- NEW!
Help answer this question below.
MORMONS: If Jewish and Christian scribes added to the plain and precious truths in the Bible, why are the extant manuscripts so consistent?
by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on June 16th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
Am i the only one who doesn't know what a Mormon is?
by Alexandra_D on January 11th, 2011
| 3 people like this
How is it that the Nephites in The Book of Mormon were good Christians and practicing Methodist/Presbyterians 100s of years before Christ?
by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on August 10th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
The Book of Mormon strongly endorses Rigdon's views on those issues where Sidney Rigdon and Alexander Campbell disagreed prior to 1830. Why?
by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on July 31st, 2010
| 1 person likes this
What books do Mormons consider as the inspired word of God other than the Bible?
by Doc on April 11th, 2012
| 1 person likes this
You're reading Is the living prophet is more vital to LDS church members than the Bible or Book of Mormon?
Comments
Sorry to tell you this but a prophet of God will speak the word of God not through a false book made up from some wackjob!
by Weird Science on December 23rd, 2007
Excellent answer, Stewart.
Well done.
by denidowi on September 24th, 2008
Gentlemen, please show me the "restored" Churches that Noah and John the Baptist founded and lead.
.
Then please show me from the Bible where John the Baptist contradicted the Old Testament with his prophecies like Joseph Smith did in the First Vision.
.
Thanks.
by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on February 25th, 2009
Er ... IT, er ... how, or in what way, did Joey's vision contradict OT?
by denidowi on February 25th, 2009
You missed the point.
.
John the Baptist didn't contradict the revealed scripture of his day - the Old Testament.
.
However Joseph Smith's First Vision (and I'm only using the "official" version that the Church approves of, not the other eight) contradicted BOTH the Old and New Testaments. In particular, the First Vision flies in the face of these words of Jesus Christ:
.
Matthew 16:18
"...I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
.
The First Vision implies that not only has hell prevailed over the Church - it's won, resulting in a total apostacy.
.
However, I did think that it was funny that you referred to Joseph Smith as "Joey". I got my hand slapped once by a TBM for calling him, "Joe Smith" (which is how they referred to him in the newspapers back in the 19th Century).
by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on February 25th, 2009
.
Oh and regarding the restored Churches that Noah and John the Baptist founded and lead? They're where exactly?
.
;-)
.
This is relevant because the premise of your post is that these shifting changing contradictions to established scripture are required to properly lead the only true Church.
.
At least that's what I thought I heard.
by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on February 25th, 2009
Sorry; I had written an answer over 12 hours ago, but AB didn't take!
Last line: I'm sure you did!
Don't forget to separate the answerer from the incidental commenter:
I said nothing about Noah restoring a church.
However, my comment accompanying my own answer on this Q may help you here re Matt 16:18.
There are as many interpretations of the Bible as there are churches! ... many more in fact, because the bulk of people don't bother making their own church from their interpretation of the Bible.
Take the scrip you have cited, for instance:
The Catholics believe the point of this whole conversation with Peter was that Jesus was calling Pete 'the rock', because his name meant 'a stone', and that Jesus was building His Church upon Peter!
You on the other hand, have simply taken a handful of isolated words from an entire sentence and tried to build an entire case against a church from just one clause in a sentence - taken out of context!!!
If you go right back through this conversation, you'll see that Jesus is talking about the rock of revelation.
He says to Peter, "Blessed art thou, Peter, for flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto thee, but my Father in Heaven."
In other words, God Himself had told peter who Jesus was.
He then says, "...Peter, upon this rock [which you have used] I will build my church"
It is the rock of inspiration from God, the Father, because God had inspired all the holy prophets before him.
You need that gift of prophesy and revelation from God in order to have God's Church.
"The gates of hell shall not prevail against it"!
No; they shan't - certainly not while there is revelation by living prophets in Christ's Church, anyway.
Let's look at this:
What does it truly mean 'to prevail'??
Let's put it this way:
If we had 2 wrestlers in a ring, and the fight was for 'one fall' only over a 15 round bout:
Jack Blue won the first 2 rounds on points, but then George Pink went ahead and won the next 11 rounds straight, but then finally, Bluey came back at the finish, took the 2nd last round on points, and finally pinned Pink for the full count before the final bell in the 15th round, tell me who prevailed in the fight??
I think you have your answer.
Do you think Satan will prevail over God in the finish simply because he seems to be winning at present?
Surely He has said, "I will trample all enemies under my feet."
by denidowi on February 26th, 2009
You might also enjoy the following, with reference to the absolute essentiality of following God's Current prophet:
The Beauty of "continuing revelation" is just that! Continuing revelation.
It is our 9th Article of faith which says:
"We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."
I borrow the following commetns on this article from 'Nighthawk':
"As I have made clear in other topics, we (LDS) do believe in continuing revelation. In fact, I believe that there are lots and lots more revelations that were given in Biblical times that, for various reasons including human interference, were left out of the Bible.
As the Last Days approach, there will be many more specific things revealed, to many people. These things will include the establishment of safe havens, revelation of eternal truths, new and wonderful technologies, and how to set up a truly righteous society (Zion).
Obviously, all of the LDS doctrines, principles, and ordinances are built around the principle of revelation, as described in this Article of Faith."
I personally believe that God will continue to reveal wonderful revelations in preparation for the return of the Saviour to the earth, and that through obedience to this revelation of God's modern prophets, we each can play our own important part in helping Him prepare for the imminent return of His most glorious Son.
by denidowi on February 26th, 2009
All good points!
.
I suspect that we're just going to go around in circles on this one and just end up where we all started to begin with.
.
I would just point out that speaking as a Charismatic our movement ALSO believes in Living Prophets AND continuing revelation. The key difference is that we SUBORDINATE both to the closed canon of the Bible and the LDS Movement does not.
.
In fact, I argue that the LDS Movement is really just a corrupted 19th Century version of our movement in my white paper which you will find here:
http://www.concernedchristians.com/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=42&func=view&id=76819&catid=10
.
So rather than going back and forth and back and forth over who's corrupted and who needs to be restored, I propose that we just shake hands, continue to be good friends and save it for another debate on another day. Trust me I've got plenty more questions that we can spat over!
.
;-)
.
Whaddya say?
(how's THAT for bad spelling from a Mormon Scholar?)
by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on February 26th, 2009
Well, of course, we can agree to disagree, but you don't think that as you bow out of a discussion, you can possibly get away with a parting shot at the other guy's belief, by calling it "corrupted"; do you??
As defending or counter-attacking will only continue or re-open what you have chosen to close, the only point I might make re this 'corrupted' Church of Jesus Christ is to point you to the words of its Head, Jesus Christ, Himself:
Matt: 7:16-24 [King James]
by denidowi on February 26th, 2009
>you can possibly get away with a parting shot at the other guy's belief, by calling it "corrupted"; do you??<
.
Whoa! Slow down there hoss!
.
I think that you're either projecting or you read that clause too fast and inferring something into it that's not there.
.
The fact of the matter is that BOTH groups are of the opinion that the OTHER group's movement is corrupt. The LDS Church believes that the mainline Charismatic Churches (along with all the other non-LDS Churches) are corrupted does it not? Well the fact of the matter is that the inverse is ALSO true.
(I'm a little surprised that you weren't aware of this)
.
I was merely OBJECTIVELY stating the obvious from the historical record. Nothing more.
.
I mean you WERE aware that the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement came out of the same 19th Century Restorationist movement that the LDS Church did weren't you? Many other churches did too, the Latter Day Saints were just one of many who claimed to be "restored".
If not, here are some good links:
http://tripatlas.com/Restorationist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorationism
.
by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on February 26th, 2009
I don't have time to waste going into a lot of accusations either agauinst the LDS church or against others.
I have belonged to other churches quite enough myself to know basically their 'whereabouts', from a youngster.
I have 7 children and work to do.
Fortunately, God does not require us to study or criticize every other faith to know where we are in life.
He gives us, as with Pete, personal testimony and personal revelation concerning the true Church; that is all we need to know.
It is simple.
He is simple.
God is not complicated and critical.
Jesus simply invites all to 'come unto' Him - in fullness of truth.
by denidowi on February 26th, 2009
I'll tell you quickly though what I did do, Fred, I went to your post you linked; this was my response, but as your post would not accept comment, I had to place it elsewhere:
Actually, I am writing more particularly on the article by Fred Anson that drunkenness attended the dedication of the Kirtland Temple.
Firstly, of course, there are renegades or departed agros in every faith on earth, and always have been.
Many of them denigrate their ex-faiths, even connivering with others of similar disgruntled feeling, turning one another's stories, etc, having [Biblically-cited] "itching ears", and turn their hearts away from the truth.
They become disgruntled and imagine every possible distortion of the previous reality.
But let's pretend for a moment that such was not the case here:
ALL of us are growing and learning; we make mistakes of judgment one year from which we learn to evade the next.
This article quotes Joseph Smith as having said during the ceremony, to the effect [I don't have exact words]: 'Oh the wine will be alright for you to feast on after your fast, because it has been consecrated.'
Personally, based on my own past experience, Joseph was a young man, the temple was something never before known to him, and his conversion was still quite young.
I personally, would never have made such claims.
You know, we are not 'Supermen' - invincible ... we are subject, just as Jesus, to every fallen condition and every temptation.
IF, Perchance, this did occur in this way, one thing you can be quite sure on: It would never happen again!!
None of us are perfect, but we each have chance to learn, repent and progress.
I believe it was the prophet Jonah who even went so far as to blatantly defy the Word of God unto him.
He learnt his lesson and repented.
I seem to recall that despite that Peter had lived with Jesus for 3 previous years, Jesus still felt it necessary to say to him, before departing:
"When thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren."
Conversion, obedience and understanding is a process.
There are none exempt - not Jesus, nor any of the prophets of history.
But most of them are quick learners.
by denidowi on February 26th, 2009
Denidowi, it's sad to see that your mind is so closed. Regarding my white paper you will see that I used original sources from Early Mormon History and build on the research of other scholars.
.
If you find the Historical Record disturbing that's unfortunate but it is also in YOUR yard not mine. And no amount of angry pontificating is going to change that record.
.
As for the level of drunkenness and/or sobriety at the Kirtland Temple has been discussed and debated for years - including faithful, practicing Mormon Historians. It's unfortunate that CES and the LDS Church Leadership insists on white washing and diminishing this part of the Historical Record but they do. Why don't you rail at them? Many Mormon Historians will be right behind you!
.
However, the REASON that I pointed you to my white paper wasn't to resurrect this tired old debate it was to point out how the Early Mormons were Pentecostals and how Joseph Smith "borrowed" many things from 19th Century Pentecostalism. This is outlined in the first part of the paper - the part that you ignored in your angry tirade.
by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on February 26th, 2009
.
And since you chose offense rather than enlightenment I will simply clip the portions of the paper that formed the gist of my point:
.
"Tongues speaking, vision seeing, holy rolling Mormons? For many the fact that primitive Mormonism was Pentecostal may come as a shock but it's a historical fact!
.
And could there be any greater evidence of the Pentecostalism of early Mormonism than the Dedication of the Kirtland Temple? Maybe, but this is pretty hard to top! These accounts are all, without exception, from original, first hand accounts.
.
Please note, that I am NOT saying that these experiences are Biblically or evidentially legitimate nor that they would be accepted as orthodox in today's Charismatic/Pentecostal Church. For example, consider this:
.
QUOTE:
Oh, there was prophesying, testifying, speaking in tongues, blessing and cursing, visions, angels, appearances by all kinds of characters including Elijah, Jesus, Adam, and Abraham.
.
by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on February 26th, 2009
.
But the Mormon church conveniently never discusses the fact that everyone arrived fasted - starving and thirsty. And how did they break the fast? With the Lord's Supper, of course: bread and wine. Lots of wine.[8]
I am providing these citations to demonstrate how Early Mormonism was unquestionably rooted in 19th Century Pentecostalism. In fact, you still see evidences and echoes of this legacy in the modern LDS Church - though today it's only a shadow of what it once was."
http://www.concernedchristians.com/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=42&func=view&id=76819&catid=10
.
And if you concern presenting the Historical Record as "criticism" all I can say is: "Your loss!"
.
I find Mormon History fascinating - good, bad and everything in between.
.
(And, yes, I have on occasion found some new evidence disturbing like you did but I always try to RESPOND rather than react when that happens - it just adds to the greater richness once you understand what it means!)
by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on February 26th, 2009
.
And for the record I have posted the above response as my recounter to the Editorial Review of my Article that you put on Concerned Christians.
.
I took the liberty of lightly editing out the typos that AB locks down (and in) after about 5-minutes or so of being posted but that's it. I also lightly added some clarifications that I forget to include in the above response. Here's the link to the edited version:
http://www.concernedchristians.com/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=42&func=view&catid=3&id=79707#79707
.
Interesting dialog - thank you for your perspective. We leave disagreeing - which is no big deal, it happens all the time EVEN among people of good will.
by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on February 26th, 2009
IT, who is this un-Christian clown, calling himself "disneyland", you have on that pentecostal site of yours??!
by denidowi on February 27th, 2009
BTW, I think you're trying to say the people at Kirtland had a 'pentecostal' experience in the temple.
Is that it?
I suppose if you wanted to simply accent the need to bring that feature in, you might say that; Yes.
So it would seem by reading those few experiences; Yes.
But you'd have to say that the word was hardly in use at the time of the event.
What makes you like this word??
by denidowi on February 27th, 2009