- NEW!
Help answer this question below.
And please explain your answer - preferably using official LdS Church sources.
Did you know a Leviathan can kill an angel?
by Want To Sleep With A Miner on May 5th, 2012
| 1 person likes this
Mormons: are marriages that are not sealed in the temple valid or ordained in the eyes of God? Or in the eyes of the LdS church?
by k on January 25th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
Do Mormons have to watch reruns of Battlestar Galactica?
by Mister_Bromyde on May 13th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
Has an LDS prophet ever spoken against Dungeons and Dragons?
by John Cox will be back April 6th 2013 on July 15th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
do mormons believe in being "saved"?
by Does it matter? on October 7th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
You're reading MORMONS: The 'good fruit' of Mormonism - pure lives, high standards, loving families, good works, miracles, etc. - prove that it's of God.
Comments
>by their fruits shal ye know them<
Let's look at that passage in it's full context shall we?
Matthew 7 (NIV)
15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on December 12th, 2009
So the key questions here are, "What is meant by 'fruit' in this passage?" and "WHOSE fruit are we supposed to inspect - the Prophet or the Prophet's followers?"
by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on December 12th, 2009
And I'm curious why you answered, "False" when you comment seems to be saying "True". Could you help me understand?
by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on December 12th, 2009
it is evidence to support the assessment, very good evidence. not absolute proof. god set up the world so there would not be absolute proof of anything spiritual.
by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on December 13th, 2009
Jesus Christ is absolute proof. He was here. His actions were reported not only by the apostles, but also by Roman, Greek, Hebrew ETC documentation.
And you analogy with the "murder weapon".
That is not good evidence for anything, except that a weapon was found in the house.
Finding the weapon, does not indicate...
who put it there.
who used it.
who owned it.
By itself, it is evidence of nothing and leads to total speculation.
by Joseph Smith was a fraud and Eisegete on February 3rd, 2010
There is no "fruits" to examine in your scenario.
by Joseph Smith was a fraud and Eisegete on February 3rd, 2010
>it is evidence to support the assessment, very good evidence. not absolute proof. god set up the world so there would not be absolute proof of anything spiritual<
Say what?
I think you've been reading and/or listening to Hugh Nibley too much and had your brain turned into scrambled eggs - like his.
And here's my evidence for THAT assertion:
"As knowledge increases, the verdict of yesterday must be reversed today, and in the long run the most positive authority is the least to be trusted."
"All scholarship, like all science, is an ongoing, open-ended discussion in which all conclusions are tentative forever, the principal value and charm of the game being the discovery of the totally unexpected."
http://www.gaia.com/quotes/Hugh_W_Nibley
by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on February 3rd, 2010
"jesus christ is absolute proof". (of what, himself?) he is the savior, but unless he is standing before you in person he is not proof. infact he is not even evidence.... the evidence of him is the comforter. the holy ghost. "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven" even for his apostles who saw him face to face. personaly witnessed him performing miracles, he was not evidence of himself, revalation was.
if there is absolute proof then there is no faith. had a mormon made such a fruitless claim in support of the church I would rip on them for their failure of intelligence (I have done it too. a correct conclusion based on flawed logic is still incorrect)
on a side note. MIT, I was very pleased to discover that in topics outside of your crusade topic that we are able to get along.
by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on February 3rd, 2010
>I was very pleased to discover that in topics outside of your crusade topic that we are able to get along<
Well there you go!
Maybe I'm human after all - in addition to being a, "Child of the Devil and enemy of the only true church" of course!
;-)
by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on February 3rd, 2010