New Testament, thus is also a copy of a copy of a copy.”
I have never seen that one before and I patiently await the source for this claim.
The claim “the illustration is an illumination, not the source manuscript” is total confusion to me.
The illustrations are well known as being from the hand of Joseph Smith and are shown as being so on the lds.org site..
Stating as fact that “the papyrus is a copy of a copy of a copy “ is something I have not seen stated and would like to know how this fact came about.
Nulla |
joesdad (joesdad)
Intermediate Member
Username: joesdad
Post Number: 381
Registered: 2-2005
Posted From: 62.253.215.25
| | Posted on Thursday, June 02, 2005 - 2:05 pm: |
|
Nulla: Why not start by stating the first obvious question that will be asked - what is the source of your information?
http://www.lightplanet.com/response/BofAbraham/jshypo.htm is an interesting read on this point.
(Message edited by joesdad on June 02, 2005) |
nulla (nulla)
Intermediate Member
Username: nulla
Post Number: 164
Registered: 3-2005
Posted From: 202.0.155.232
| | Posted on Thursday, June 02, 2005 - 5:28 pm: |
|
Joesdad
I assume from your post you are after the source of the description of Min as described by JS.
If so then.
http://nowscape.com/mormon/papyrus/by_his_own_hand.htm
http://www.irr.org/mit/Books/BHOH/bhoh1.html
Regarding the site you referred.
Rhodes has been recorded as changing his mind on record over the papyri and the facsimiles. As well on that site you can see a description of figure7 facs. 2
Rhodes” "I certainly don't claim this is the only possible explanation; it is simply the best I have been able to come up with so far." (Letter by Michael D. Rhodes, dated July 10,1988)
Site you referred cutting from Rhodes
7. A seated ithyphallic god with a hawk's tail, holding aloft a flail. This is a form of Min, the god of the regenerative, procreative forces of nature, perhaps combined with Horus, as the hawk's tail would seem to indicate.
If it is the source for my research then I have visited many sites and read much on the subject over the past month.
I do not just briefly read over such accusations and draw conclusions.
In doing a word search on the site you refer then I cannot find as well
“illumination” or “dye” nor the word “red”
I am patiently waiting for the mormon claims that contain these words as I describe in my first post.
Nulla |
nulla (nulla)
Intermediate Member
Username: nulla
Post Number: 171
Registered: 3-2005
Posted From: 202.0.155.232
| | Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 6:58 pm: |
|
Belief by Mormon Scholar: ''It is evident that the writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, of which our printed Book of Abraham is a copy, must of necessity be older than the original text of Genesis. I say this in passing because some of our brethren have exhibited surprise when told that the text of the Book of Abraham is older than that of Genesis'' (Dr. Sidney B. Sperry (of BYU) in his book, Ancient Records Testify in Papyrus and Stone, p. 83).
Fact: The Book of Breathings scroll that Joseph Smith represented as being the Book of Abraham was prepared between about 50 BC and AD 50 in Thebes for a man named Hor, who was a priest, or purifier, to the Egyptian god Amon at Karnak. It was written in hieratic script, a cursive adaptation of hieroglyphic writing that first appeared around 600 BC -- at least a dozen centuries too late to have been used by Abraham. Moreover, the Book of Breathings itself had not even been composed until about the third or fourth-century before Christ.
Belief: ". . . in the afternoon we translated some of the Egyptian records. . ."(Ibid, Nov. 24, 1835)
Belief: "The remainder of this month, I was continually engaged in translating an alphabet to the Book of Abraham, and arranging a grammar of the Egyptian language as practiced by the ancients" (Joseph Smith, July, 1835, History of the Church, Vol. 2, p. 238).
Belief: "A study of the document [Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar] suggests that it was formulated by an ancient writer, probably Abraham, to assist a translator in deciphering the language in which the record was written. If this conclusion is correct, Joseph Smith literally translated an alphabet to the Book of Abraham" (Hyrum L. Andrus in his book Doctrinal Commentary on the Pearl of Great Price, 1967, 1970, p. 25).
Fact: Not a single word, thought, or concept from Joseph Smith's Book of Abraham, including his explanations of his three facsimiles, is in any way related to the subject matter of the common Egyptian funeral texts from which they were supposedly translated. Furthermore, modern examination of the "Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar" papers that had once so greatly enhanced the Mormon Prophet's claim to be a true translator has exposed them as a collection of gibberish, having no connection to genuine ancient Egyptian.
Nulla |
joesdad (joesdad)
Intermediate Member
Username: joesdad
Post Number: 396
Registered: 2-2005
Posted From: 62.253.215.25
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 12:25 pm: |
|
Nulla: I just do not have the time to be able to look into these matters as well as you seem to have.
What do you think is the difference between the use of what are familiar hyroglyphs, with modern meanings ascribed to them - and Josephs asbcribing meanings to those images?
For example - I have had a read through some articles (all non-LDS) regarding the Ankh symbol all of which accredit at least a link with, if not stating it being the same as the Christian Cross.
A description of its meaning contains the following:
The loop of the Ankh is held by the Gods. It is associated with Isis and Osiris in the Early Dynastic Period. The Loop of the Anhk also represent the feminine discipline or the (Womb), while the elongated section represent the masculine discipline or the (Penis). These two sacred units then come together and form life.
Is this what your church has on it? Is this how YOU accept it represents your feelings towards the cross? I know the answers are no, but only because of the meaning it has been attributed to it. |
steelsword (steelsword)
Intermediate Member
Username: steelsword
Post Number: 105
Registered: 4-2005
Posted From: 207.192.2.34
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 2:03 pm: |
|
If I may, There is know doubt that the Cross was
a pagan symbol in its origin. The Cross would not
be seen the way it is today, had CHRIST not possessed it , Made it his with his on Blood,He
sanctified it (Made Holy),By spilling his Blood on it. It became a part of Him , He showed his power over it. |
joesdad (joesdad)
Intermediate Member
Username: joesdad
Post Number: 398
Registered: 2-2005
Posted From: 62.253.215.25
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 4:36 am: |
|
Steelsworld: Most certainly, but there are those who would define your religion as being Pagan due to your strong reliance upon the use of a symbol that was pagan for much longer than it has been Christian. Just as there are those who say LDS are satanist for similar adption, but change of meaning to symbols. For either them or you ( a royal "you" if there is such a thing - err. do you know what I mean by this comment?)to make such a judgement is clearly wrong, do you not agree? |
steelsword (steelsword)
Intermediate Member
Username: steelsword
Post Number: 107
Registered: 4-2005
Posted From: 207.69.138.135
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 3:30 pm: |
|
I never read where Christ Bleed on a Compass & Square, or wore a fig leaf apron,Never saw where Christ locked into the (Five points of Fellowship with his apostles) Those that would define it as pagan have not read the Holy
scripture. " Jesus said take up your CROSS and
follow Him." The apostle Paul said it was all about the Cross. Christ showed his dominance
over one of the Oldest Pagan symbols of death,this was his message to all, pagans included. Christians take up the Cross,and show it empty,because we do not worship Christ execution, but his resurection, HIS VICTORY over
it!! |
joesdad (joesdad)
Intermediate Member
Username: joesdad
Post Number: 410
Registered: 2-2005
Posted From: 62.253.215.25
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 4:09 am: |
|
Steelsworld: You know full well what I mean, and as you fail to answer it I assume that you agree that your view of any symbolism used in the Temple rests firmly upon your CHOOSING which meaning of all the meanings through time given to that symbol is used. That is being dishonest, purposely attributing meaning not given in the Temple to justify your own means.
Don't you see - you EXPECT others to read the Bible to understand you, yet you agree with others who know nothing of the Temple about their interpretations - does it not confuse you as to which rules you apply to what, as they are not consistant? |
godchild (godchild)
Intermediate Member
Username: godchild
Post Number: 273
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 64.28.54.136
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 6:11 am: |
|
steelsword, he doesn't get it; Christians don't need no stinkin temple, any more than we need to wear special clothes or know special secret names or secret handshakes. Mormons just don't get it. If they want to play their silly games, let them. When they try to convince some other poor ignorant souls, then we will make sure they are aware of the foolish games they will be forced to play (and pay). |
steelsword (steelsword)
Intermediate Member
Username: steelsword
Post Number: 109
Registered: 4-2005
Posted From: 207.69.138.135
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 10:25 am: |
|
No Joe , i understand how you see the symbolism,& that is you perogative. It's just
putting the numbers together,from my point of view, that the symbols came from masonry & then how did masonry get there , well we know that now. The temple for me was at a very young age
in my late teens,(Before 1990) & I WAS VERY INDOCTRINATED IN LDS DOCTRINE. I didn't Question the meaning of many things at the time,Just followed. I know walk in a diffrent Light,The light of Christ,& the Holy scripture ,tells me that Christ is the Temple,I don't need the works of the LDS temple to be saved. |
joesdad (joesdad)
Intermediate Member
Username: joesdad
Post Number: 417
Registered: 2-2005
Posted From: 62.253.215.25
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 10:37 am: |
|
Steelsworld: Of course, that will always be all that the difference is, you will refuse to accept the LDS symbolism because it takes away your confidence that the Temple is wrong. I can understand and accept that.
But that is your opinion, whereas what I mean by use of the symbols is fact - what I mean by them is what I mean - any accusation or claim otherwise is of course no more than an accusation, and is wrong.
Attempts to link these things to any other meaning is purely an attempt to muddy the waters. |
steelsword (steelsword)
Intermediate Member
Username: steelsword
Post Number: 110
Registered: 4-2005
Posted From: 207.69.138.139
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 3:21 pm: |
|
Joe , i disagree due to the fact that we must look at the history of these symbols, not just what each individual thinks they mean. Moses when he came down from the mountain saw that they had built a Golden Calf(Symbol of a God).
Arron had said Tomorrow this will be a festival to the Lord, and they danced and gave sacrifice
to this Calf in the name of the Lord. Moses destroyed the Calf!! Point being that Just because we say a symbol is of the Lord doesn't make it so. Again Christ Made the Cross Holy.
Are you sure those underware you wear everyday
with the compass ,square, & rule are sanctified
by God, or would Moses have come down and burned them? No where in scripture does it tell me these symbols were a part of God's Plan,Bible or
BOM. I honestly have to look to Joseph Smith to see where these symbols came from, & I now Know.
After reading the scripture, I beleive temples
ended with Christ Ressurection & veil was torn in TWO. Christ is the only way to Eternal LIFE.
No more Sacrifice Needed.
What Part of Great Britain do you Hail from? |
joesdad (joesdad)
Intermediate Member
Username: joesdad
Post Number: 421
Registered: 2-2005
Posted From: 62.253.215.25
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 6:34 am: |
|
Steelsworld: OK - so you agree with the Jehovahs Witnesses that Christmas and Easter are in fact Pagan holidays, and that all the related symbolism is pagan - that the symbol of the lamb , originating in paganism is still pagan, that the cross in reality is Pagan despite Christ's sacrifice - shall I go on?
Just like you claim to have the right to state what is Christian and what is not, you now claim the right to demand that only you can decide what a particular symbol means to a person - over stepping the mark my friend.
Your statement is rediculous, as it turns any symbolism you rely on on it's head.
What symbolism does the Christmas Tree have, why the easter bunny, why candles at Christmas - I will take your comment seriously once you have discovered the TRUE meaning behind these things (and every other Pagan symbol you use) and cleared them from your daily life. Otherwise, you are selcetively criticising Mormonism for something you do day in day out.
The Darwinian vs. God Contest
One day a group of Darwinian scientists got together and decided that man
had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one Darwinian
to go and tell Him that they were done with Him.
The Darwinian walked up to God and said, "God, we've decided that we no
longer need you. We're to the point that we can clone people and do many
miraculous things, so why don't you just go on and get lost."
God listened very patiently and kindly to the man. After the Darwinian was
done talking, God said, "Very well, how about this? Let's say we have a
man-making contest." To which the Darwinian happily agreed.
God added, "Now, we're going to do this just like I did back in the old days
with Adam."
The Darwinian said, "Sure, no problem," and bent down and grabbed himself a
handful of dirt.
God looked at him and said, "No, no, no. You go get your own dirt!" |
joesdad (joesdad)
Intermediate Member
Username: joesdad
Post Number: 422
Registered: 2-2005
Posted From: 62.253.215.25
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 9:06 am: |
|
Steelsworld: Using your insistence that only the original symbolism be accepted have a look at these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_symbolism
http://www.seiyaku.com/customs/pagan-symbols.html
http://www.locksley.com/6696/easter.htm
and there are of course many more.
So, in reality what you say is that if MORMONS use a symbol that has been used through history by ANY other group, the meaning assigned by THAT group MUST be attributed to the Mormon meaning, and the Mormons are liars in claiming otheriwse. BUT evry other living being can use whatever symbol they like and attribute ANY meaning to it they like and that is OK.
Simply one rule when you attack the Mormons, and another rule for every one else. Hmmmm, can you guess why I think there is a flaw in your reasoning? |
godchild (godchild)
Intermediate Member
Username: godchild
Post Number: 288
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 64.28.53.46
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 11:08 am: |
|
I notice jd has copied a joke from a chrisitan site. Good!
What steelsword is saying is that most rituals and celebrations are not necessary and are not a requirement (commandment) of God.
The rituals used in the Old Testament gospel were for the jews. The ones that Jesus Christ and the apostles reaffirmed are the ones Christians live by. The rest are made up by men, not God, and only provide mens desires, not Gods for us. |
joesdad (joesdad)
Intermediate Member
Username: joesdad
Post Number: 426
Registered: 2-2005
Posted From: 62.253.215.25
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 11:25 am: |
|
GC: No he is not, he says that LDS symbolism must be Masonic 'cos he has decided what I believe the symbols to mean is irrelevant.
I agree with some of what you say, and comment that whatever the Masons did or did not do, what I do in the Temple has nothing to do with that. I know, 'cos I'm the one doing it, not you or Steelsworld, so in reality I do know better than either of you.
If you claim the right to accuse me of paganism for links you cannot prove, then I will call you pagan as I know your choice of symbolism and worship have roots in paganism. So lets drop the stupidity and move onto someting else. |
steelsword (steelsword)
Intermediate Member
Username: steelsword
Post Number: 111
Registered: 4-2005
Posted From: 207.192.2.34
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 12:44 pm: |
|
Joe Dec. 25th was a pagan holiday as well as easter. Ishtar the celebration of Semiramis,Nimrod & Tamuz. Semiramis claimed to have come from the moon in an egg , hince the easter egg. I don't celebrate Easter , i celebrate The Ressurection of Christ, i think if we look at a calander we see they can sometimes be on diffrent dates. The 25th became synonomous
with Christ Birth because during the Pagan holiday so many pagans were gathered(to worship the sun) & it was a great chance to witness to them that a savior had been born. A well read Christian would probably know that Christ was not born on the 25th of Dec. The Lds Claim his Birth as April 6th and most New Temples are dedicated on this Day? Where did that date come From? What you decide the symbols to mean is not
irrelevent to you. We should celebrate the whole Life of Christ , But most importantly his ressurection.
Also the Lds Church was Founded by Joseph Smith
Whom the scriptures tell me to test as a prophet.
I do Not beleive he was such. I do not call mormon liars for beleiving in such symbols,because that is what you as well as i was taught.I just beleive Joseph brought about a false religion. To test a prophet, is to test everything of the process he brought into his church. These symbols & this process were reveled
by him were they not? God's word says test it.
Did you that the apostle Thomas actually hung a Cross in his santuary? |
godchild (godchild)
Intermediate Member
Username: godchild
Post Number: 291
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 64.28.54.226
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 1:38 pm: |
|
I not only (because of evidence) believe the mormon church is based on pagan religions, I also believe (because of evidence) they are legalists, arian, and communist, for a few; and that the leaders and organizers used soothsaying, magic, masonic symbols, astrology, human sacrifice, for a few. All in all, mormonism teaches a different god than the Holy Bible. So why don't you stop the stupidity and move on? I think that just about covers why the mormon church is not Christian. |
steelsword (steelsword)
Intermediate Member
Username: steelsword
Post Number: 112
Registered: 4-2005
Posted From: 207.192.2.34
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 7:17 pm: |
|
Joseph Smith (Quote in the Ensign Aug.2001 pg.22)
"ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world,in the priesthood,for the salvation of men, ARE NOT TO BE ALTERED,OR,
CHANGED. Joesdad, after reading the above quote,
why was the ceremoney changed in 1990 & 2005.
Why did i have to go through the 5 points of fellowship & now new temple patrons Don't , when joseph said the ordinances were not to be altered or changed? What happens Next week if the Lds decide the Compass & Square or an apron
should not be worn, will this revelation be in agreement with joseph or does it matter? The best question is What can they take away or change before you decide it isn't legit? Does it matter to you that they took out the 5 points of fellowship? should it matter to me since i went through it? Does it matter that they don't touch (anoint) each part of the body anymore? When was the earliest you went into the temple & was it before 1990 ? |
joesdad (joesdad)
Intermediate Member
Username: joesdad
Post Number: 442
Registered: 2-2005
Posted From: 62.253.215.25
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 9:47 am: |
|
Steelsworld: Being a bit naughty aren't we - I ought to ge aunty GC to spank you for that one!!
Let's look at the WHOLE of not just the quote, but the paragraph it was used in:
"Sacred ordinances and the divine authority to administer them did not begin with the Restoration of the gospel and the founding of the modern Church in 1830. The sacred ordinances of the gospel as requirements for salvation and exaltation were “instituted from before the foundation of the world.” They have always been an immutable part of the gospel. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught: “Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed. All must be saved on the same principles.” "
It is clear than Joseph was talking about WHICH ordinances are required not the detail of the individual ordinances. Quite clearly the Lord will, can and has changed details as He has seen fit.
Shame on you for purposely missing of the end of the quote - sad you need to do such things to force the quote to make your point isn't it?
The remainder of your questions are irrelevant as they pertain to decisions made by God - and I presume that you are not willing to state you know better than Him? |
steelsword (steelsword)
Intermediate Member
Username: steelsword
Post Number: 117
Registered: 4-2005
Posted From: 207.69.138.133
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 12:12 pm: |
|
I just see you dancing around another set of Questions. I don't see how the last sentence
changed anything. God does not change & is not the author of confusion as your God is. I ask you should the Five points of fellowship have
a diffrent meaning to me than those that no longer go through it. May I ask why God would institute it for me & then take it away for the
90's Mormons, They didn't deserve the same ordinances that were bestowed upon me? Joe I'm whispering in your ear cheek to cheek, does it make a diffrence? |
joesdad (joesdad)
Intermediate Member
Username: joesdad
Post Number: 445
Registered: 2-2005
Posted From: 62.253.215.25
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 12:23 pm: |
|
Steelsworld: I'm not dancing around a thing. You are constructing a false statement from what Joseph actually said. Typical anti-LDS tactics, if you can't find a quote that says what you want, change another to say what you want.
Joseph is clearly stating that WHICH ordinances are required for salvation should not change - meaning something quite different from your pretend statement which claims it states that the ordinances themselves should not change.
You know what you did, so why pretend to me that you didn't do it?
There is no reason at all for you to have missed half the quote other than to change the meaning.
Does the change make a difference to God? NO!
God does not change, but that doesn't mean he does not change how he wants us to do things. Two different kettles of fish. |
steelsword (steelsword)
Intermediate Member
Username: steelsword
Post Number: 122
Registered: 4-2005
Posted From: 207.192.2.34
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 4:28 pm: |
|
Joe i'm asking you ,Which ordinances were required? If Joseph Said an Ordinance was not to be altered or changed , are you saying that taking out the five pts. of fellowship did not change the ordinance but just apart of the details of the ordinance. I think this is what you are saying. |
joesdad (joesdad)
Intermediate Member
Username: joesdad
Post Number: 454
Registered: 2-2005
Posted From: 62.253.215.25
| | Posted on Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 3:53 am: |
|
Steelsworld: I am saying that we are required to receive the endowment, but the details of it may, by inspiration be changed as needs be, and that is what I understand Joseph to have been saying. |
steelsword (steelsword)
Intermediate Member
Username: steelsword
Post Number: 129
Registered: 4-2005
Posted From: 207.192.2.34
| | Posted on Friday, June 17, 2005 - 3:46 pm: |
|
Another Question: Joe, "The Ordinance of Baptism"
If the church decides to sprinkle next week instead of immerse, is that still ok, because only a detail has been changed . Does this make since? |
godchild (godchild)
Intermediate Member
Username: godchild
Post Number: 301
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 216.152.179.184
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 9:56 pm: |
|
What if the church said you didn't have to go to the temple at all for endowments, but could do it in your own home if a prophet or his assistant is there?
I will be seeing my mother for her explanation of endowment ordinances and other changes. Why would God want anyone to ever use the five-point thingy in the first place. Surely God gave Joseph a reason.
Concerning the article jd posted from a evangelical leader who said "we", this man who I have never heard of also said it was his 'personal opinion'. I don't care about man's opinion. Christ is my Leader, Teacher, Lord and King. He tells me, not 'learned' men. Men are just creatures and should never speak for all christianity. If he is appointed as an evangelical by the evangelical denominations, then he is speaking for the evangelical denominations. Period. If christians are unwilling, fearful, or unsure whether they are personally led by the Holy Spirit, they are very weak in their faith in God. I reach out and lay claim to what the Lord promised me, the truth of His Word, His leading in my day to day decisions, I have no need to follow any man. All men are created equal in the sight of God, but they are all still CREATED by Him. We are lower than the angels, and yet we will judge the angels. My guardian angels guide, protect and assist the Lord God. God is ALL!!!! |
godchild (godchild)
Intermediate Member
Username: godchild
Post Number: 302
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 216.152.179.184
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 10:15 pm: |
|
jd, your first statement at the beginning of this thread was asking for the source of information. Where do you get your source of information? Like you said, that would be the first, right? I think you will say Joseph Smith who CLAIMED to have seen God, claimed to have spoken to angels, claimed a lot of things. I consider his a liar, a cheat, a perverted and evil man. There is no need to accept anything you claim as truth brought to you by Joseph Smith. There really is no more need to discuss anything. The fact is, no created being will ever be a god. Case closed. All the thousands of ridiculous additions, deletions, statements after that are unimportant until you can prove Joseph Smith ever saw God, (Which would make God a liar), ever found gold plates, or whatever. If you want to believe in that man, go ahead. It is God who gave you the freedom to choose, not Joe smith, brigham young, Hinckley, or any other man, woman, or child. You will face God one day. I will also face Him. Jesus Christ will be my mediator, not Joe smith. You can not ever say you were not warned. It is Him you WILL answer to. |
joesdad (joesdad)
Intermediate Member
Username: joesdad
Post Number: 460
Registered: 2-2005
Posted From: 62.253.215.25
| | Posted on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 8:17 am: |
|
Steelsworld: The basic principle is that God desires the ordinance, and therefore may inspire his prophets to alter them in whatever way He sees fit. It is important to remember that the ordinance needs to be acceptable to Him, whatever our personal view on the matter may be.
GC: Both you and Steelsworld seem to be missing the point that we are talking about what GOD wants, not the Church or any individual.
How many times did the Temple change in the OT, from a moveable one, to a premanent - according to the situaution the Israelites found themselves in, and according to Gods needs? His changing His mind is not a new thing.
As to your comment about not caring about that man's opinion - in MY opinion, and that is based on your postings - you will rely upon ANY persons opinion that is negative towards the Church - but as we see, one man questions the way you and others behave, and suddenly you decide not to rely upon a man's opinion - that's selective double standards.
You ask "Where do you get your source of information?" - err., any chance of your being a little more specific? Thats for too open ended a question for anyone to be able to answer. Information about what in particular?
I can't respond to the rest of your post as I don't know WHAT information you refer to, and also because you go on having already decided what my answer to your unanswerable question is. Not very helpful.
I have had a brief look through what I say above and can't see that anything I say can be accredited to Joseph Smith - I take it therefore you just want to moan about him, and leave it at that. |
godchild (godchild)
Intermediate Member
Username: godchild
Post Number: 304
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 216.152.180.28
| | Posted on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 10:23 pm: |
|
How does what I say appear to you to be moaning or whining? Since mormons don't believe that the Holy Bible is God's complete and unfallible word available to any person with a desire to accept and Know Him, and christians know the bom is inspired by satan, you're right, let's leave it at that.
And by the way, you are the only person I see errring on these boards. Are you expressing anger, frustration, or do you just have a continual frog in your throat. Don't play dumb at this point. You know what we mean when we ask these questions. |
joesdad (joesdad)
Intermediate Member
Username: joesdad
Post Number: 466
Registered: 2-2005
Posted From: 62.253.215.25
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 7:42 am: |
|
GC: I never used the word whining did I?, why do you continue to embellish my comments to make them appear what they are not?
The reference regarding your moaning about Joseph was as part of a question asking you to rephrase your question so that it could be answered if indeed you want an answer - or are you just wanting to moan about Joseph.
Your response is another closed ended uninspired, unjustified statement about what "christians" know - again failing to expand on your question but resorting to an attack to cover up your inability to make a point.
Where do I express anger and frustration? - I am afraid any "feelings" you choose to attribute to any comment of mine come from within you, not the words you read.
I am not acting dumb - you ask where I get my information from - you are incapable, or unwilling to tell me what information you are asking about - that can cover a whole range of subjests it makes it an unanswerable question. |
godchild (godchild)
Intermediate Member
Username: godchild
Post Number: 357
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 64.28.60.102
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 12:55 am: |
|
Should we believe the Book of Isaiah or the teachings of Joseph Smith? Why should we pray to know if God and Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith to show him that they are two totally separated gods with resurrected bodies? Or that there were gods BEFORE our heavenly Father. (See Smith's sermons in the lds History of the Church, vol. 6, pp. 305-312, 474-476) Compare his sermons with Isaiah 43:10-11; 44:6-8 and 24 and 25; 45:5-6 and 18-24; 46:5-10. Joseph Smith contradicts Isaiah. Christians test prophets, pastors, and teachers by the Bible. LDS test the Bible by their prophets. They go about testing the message backwards. The Bible was here first, therefore Joseph Smith must be tested by it, not the other way around. Joseph Smith doesn't meet the test of a prophet. Truth will stand up to investigation. Here are more samples of his false prophesies:
1. Saints to gather to Independence, Missouri, and build temple - D&C 84
No longer teach the gathering and temple was never built.
2. Zion (Independence, Missouri) can not fall - D&C 97:19
Mormons driven out.
3. Army to redeem zion (Independence, Missouri) - D&C 103
Mission unsuccessful. Verses 30-34 God seems to be unsure about how large an army to raise.
4. Civil War Prophecy - D&C 87
England and other nations did not join in.
5. United Order - D&C 104
Verse 1 Commanded as everlasting order; verses 48 and 53 dissolved and reorganized.
6. Riches of Salem to pay church debt - D&C 111
No riches found, debts not paid.
7. Apostle Patten to gon on a mission in Spring 1839 - D&C 114
He was shot in October of 1838. Wouldn't God have known he was going to die before the next spring?
8. New gathering place and temple in Far West - D&C 115
LDS driven out, never built the temple.
9. Build a temple in nauvoo and house for Smiths - D&C 124
Temple and house not completed.
10. Christ to return in 1890-1891 period - D&C 130:14-15
11. U.S.Government must redress wrongs or be destroyed - History of the Church, vol. 5, p. 394; vol. 6, p. 116 and Millennial Star, vol. 22, p. 455.
12. Three grand keys to test Messengers - D&C 129
No known reference where any LDS church leader ever used this test. Does God give meaningless revelations?
If mormons say we have misunderstood the prophesy's, please explain the intended meanings. |
tbs
New member
Username: tbs
Post Number: 5
Registered: 6-2006
Posted From: 68.227.252.76
| | Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 10:58 am: |
|
I want to comment on the symbolism's used on or in the lds temples. The nauvoo temple was designed close to the same time that JS had progresssed thru the masonic degrees as he stated in the history of the church(lds printed). Symbols have and still are being used for many different meanings. But at the time the temple was designed the symbols used were most definately satanic. For a few symbols to appear may have been coincidence but the temple was literally riddled. Why put satanic symbols on a building that is supposed to be the "ONE" place on earth that is the most(supposedly)holy of all and the Lords house. From the sunstones(baal)to the 18 stained glass inverted pentagrams(set in a circle) which is the most powerful symbol in witchcraft and most stars would be placed with the 2 points down so that is not a mistake, the other elongated pentagram stars, the secret hand shake(masonic to recognize each member in secret and meant to represent the nail pierce in the nerve meridian which causes the most horrific pain thru the body), the all seeing eye, the angel moroni(an "angel of light" as described in the introduction of the bom and which in bruce r macconkie's mormon doctrine explain's the meaning of as"angel of light- see devil", to the facing of the building to the east like masonic temples do, etc. The point being there are tons of satanic symbols but why not put a few on that represent the God that the building is supposed to represent. To many symbols to call a coincidence. Symbol meaning's I have taken from "masonic and occult symbols illustrated"by Dr. Cathy Burns. And also "temples of the most high" by lds church printers. The explanation I received from a well read Mormon on this subject was most shocking,he explained that the reason for these symbols was that lds have free agency to chooose right and wrong therefore both satan and God must be equally represented even on the temple and they are left to choose whom they want to serve. My response to this should be the same as all believers. God hates satan so why would you adorn his "temple" with satanic symbolisms and representations. I would think stuff would have been just fine on any the masonic lodges where they belonged. Interesting to note that the temples being built now have placed these symbols, which are still being used, only on the inside of the buildings where only lds members can see, because the mormon church was being confronted on their useage. Even the use of the behive symbol is masonic(take a look at the masonic lodge in london which is built to look like a behive. Just too many points to Satan and not enough to God. |
tbs
New member
Username: tbs
Post Number: 6
Registered: 6-2006
Posted From: 68.227.252.76
| | Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 11:02 am: |
|
I want to comment on the symbolism's used on or in the lds temples. The nauvoo temple was designed close to the same time that JS had progresssed thru the masonic degrees as he stated in the history of the church(lds printed). Symbols have and still are being used for many different meanings. But at the time the temple was designed the symbols used were most definately satanic. For a few symbols to appear may have been coincidence but the temple was literally riddled. Why put satanic symbols on a building that is supposed to be the "ONE" place on earth that is the most(supposedly)holy of all and the Lords house. From the sunstones(baal)to the 18 stained glass inverted pentagrams(set in a circle) which is the most powerful symbol in witchcraft and most stars would be placed with the 2 points down so that is not a mistake, the other elongated pentagram stars, the secret hand shake(masonic to recognize each member in secret and meant to represent the nail pierce in the nerve meridian which causes the most horrific pain thru the body), the all seeing eye, the angel moroni(an "angel of light" as described in the introduction of the bom and which in bruce r macconkie's mormon doctrine explain's the meaning of as"angel of light- see devil", to the facing of the building to the east like masonic temples do, etc. The point being there are tons of satanic symbols but why not put a few on that represent the God that the building is supposed to represent. To many symbols to call a coincidence. Symbol meaning's I have taken from "masonic and occult symbols illustrated"by Dr. Cathy Burns. And also "temples of the most high" by lds church printers. The explanation I received from a well read Mormon on this subject was most shocking,he explained that the reason for these symbols was that lds have free agency to chooose right and wrong therefore both satan and God must be equally represented even on the temple and they are left to choose whom they want to serve. My response to this should be the same as all believers. God hates satan so why would you adorn his "temple" with satanic symbolisms and representations. I would think stuff would have been just fine on any the masonic lodges where they belonged. Interesting to note that the temples being built now have placed these symbols, which are still being used, only on the inside of the buildings where only lds members can see, because the mormon church was being confronted on their useage. Even the use of the behive symbol is masonic(take a look at the masonic lodge in london which is built to look like a behive. Just too many points to Satan and not enough to God. |
godchild
Senior Member
Username: godchild
Post Number: 3682
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 64.28.54.184
| | Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 11:40 am: |
|
tbs, I have also heard the excuses about the masonic symbols. I am shocked, though, that you were given the reason as free choice. I hope you got that in writing, because I am sure they will deny it.
I have read articles where even the Masons were not thrilled with Joseph Smith. They thought he was giving 'them' a bad name. I'll see if I can find the article. |
godchild
Senior Member
Username: godchild
Post Number: 3690
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 64.28.54.184
| | Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 3:50 pm: |
|
I realize this is the wrong topic for this, but since it is the current one being posted on; this is a discussion I found interesting on a mormon discussion board. I think most of you are aware Hatch and Romney are mormons deeply involved in politics. Quote:
Hatch believes that life begins when the blastocyst is implanted in the endometrium–hence his support for embryonic stem cell research. Ried is pro-choice (though he may sometimes deny it, his voting record is clear). Romney himself was pro-choice when he ran as Massachusetts governor and Massachusetts Senator (years ago against Kennedy–he lost). When defending himself from the criticism that he was only adopting a pro-choice stance as a Mormon because it made him more electable, Romney lied and denied it. His lie was particularly interesting, though. He claimed that his mother had always been pro-choice, and that’s what influenced him. That makes his reversal on abortion related issues seem especially cynical, but such is politics.
Comment by DKL — 7/8/2006 @ 2:06 p.m.
I’d prefer we not get into the thickets of whether Romney is honest or not. My personal take is that no one has enough information to no whether his change of heart was genuine or not, but we’ll have plenty of chances to debate that before the elections roll around. Ditto on whether Reid is pro-choice or not.
DKL, do you think Hatch’s view is representative of most Mormons? Life begins at implantation or even after?
Comment by A G — 7/8/2006 @ 2:09 pm (name italicized by me-gc)
For literalists, Christ’s speaking to Nephi just hours before his birth (see post # 3 above) would shade Mormons into being a part of the “LIFE begins at the talking living breath” crowd. Romney’s mom was a liberal who perhaps believed something along the lines that it’s best to allow individual choice with regard to abortion rather than to make it illegal, even though she herself personally believed abortion to be a wrong choice. In any case, should Romney have started out with a belief somewhere in the neighborhood and this one I allege might have been the nuanced one of his mother’s to one more aligned with those of the pro-lifers, why should his change of heart render him “dishonest” more than somebody’s having a change of heart in the other direction? Don’t we ALL go by our very best inkings of things?
My grandfather was in the NV legislature and voted against expanded gaming; yet there were others who, while they personally disagreed with gambling, still felt it should be legal and regulated ( . . . and, incidentally, in the next election my grandfather was replaced by someone from this latter camp as the state rep from Clarke County). Yet, couldn’t somebody go from their being in this latter camp, through some change of heart, to join the camp of and my grandfather’s . . . honestly? Even when their so doing might be perceived as their having been insincerely motivated by some expedient need to court Conservative votes? |
godchild
Senior Member
Username: godchild
Post Number: 3691
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 64.28.54.184
| | Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 3:55 pm: |
|
I apologise. I am having trouble posting; this is the reason for the double post. For some strange reason, factnet won't let me delete one (doesn't recognise my name). (?) |
|
