| Author |
Message |
    
egk (egk)
Intermediate Member
Username: egk
Post Number: 177
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 81.182.110.163
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 2:27 pm: | 
|
Joesdad,
Over the past months, I have periodically read these debates, but have been unable to participate much. There have been comments you have made that I wanted to reply to, but was unable. I happen to have some time now, so I hope to do so. Let me start out with this “warning” I’m responding to what I remember, so if I remember incorrectly, or take something out of context, just say so. Also since I have not read everything that has been written in these forums, so if I’m repeating what was stated before please just say so.
At one point you stated that if Jesus didn’t visit the Americas, the native Americans would not have a chance to enter the Kingdom until the gospel was brought here. There are some Christian sects who would agree with this. The Catholic and, I believe, the major of Christian Churches would say that since salvation is a free, unmerited gift from God through Christ, God is free and able to grace anyone He chooses. How He does this is His concern, not ours. Since Scripture teaches that God loves man and wishes all to be saved, we can hope that those have not heard the gospel have been given an opportunity to respond to God’s grace given in Christ Jesus. (This btw does not give us an excuse not to preach the gospel.)
On a related note, my peasant ancestors did not have last names 250 years ago. There are no records of their existence other than me and their other descendents. How will these unnamed and unknown persons be baptized by Mormons? What of those who died very young and did not have offspring? What of those tribes and small nations who were exterminated millennia ago by natural disasters or war, whose existence is unknown to all, save the Almighty. How are they to be baptized? Or are they unable to enter the Kingdom?
Several more comments will be coming, God willing.
EGK |
joesdad (joesdad)
Advanced Member
Username: joesdad
Post Number: 551
Registered: 2-2005
Posted From: 62.253.215.25
| | Posted on Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 7:40 am: |
|
egk: Thanks for the "warning", which is appropraite as I do not recall having personally said what you say.
I am not sure just how far to take what you say, as were it given it's broadest meaning I could assume that you mean that Christ could simply have taken his body, been sacrificed and had no-one ever known of Him, His disciples never taught of Him and His Gospel or in fact His Gospel never existed - we would all be "saved".
"How he does it is His concern" - I agree with this whole heartedly, and personally am disgusted by the way that "Christian" Churches seem to more and more find excuses to ignore Christ's teachings as being literal and referring to them, and make up their own rules to pretend that those things were meant only for someone else in a diferent place and time. "Modern Christianity", including, not meaning to offend, "Modern Catholicism" is a corrupt version of the truth, corrupted by men for their own benefit and to make the way appear easier - but in reality only taking the believer further away from their God and Christ. Just look at the pomp and regalia that surround the leaders in your Church - does the OT not warn against such things?
The work for the dead being undertaken at this time is only a drop in the ocean of the work that will be required. It is LDS doctrine that Christ will reign for a Millenium during which time the balance of the work will be undertaken, the Temples now in use and all the time being constructed will be used for this purpose.
Some of the above is my expression of my view, and may not be expresed by other LDS in the same way. |
egk (egk)
Intermediate Member
Username: egk
Post Number: 181
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 81.183.152.174
| | Posted on Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 12:39 pm: |
|
Joesdad,
I unfortunately do not have time for a lenghty reply. Just these quick thoughts. First, thanks for reading and understanding "my warning."
Second. if this work is only a drop in the bucket, then Jesus doesn't need to have come to the North America at all. The appearances in the Holy Lands would have been just enough, and the rest would be taken care of during the Millenium.
As for how far to take what I say, let me say this. Jesus commanded us to make disciples of all Nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is through preaching and making disciples that most become Christians. This is the "usual" way a person hears and responds to the grace of God given through Jesus. For those who cannot be reached by other Christians, God can reveal his grace through Jesus to them through other means.
I understand that LDS teaches that Catholicism and modern Christianity is apostate. I used to believe the same thing. I am trouble though when LDS twist verifible historical facts to suit their own doctrine. (I'm thinking of Solopilot's repeated insistence on the Council of Carthage resulting in the creation of a corrupted canon.)
EGK |
joesdad (joesdad)
Advanced Member
Username: joesdad
Post Number: 553
Registered: 2-2005
Posted From: 62.253.215.25
| | Posted on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 3:12 am: |
|
egk: You are confusing the need for Christ's appearance to the inhabitants of the earth, with my comments on Temple work.
Can you think of one reaosn why, if there wre groups of His people in different locations throughout the earth He would NOT have visited each of them - indicating that there may well be other records hidden from our view at this very moment recording the accounts of those visits - "other sheep have I who are not of this fold".
Maybe the trouble with history is that usually those who get their own way in changing it are also those who record it!! - the catholic history of the Church is of course heavily biased towards it's own doctrine and own creation is it not? It is in my view based on corruption, and therefore it's histroy and claim to validity is also corrupt. |
egk (egk)
Intermediate Member
Username: egk
Post Number: 182
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 193.225.109.130
| | Posted on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 6:20 am: |
|
Joesdad,
You are correct that when history is written, ones view's tend to distort the story. I started to read Church history with the view of wanting to find want Christians always believed. I was expecting to find one of the different versions of Protestantism to be supported. What I found wasn't that, but Catholicism!
I find it interesting that when I've asked when the Church became corrupt, the answers kept getting earlier and earlier. I remember reading from an LDS source that some LDS scholars suggest that it fell while the Apostles were still living! Now for LDS theology to make sense, the Church needs to have fallen. If it fell in the first few decades after Christ, then His words about the Gates of Hell not prevailing over the Church is false. An easier explaination is that there was no fall, that the gospel was preserved, and that the LDS is wrong.
PS I know about the many of the sins committed by leaders of the RCC. God never promised a sinless Church, He simply promised one that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against. God was faithful to the Davidic dynasty, even though many, if not most of their kings were not faithful to Him.
EGK |
joesdad (joesdad)
Advanced Member
Username: joesdad
Post Number: 556
Registered: 2-2005
Posted From: 62.253.215.25
| | Posted on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 8:53 am: |
|
egk: I smile at your reasoning that it is "easier", He never said it would be easy, just worth it. Your view there is, I feel the reason why the Church as originally formed crumbled, and was then pretty much kicked down by those wanting an "easier" way.
The fall to which we refer is not one restricted to any particular period except that it happened between that point man decided to take his own view on Chirst's teachings, and the day the Gospel was restored.
Robert |
joesdad (joesdad)
Advanced Member
Username: joesdad
Post Number: 561
Registered: 2-2005
Posted From: 62.253.215.25
| | Posted on Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 5:04 am: |
|
egk: another thought you said above "The Catholic and, I believe, the major of Christian Churches would say that since salvation is a free, unmerited gift from God through Christ, God is free and able to grace anyone He chooses. How He does this is His concern, not ours. Since Scripture teaches that God loves man and wishes all to be saved, we can hope that those have not heard the gospel have been given an opportunity to respond to God’s grace given in Christ Jesus.", obviously you will correct me if my understanding is wrong, but does your faith not passionately believe in death bed repentance, and that the soul of a child who died would be condemned to purgatory of not "baptised"? -if so, then what you say does not accord with your Church's teachings. |
egk (egk)
Intermediate Member
Username: egk
Post Number: 186
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 81.183.153.125
| | Posted on Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 1:11 pm: |
|
Joesdad.
I do not understand how believing in death bed repentance cancels out the belief that salvation as a free gift from God? Please explain the connection.
EGK |
egk (egk)
Intermediate Member
Username: egk
Post Number: 187
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 81.182.110.76
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 12:38 am: |
|
Robert,
BTW I used 'easier' in several posts above, to refer to which view seemed more likely, which one has more evidence to supported it.
I find it interesting that you believe that the early Christians, many of who died for their faith, would simply choose to abandoned the Gospel because it was "easier."
EGK |
joesdad (joesdad)
Advanced Member
Username: joesdad
Post Number: 563
Registered: 2-2005
Posted From: 62.253.215.25
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 6:01 am: |
|
EGK: I never said it cancelled it out, just brought to your attention that your faith's NEED for these things, which a lack of would, I understand leave that person in a position beyond the reach of the Saviour's atoning sacrifice and beyond the reach of God, appears to contradict your statement "that since salvation is a free, unmerited gift from God through Christ, God is free and able to grace anyone He chooses" - do you mean that He willingly allows these souls of the dying, and of Children to be lost? |
egk (egk)
Intermediate Member
Username: egk
Post Number: 188
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 81.182.110.76
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 7:01 am: |
|
Joesdad,
EGK: I never said it cancelled it out, just brought to your attention that your faith's NEED for these things, which a lack of would, I understand leave that person in a position beyond the reach of the Saviour's atoning sacrifice and beyond the reach of God, appears to contradict your statement "that since salvation is a free, unmerited gift from God through Christ, God is free and able to grace anyone He chooses" - do you mean that He willingly allows these souls of the dying, and of Children to be lost?
In a nutshell, there are two "themes" in Scriptures. There is the theme of salvation through grace alone. When a person is saved, he can take no credit for it, it is the result of God's graceous gift. There is also the theme that to be saved a person needs to personally respond to this gift to make it effective in his life. If a person does not respond, he is lost and it is solely his fault.
The RCC teaches that both these themes are valid and reveal a mystery. All those who are saved are saved through God's grace alone. Anything the person did to respond to God's grace was the result of God's grace, so the person cannot take any credit for his salvation. Those who are lost are lost because they refused to respond to God's freely given grace. They have to take full responsibility for their being in hell.
God loves each of his children. He also has given them personal freedom to choose for or against him. God does not will any to be lost, but He is willing, for the sake of personal freedom, to allow any individual to choose to be lost. What is so contraversal about that? From my understanding, this is part of Mormon theology. Doesn't the LDS teach that Lucifer put forth a plan in which all would be saved and Lucifer would be glorified, whereas Jesus put forth a plan in which some would be saved and God would be glorified? (If I'm wrong, please correct me.)
Thus let us consider the consider the case of some Native American dieing in the 2nd Century AD. He could not hear the gospel, believe in it, and ask to be baptized. Does this mean He is automatically lost? No, God loves him and wants him to be saved. The RCC teaches that God is able to grace that individual and that he could respond to God's grace and be saved. Is there a guarrentee that the Native American will respond to God's grace in Jesus? No. All the RCC would say is that if this Native American is saved, it is the result of God's free gift of Salvation through Jesus. If, on the other hand, this Native American is lost, it is the result of his refusing to respond to the free gift of God's grace. We can only hope that he responded, we cannot presume that he did, nor can we pressume that he didn't, we can only hope.
BTW If I remember correctly, the last time I referred to something as a mystery, you claimed that it was a cop out because I couldn't understand something. It is not a cop out, but an admittance that there are some truths too great for humans to fully understand. Look to "our" other thread, this illustrates again the difference between our understandings of Divinity and Humanity. Historic Christians believe in an infinite God who in His Divine condescendence because man, so we can become gods. In LDS thinking, you have perfectible man evolving with God's help into gods as others have before him. If I may say this with respect, the God of Historic Christian is too big, too great, to ever be fully understood by his creation.
PS Do you prefer to be addressed as Joesdad or Robert?
EGK |
dean (dean)
Junior Member
Username: dean
Post Number: 33
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 63.201.99.202
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 12:13 pm: |
|
Hi EGK, I think you lost him on that one.......well put I must say
Me personally, I feel for them but they are what they are for lack of being Humble.....the whole structure of there vocabulary has different meanings pretty much, which is amazing ………when you talk to them about Jesus or salvation …….it means something totally different then what is Biblical.
I just thought of a question maybe Joesdad knows:
I don’t know why this just popped into my head but here’s a Layman’s Question: why does there organization bring there “so called” Apostle’s in the back of there stage and put there prophet in the front center stage, ….I thought the Apostle’s come first………That is not how the prophet’s in the OT were taken at that time…
I know Jesus did not say that there were going to be future Apostle’s, and that Jesus prophesied about what would happen to the twelve that God hand picked personally …………..so how did they come up with the New Osmonds…………I mean Apostle’s ?????? |
egk (egk)
Intermediate Member
Username: egk
Post Number: 189
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 81.182.110.76
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 2:58 am: |
|
Joesdad,
I made a typo in the following paragraph, which I corrected below. Sorry about this!
BTW If I remember correctly, the last time I referred to something as a mystery, you claimed that it was a cop out because I couldn't understand something. It is not a cop out, but an admittance that there are some truths too great for humans to fully understand. Look to "our" other thread, this illustrates again the difference between our understandings of Divinity and Humanity. Historic Christians believe in an infinite God who in His Divine condescendence became man, so we can become gods. In LDS thinking, you have perfectible man evolving with God's help into gods as others have before him. If I may say this with respect, the God of Historic Christian is too big, too great, to ever be fully understood by his creation |
joesdad (joesdad)
Advanced Member
Username: joesdad
Post Number: 564
Registered: 2-2005
Posted From: 62.253.215.25
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 8:17 am: |
|
EGK: It looks as though what we believe is not that far apart, as discussed in your last post.
You do not however respond as regards how a baby is supposed to accept the gift and stop themselves from going to hell, something RCC thology does state is possible, I believe.
You can call me Robert! Though it was fun to see GC's interpreatation of my "nickname" (long ago). |
egk (egk)
Intermediate Member
Username: egk
Post Number: 190
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 81.182.110.76
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 12:19 pm: |
|
Robert,
How are our beliefs similar and how are they different?
A person's soul is not limited to a person's conscious mind. As long as a person is alive, the person can accept or reject God's grace. How this happens we can only speculate.
As for miscarried children, the only dogmatic statement the RCC has made, I believe, is that they are not suffering due to personal sins, since they have commitment none. There are a number of theological positions on the matter. Personally, I prefer to just trust in God's love and justice and let Him "worry" about the matter. I believe this would be the predominate position in the West, but it is by no means the only acceptable Catholic position.
EGK |
joesdad (joesdad)
Advanced Member
Username: joesdad
Post Number: 565
Registered: 2-2005
Posted From: 62.253.215.25
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 12:07 pm: |
|
ehk: Interesting, initially as you (purposely?) limit the extent of my question to "miscarried children". My suspicious mind asks if you do this, as you know you can find not one jot of justification for the widespread belief in the faith you have chosen believing that young children who die may well be banished to hell for sins they have comitted, whether they be a few months, or a few years old - that is a long way from the just God believe in - do you folow me (so to speak!) - your faith does not, so far as I understand widely acknowledge that such Chhildren will be left to Gods mercy, they actively promote the "kids go to hell theory" - I dislike that intensely, and do not see how that idea can be justified from the scriptures - please explain. |
godchild (godchild)
Senior Member
Username: godchild
Post Number: 1022
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 4.255.42.132
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 12:26 pm: |
|
joesdad, mormonism places any child over the age of eight (at least that is when they baptized my children, maybe they've changed that too), accountable. You also say your beliefs may be different from what your church believes, (because you have the right to do so, or so you claim) you will find Catholics do not all agree on some of their doctrines. I know many mormons who would be shocked to see you write that catholic and your beliefs are not far apart. By mormons, it is called the great and abominable church. Has the mormon church changed it's position on this too? |
joesdad (joesdad)
Advanced Member
Username: joesdad
Post Number: 567
Registered: 2-2005
Posted From: 62.253.215.25
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 12:35 pm: |
|
GC: For many, like yourself, far too much time is taken up chasing the phantoms that appear to express great big gulfs between those of different faiths. I do not pretend, as you do, to rubbish the faith of others, there is much to learn in understanding the faith of others, one thing being that although those such as you desire the faiths to be far apart, they are much closer when considered by the spirit.
You even pretend that there is a difference between what I say and what you pretend is some other Mormon view of these things.
I know no-one in my Church that would be shocked by what I have to say - though maybe it would make you happy were it to be true.
You fail totally to define accountability - maybe that is the problem with what you say, and why you fail to understand the LDS position on this.
Robert |
egk (egk)
Intermediate Member
Username: egk
Post Number: 193
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 81.182.110.76
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 4:12 pm: |
|
Robert,
ehk: Interesting, initially as you (purposely?) limit the extent of my question to "miscarried children". My suspicious mind asks if you do this, as you know you can find not one jot of justification for the widespread belief in the faith you have chosen believing that young children who die may well be banished to hell for sins they have comitted, whether they be a few months, or a few years old - that is a long way from the just God believe in - do you folow me (so to speak!) - your faith does not, so far as I understand widely acknowledge that such Chhildren will be left to Gods mercy, they actively promote the "kids go to hell theory" - I dislike that intensely, and do not see how that idea can be justified from the scriptures - please explain.
I did deliberately choose miscarried children to illusrtate the believe that choosing does not necessarily mean having a mind.
In the RCC there are different levels of certainity, if you will. We are certain that no one is saved by any means except by the grace of God given freely through Jesus. We are also certain that the sacraments (baptism, communion, etc.) are means of grace, that is those who receive them receive God's grace.
How God graces those who have not heard the gospel so they cannot responsed, we are not certain. We can only say with certainity that God loves each individual and wants them to be saved. We can also say with certainity that God is a God of mercy and justice. With these certainities, we can conclude that God would not allow someone who has not heard the gospel to suffer in hell in the same way that the worst unrepentant sinner does. But "how" he does not allow them is unknown and is the subject of speculation.
There is a theological position that was "populary" before VC II that stated that there is a part of hell call limbo, in which all those who died without having the opportunity to respond God's grace went to. It was speculated that these persons had a happiness greater than the happiest person on the earth, but since they didn't respond to God's grace, they would never have fellowship with God. I believe this is the belief you are referring to. I personally do not believe it.
I simply trust that the merciful and loving God will do the merciful and loving thing to those who die without hearing the gospel. I can get no more certain than that. I believe that this is the predominate view now.
As for a young child sinning, part of sinning is knowing that you are sinning, knowing the consequences of the act and still freely choosing to do so. Most "sinful" actions of the young lack one or more of these conditions. (On the other hand, if a person can choose to respond to God's grace in Christ before dieing in the womb, a person can also choose to reject God's grace before dieing in the womb.) We only know for certain that are not allowed to judge.
Does this help? (Answer to questions in other thread will take several days.)
EGK |
nulla (nulla)
Intermediate Member
Username: nulla
Post Number: 244
Registered: 3-2005
Posted From: 202.173.180.87
| | Posted on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 2:53 pm: |
|
Joesdad
what is the LDS's official teachings on children who die in infancy. This question would have been asked from the beginning of your church's origin. Will they develope and grow in your celestial kingdom after being raised?
What is the official view on stillborn? Have they or did they contain the spirit of god? Can they be raised again?
I am sure that this would have been a vital part of your early church doctrine as child mortality would have been higher during JS's time.
Nulla |
nulla (nulla)
Intermediate Member
Username: nulla
Post Number: 246
Registered: 3-2005
Posted From: 202.173.180.87
| | Posted on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 6:27 pm: |
|
In regards to the above... do those children raised, then grow and develope or do they remain as children ?
Nulla |
godchild (godchild)
Senior Member
Username: godchild
Post Number: 1165
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 4.255.42.121
| | Posted on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 7:14 pm: |
|
In the mormon heaven, every person will be approx. 30 years old, old enough to have more spirit children. pg. 290 of G.P. says:
What are spirits (dead humans) like: Spirit beings have the same bodily form as mortals except that the spirit body is in perfect form. Spirits carry with them from earth their attitudes of devotion or antagonism toward things of righteousness. They have the same appetites and desires that they had when they lived on earth.
All spirits are in adult form. They were adults before their mortal existence, and they are in adult form after death, even if they die as infants or children.
Here is a list of 'mormon belief in baptism': (G.P. pg. 129-30) For the remission of sins, to become members of the Church of Jesus Christ, before we can receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, to show obedience, and to enter into the Celestial kingdom.
Who should be baptized?
Every person who has reached eight years of age and is accountable (responsible) for his or her actions should be baptized. The prophet Mormon said that it is mockery before God to baptize little children because they are not capable of sinning. likewise, baptism is not required of people who are mentally incapable of knowing right and wrong. All other people are to be baptized. We must receive the ordinance of baptism and remain true to the covenats we make at that time.
Alma taught that when we are baptized we make covenants with the Lord to-
1. Come into the fold of God.
2. Bear one another's burdens.
3. Stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all places.
4. Serve God and keep his commandments.
When we are baptized and keep the covenants of baptism, the Lord promises to-
1. Forgive our sins
2. Pour out his Spirit more abundantly upon us. (emphasis mine)
3. Give us daily guidance and the help of the Holy Ghost.
4. Let us come forth in the First Resurrection.
5. Give us eternal life.
I'll quote some things mormons believe about receiving the Holy Spirit here.
A person may be temporarily guided by the Holy Ghost without receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Today many nonmembers of the Church learn by the power of the Holy Ghost that the book of Mormon is true. But that flash of testimony leaves them if they do not receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. They do not receive the continueing assurance that can come to those who have the gift of the Holy Ghost.
People who have been baptized and confirmed are given the gift of the Holy Ghost through the laying on of hands by the elders of the Church.
Every worthy elder of the Church, when authorized, may give the gift of the Holy Ghost to another person. (emphasis mine)
Sacrifice
If we are to be a living sacrifice, we must, if asked, be willing to give everything we have for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
We can obey without understanding why.
Sometimes we do not know the reason for a certain commandment. However, we show our faith and trust in God when we obey him without knowing why.
Eternal marriage is essential for exaltation (not salvation. This is for becoming a god). |
godchild (godchild)
Senior Member
Username: godchild
Post Number: 1167
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 4.255.42.121
| | Posted on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 8:02 pm: |
|
joesdad once again gives me the opportunity to show that he either speaks in ignorance, or does not know the doctrines of his church, or lies.
(I am speaking of his response to my saying members of the lds would be shocked to hear what he says about mormonism and the catholic church.
So I will share what the mormon book, Gospel Principles says about the catholic church:
pg. 105-106 Apostasy from the True Church
Thoughout history, evil people have tried to destroy the work of God. One by one, the Apostles were killed. Because of the persecution, surviving Apostles could not meet to choose and ordain men to replace those who were dead. Eventually, local priesthood leaders were the only ones who had authority to direct the scattered branches of the Church. The perfect organization of the Church no longer existed, and confusion resulted. More and more error crept into Church doctrine, and soon the destruction of the Church was complete. The period of time when the true Church no longer existed on earth is call the Great Apostasy.
Soon pagan beliefs dominated the thinking of those called Christians. The Roman emperor adopted this false Christianity as the state religion. This church was very different from the church Jesus organized. Members of this church believed that God was a being without form or substance. (There it is again).
These people lost the understanding of God's love for us. They did not know that we are his children. They did not understand the purpose of life. Many of the ordinances were changed because the priesthood and revelation were no longer on the earth.
The emperor chose his own leaders and called them by the saqme titles used by priesthood leaders in the true Church of Christ. Church officers were given honor and wealth. Bishops and archbishops, (look familiar) fought among themselves to gain more power. There were no Apostles or other priesthood leaders with power from God, and there were no spiritual gifts. It was the Church of Jesus Christ no longer; it was a church of men. Even the name (does catholic come to mind) had been changed.
As a young boy, Joseph Smith wanted to know which of all the churches was the true Church of Christ. He went into the woods near his home and prayed humbly and intently to his Heavenly Father, asking which church he should join. On that morning a miraculous thing happened. Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith. The Savior told him not to join any church because the true Church was not on the earth. He also said that the teachings of present churches were "an abomination in his sight".
It was TEN years later that Joseph Smith organized his church. |
godchild (godchild)
Senior Member
Username: godchild
Post Number: 1168
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 4.255.42.121
| | Posted on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 8:04 pm: |
|
Oh, one more thing. At first, joe smith didn't call it the Church of Jesus Christ. So much for following the original. |
nulla (nulla)
Intermediate Member
Username: nulla
Post Number: 247
Registered: 3-2005
Posted From: 202.173.180.87
| | Posted on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 8:34 pm: |
|
Here are some things I found.
Sermon delivered at the funeral of King Follett held at the General Conference of the Church at Nauvoo, Ill. on Sunday Afternoon April 7, 1844 1
Sources: Joseph Smith diary (Willard Richards), Samuel W. Richards record, Thomas Bullock report, Wilford Woodruff journal, William Clayton report, George Laub record and the Times and Seasons, 5 (August 15, 1844):612ff
“A question, will Mothers have their children in Eternity? Yes, yes, you will have the children. But as it falls, so it will rise. It will never grow, it will be in its precise form as it fell in its mothers arms. 3 Eternity is full of thrones upon which dwell thousands of children reigning on thrones of glory not one cubit added to their stature.”
“Thursday 18th. We left Macedonia about 8 and arrived Carthage at 10. I asked the Prest. [i.e., Joseph Smith] wether children who die in infancy will grow. He answered "no, we shall receive them precisely in the same state as they died in no larger. They will have as much intelligence as we shall but shall always remain separate and single. They will have no increase. Children who are born dead will have full grown bodies being made up by the resurrection."
Joseph F. Smith
“In 1854, I met with my aunt, the wife of my uncle, Don Carlos Smith, who was the mother of that little girl that Joseph Smith, the Prophet, was speaking about, when he told the mother that she should have the joy, the pleasure, and the satisfaction of rearing that child, after the resurrection, until it reached the full stature of its spirit; and that it would be a far greater joy than she could possibly have in mortality, because she would be free from the sorrow and fear and disabilities of mortal life, and she would know more than she could know in this life. I met that widow, the mother of that child, and she told me this circumstance and bore testimony to me that this was what the Prophet Joseph Smith said when he was speaking at the funeral of her little daughter. Well, I thought it was almost too good. I have read Joseph's discourse at the death of King Follett, as at first published, and I did not believe, never did believe that he was correctly reported or that those who died in infancy would remain as little children after the resurrection. Never had it entered my soul as a possibility that such could be the case; yet, I did not have the courage to say so, although I had been told this circumstance. I really did not care to mention it, because I knew the strong opinions that some people had in regard to little children being resurrected and, everlastingly and forever after to remain as little children. I did not believe it, and this testimony of my aunt was a consolation to me that was unspeakable, because I could believe that was true.
One day I was conversing with a brother-in-law of mine, Lorin Walker, who married my oldest sister. In the course of the conversation he happened to mention that he was present at the funeral of my cousin Sophronia, and that he heard the Prophet Joseph Smith declare the very words that Aunt Agnes had told me.
I said to him, "Lorin, what did the Prophet say?" and he repeated, as nearly as he could remember, what the Prophet Joseph said in relation to little children. The body remains undeveloped in the grave, but the spirit returns to God who gave it. Afterwards, in the resurrection, the spirit and body will be reunited; the body will develop and grow to the full stature of the spirit, and the resurrected soul will go on to perfection. So I had the statement of two witnesses who heard this doctrine announced by the Prophet Joseph Smith, the source of intelligence; and I felt strengthened, but even then I did not feel that it would be well for me, only a boy, to say much about this principle. I ventured to say some few things, but I was very cautious for a number of years.
Eventually I was in conversation with Sister M. Isabella Home. She began to relate to me the circumstance of her being present at the funeral that I refer to, when Joseph spoke of the death of little children, their resurrection as little children, and of the glory, and honor, and joy, and happiness the mother would have in rearing her little children in the resurrection to the full stature of their spirits. "Well," she said, "I heard Joseph say that. I was at that funeral." Sister Isabella Horne told me this.
Then I said to her: "Why haven't you spoken about it before? How is it you have kept it to yourself all these long years? Why haven't you let the Church know something about this declaration of the Prophet?"
She replied: "I did not know whether it was my duty to do so, or whether it would be proper or not."
I said: "Who else was there?"
"My husband was there."
"Does he remember it?"
"Yes, he remembers it."
"Well, will you and Brother Horne give me an affidavit in writing stating the fact, and let it be sworn to?"
She said, "With the greatest of pleasure."
So I have the testimony in affidavit form of Brother and Sister Horne, in addition to the testimony of my aunt, and the testimony of my brother-in-law, in relation to the Prophet Joseph's remarks at that funeral. “ |
steelsword (steelsword)
Member
Username: steelsword
Post Number: 51
Registered: 9-2005
Posted From: 207.192.2.34
| | Posted on Saturday, December 10, 2005 - 3:19 pm: |
|
Good stuff Guys?
it never fails to keep me interested.
I believe faith alone in Christ saves you!
Baptism doesn't save you, the Mormon church doesn't save you,any church for that matter other than the BODY of Christ. In Christ alone do we place our trust.
Steel
Jude 3 |
nulla (nulla)
Intermediate Member
Username: nulla
Post Number: 248
Registered: 3-2005
Posted From: 202.173.180.87
| | Posted on Saturday, December 10, 2005 - 9:25 pm: |
|
I agree Steel.
In Christ alone.
Nulla |
godchild (godchild)
Senior Member
Username: godchild
Post Number: 1172
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 4.255.40.159
| | Posted on Saturday, December 10, 2005 - 11:39 pm: |
|
Amen. I do hope joesdad is recovering nicely. |
|