More love directed at the Mormons!

Really, I had no idea of this. How do you consider the LDS is not a cult, is it a matter of numbers ?

Solon

The word cult has become useless in any reasoned or scholarly usage. Sociologists abandoned it fifteen years ago.

By the dictionary usage of the word, no faith, religion or belief systems (including agnosticism and atheism) can be described by the word "cult". So its useless for any denotative purpose. Look it up yourself. Look up "denotative" if you have to as well.

Regards,
Scott

Really, I had no idea of this. How do you consider the LDS is not a cult, is it a matter of numbers?

Click to expand...

Kinda difficult to prove a negative like that--try reversing it. How do you consider the LDS is a cult?

joeboonda said:

The reason I even asked is because of this quote from Brigham Young: "He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost...Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven." I KNOW you do not believe that today, I know that, okay? I am just saying that is why I asked in the first place.

Click to expand...

I pretty much figured that's why you asked. Obviously, I've heard that statement brought up on dozens of occasions.

Brigham Young was a president and therefore prophet, and I just thought a prophet God always told the truth or they were not a prophet of God. I know he was human, too. But the Bible teaches that if a prophet says something and is wrong, that prophet is not of God, and in the old testament, they were to kill them, just the old testament, I don't think we should kill folks, lol. So do you see why I wondered about that?

Click to expand...

Yes, Brigham Young was a prophet. But, as Joseph Smith once said, "A prophet is a prophet only when he is acting as such." In other words, prophets sometimes do have opinions on doctrines that may not be correct. Nowadays, I believe they are a little more careful about voicing opinions that may be misunderstood a hundred and fifty years in the future than they may have been in the early days of the Church. Concerning Brigham Young's statement specifically, one of the following is true: (1) his personal interpretation of the passages in Luke was not in line with official Church doctrine, in which case official doctrine is all that really matters, or (2) you and others have interpreted his remarks incorrectly, in which case official doctrine is all that really matters. I personally believe that he was saying that God the Father was the literal Father of Jesus Christ, as opposed to the Holy Ghost being the literal Father. I think the only real confusion lies in what Luke meant by the word "overshadow." Obviously, the Holy Ghost played an important role in Jesus' conception. The Bible doesn't give us any details, and I'm perfectly willing to accept the fact that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin and that the first member of the Godhead was His Father. I don't know how such a miracle took place, only that it did.

Actually, if you really want to use the same standard for judging our prophets as you do the Old Testament prophets, you will find that Brigham Young, Joseph Smith, etc. measure up very well. I could give you numerous examples of instances where Old Testament prophets sinned or where their prophesies did not see fulfillment. And I'm sure they probably made a few statements which, if you were to hear them today, would surprize you. After all, it's totally ridiculous to assume that every statement they ever made is found in the Bible.

Its the same as I wonder about an angel appearing to Joseph Smith, because Paul said even if an angel came and taught another gospel, not to believe them. I think Mormonism may teach another gospel because it claims to be the one true church with salvation by, yes, believing in Jesus, but plus baptism, then laying on of hands, then your church's ceremony, then you are saved, making it, to me a works based faith, and a church based faith, where I believe in Christ alone for my salvation.

Click to expand...

If the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints truly did teach a "different gospel" than the one Christ himself taught, your assumption would be valid. But considering the fact that it is the "restored" gospel, it stands to reason that it would contain some teachings that are foreign to mainstream Christianity.

The Bible teaches the necessity of baptism, the laying on of hands and obedience to Christ's teachings. Unless you simply disregard a huge number of verses, you cannot insist that we have no responsibility, and that Jesus saves everyone who claims to have faith in Him. We don't believe that there is a person who has ever lived (except for Jesus Christ himself) who is capable of saving himself. That includes our prophets. All of us have sinned, and none of us could get to heaven without the atonement of Jesus Christ. Faith in Him is the first principle of His restored gospel. It is absolutely essential to salvation. But it must be a living faith, not a dead faith. And you know what the Bible says about faith without works, don't you?

joeboonda said:

Hello, hope all are well today, I still sick . I had a question about Masonry. Have you all ever heard of something called the sign of Baphomet? I would put a picture of it, but my computer skills are very poor. Thanks.

Click to expand...

No, I've never heard of it. What is it?

joeboonda said:

Hi, I am trying to learn how to copy scriptures, pictures to stuff, but I am very ignorant of computers. This sign of baphomet, there is one that is a pentagram, upside-down star, but I am not talking about that one. I found a picture from googling it, and its the 3rd one down on this website: www.exposingsatanism.org/signsymbols.htm Reason I asked, is I have learned it was worn by Aleister Crowley, who was a Satanist in the early 1900's, and was worn by The Sovereign Grand Commander, Henry C. Clausen, 33rd degree Mason. It is also found as the centerpiece of the main Masonic Temple Room at the headquarters of the Mother Supreme Council of the World in Washington, D.C. It is supposedly a symbol of Satan, that only Masons of the 30,31,and 33rd degrees are taught about.

I wanted to share a quote from General Albert Pike, a 33rd degree mason, once the Grand Commander, Soverign Pontiff of Universal Freemasonry: "That which we must say to the crowd is: we worship a god, but it is the god that one adores without superstition. To you Sovereign Grand Inspectors General, we say this, that you may repeat it to the brethren of the 32nd, 31st and 30th degrees, maintained in the purity of the Luciferian doctrine. If Lucifer were not God, would Adonay (Jesus)...caluminate (spread false and harmful statements about) him?...Yes, Lucifer is God..." (from A.c> De La Rive, La Femme et l'Enfant la Franc-Maconnerie Universelle, p.588)

I was hoping for your ideas about this, because I heard that many Mormons are also Masons, which, from my studies, when you get to the very top, it is really a form of Baal worship, Baphomet, or Satan being the supreme being to which most unknowingly are connecting with when they join masonry and take the first masonic oath. Like I said, most people don't know this stuff, I am not saying anything bad about you, I was hoping for your thoughts on it. I do not know if you all are masons, or what you know about it, I do not wish to tell you what you believe, lol. Just want some feedback so we can all learn a bit more.

Thanks,.

Joeboonda

Click to expand...

There are some LDS Masons, some Catholic Masons, some Protestant Masons and some non-Christian Masons. There are also some LDS Democrats, some Catholic Democrats, some Protestant Democrats and some non-Christian Democrats. Freemasonry is not a religion any more than political affiliation is. It's a brotherhood. Furthermore, it's a brotherhood whose rituals are known only to those who have actually participated in them. Unless you have taken part of these rituals yourself, you are relying on information from questionable sources. I don't claim to know anything about these rituals myself. But I do know one thing and I am 100% sure of it. Latter-day Saints do not in any way, shape or form worship Satan. I would stake my life on that statement.

Solon said:

Really, I had no idea of this. How do you consider the LDS is not a cult, is it a matter of numbers?

Click to expand...

Here are some statements I've collected over the years on cults:

1. "A cult is the church down the street from yours."

2. "If you believe in it, it is a religion or perhaps 'the' religion; and if you do not care one way or another about it, it is a sect; but if you fear and hate it, it is a cult."

3. "Cult is a word without much use outside the realm of religious mudslinging."

4. "When someone uses the word 'cult,' it usually says more about them than the group."

5. "A cult is a religion (usually smaller and new than yours) that you don't like.”

muslimbrother said:

Is this a christian forum, or a forum for all religions

I am a new user, and i am a bit confused
If any1 can help, i would appreciate it

Click to expand...

Hello, muslimbrother.

This particular thread is on a sub-forum about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a Christian denomination. All discussion forums are for people to ask questions of other people who belong to various religions. No debating is allowed on discussion forums, but everyone is welcome to post their questions. Debate forums are where people get down to the business of trying to prove that they are right and everyone else is wrong. Please make yourself welcome and enjoy your time here.

Katzpur said:

I suspect that the books on Mormonism were found in the "cults" section of your bookstore. That's where "Christian" bookstores usually stock them. In my church, we aren't taught the doctrines of other denominations. We pretty much just stick to what we believe instead of discussing what other churches teach.

Click to expand...

HI, yeah, in most Christian bookstores, that would be the section. I know better than to use that word, and I won't. We, too stick to learning what we believe, to the Bible, the theory being that if you study the real thing closely and thoroughly, you will be able to spot a counterfeit when it show up. We do, however study other religions, too. To understand the similarities and differences, etc. But mainly, we study the Bible.

HI, thanks, Scott for the info on the red cap, interesting. Enjoyed the responses of all. I want to be sure everyone knows that I do not think that Mormons worship the Devil, lol. From what I have learned of Masonry, when one gets to the 30th degree and beyond, they kinda fill you in on it. They DO use the sign of Baphomet, also the upside-down star, the obelisk, and the all seeing eye, along with aprons with many occult symbols on them. What I was wondering, is, as Joseph Smith was a sublime degree Mason, and there have been folks in LDS that had ties with Masonry, and, I mention this with all respect, the temple garments, or undergaments, have these occult symbols on them too. My friend who is an ex-mormon was surprised when I mentioned this, but the next day she told me she looked, and her grandmothers' did have them. So symbols have different meanings to different people, and I am not saying these are good or bad, I am just wondering if their is some sort of connection somewhere in there. It is something only a Mormon could really look into I suppose, and I do not want to speak badly of anything held very sacred to them.

Now, Kat, you said that the prophets of the Bible were sometimes wrong in their prophecies? I know they sinned, and were not perfect, but the prophecies of the Bible have all come true just as was said, except the ones that are still in the future. I know some non=christians would debate that, but the Bible clearly says if the prophecy does not come true, that prophecy is not of God. You say, you have the 'restored gospel', and it is different than my gospel, the gospel of the Bible. You add these Temple ceremonies and such, I don't recall that in the new testament church. Are you saying that there have never been any Christians all through history from Pentecost until your church? My Bible says we are saved by grace through faith, and that not of ourselves, not of works lest any man should boast. We are saved by trusting Christ, nothing else, not by following the sacraments of the Catholic Church, or the rituals or ceremonies of the Mormon Church, or any other church. We, believers in Christ, ARE the church, simple as that. The Bible says we have ALL been baptised by one spirit into the body of Christ. ALL of us. All who call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. It is through Christ's sacrifice, and that alone, his blood, not water, saves us. The moment we believe we are saved. That is the gospel. All these other things come later and are done because we are saved, not to get or stay saved. Salvation is not through a church, not yours, not mine. It is through a person, Emmanuel, God with us, Jesus Christ our Lord. Does this not make sense to you? Jesus is our saviour, not Jesus plus baptism, or plus laying on of hands, or plus the ceremonies and sacraments of some particular church. Christ's blood cleanses us from all unrighteousness. This is the good news, this is what motivates us to do good works, the Love he had for us to die for us. By adding anything we do to what He did takes away from what he did. This is the gospel of the Bible. Anyway, I'll shut up now.

Sincerely,

Joeboonda

What I was wondering, is, as Joseph Smith was a sublime degree Mason, and there have been folks in LDS that had ties with Masonry, and, I mention this with all respect, the temple garments, or undergaments, have these occult symbols on them too. My friend who is an ex-mormon was surprised when I mentioned this, but the next day she told me she looked, and her grandmothers' did have them. So symbols have different meanings to different people, and I am not saying these are good or bad, I am just wondering if their is some sort of connection somewhere in there. It is something only a Mormon could really look into I suppose, and I do not want to speak badly of anything held very sacred to them.

Click to expand...

Are you unable to visit the website that I posted? I will post it here again. All of your questions regarding Masonry and Mormonism are answered on this website. It would be impossible to summarize all the research available here.

If you had visited this website I have now pointed out twice (and in previous posts where you brought up the same subject) you would already know the answers to your questions. It's starting to seem like your "questioning" isn't out of interest at all. Please read the website and ask specific questions from the site if you don't understand something. The apron, symbols, etc. is all covered. If you want to know about the apron read genesis 3:7.

The short answer to your question regarding the symbols on the garments, yes there are similarities, but the meaning is completely different. Insterestingly, these symbols are contained in one of the facimilies in the Book of Abraham. The context where they are mentioned here is much closer to the context they are used for in Masonry (as far as I am aware).

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_masons.shtml

You add these Temple ceremonies and such, I don't recall that in the new testament church.

Click to expand...

You probably don't recall it because you haven't researched it yet.

If you are interested in the similarities between LDS temple ceremonies and the ancient church you could read this article. There have been books written on the subject also. There are many similarities between the LDS temple ceremony and ancient temple ceremonies...

http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/1999TveJ.html

joeboonda said:

the Bible clearly says if the prophecy does not come true, that prophecy is not of God.

Click to expand...

the prophecy is not of God. That says nothing about the prophet, their past prophecies, and the like. Plus, what you're talking about is not prophecies. It's one guy's interpretation of a specific scripture. He's not saying, "This is a prophecy from God, and this is what's going to happen..." He just says, "I think this is what this means..." So really, that comparison is moot.

Here's a non-moot comparison. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Katzpur has some stats she likes to post about the Church's humanitarian efforts, etc. that she might be willing to repost to show you their fruits again.

Joe,



I think maybe we’re finally making some progress here. I appreciate the respectful attitude of your last few posts.

I want to be sure everyone knows that I do not think that Mormons worship the Devil.

Click to expand...

I’m glad you realize that. It’s just that your quote from General Albert Pike implied that Masons do worship Lucifer. And if some Mormons are, in fact, Masons, it would follow that they, too, worship Lucifer. I think we both know that it is impossible to worship both God and Lucifer.

As to how many Mormons are Masons, let me just say this: Since I’ve lived in Salt Lake City my entire life, and since 70% of all Utahns are LDS, it would stand to reason that I’d personally know at least a few who are Masons if there really were a lot of them. I don’t, however, know one single solitary LDS Mason. If I did, I wouldn’t hesitate to tell you, because I don’t share your opinion of them.

From what I have learned of Masonry, when one gets to the 30th degree and beyond, they kinda fill you in on it. They DO use the sign of Baphomet, also the upside-down star, the obelisk, and the all seeing eye, along with aprons with many occult symbols on them.

Click to expand...

But how sure are you that your information on Freemasonry is really accurate, and that it is not very, very negatively biased? You are starting to discover that your knowledge of Mormonism is not as good as you once thought. You’ve learned recently that some of what you thought we believe and teach is not really what we believe and teach at all. I think that any time any group of people do something in secret, other people immediately assume that it must be something evil, something there is a good reason to try to hide. As a result, all kinds of bizarre stories are invented about what’s going on behind closed doors. People eat up this kind of stuff. I think it’s sad, really. I really think this whole business of Masons being involved in the occult has been blown way out of proportion. I think that the truth has been twisted into a lie, and that as long as there are people out there who are willing to believe the lie, it’s going to continue to be circulated.

With respect to the symbols you mentioned, some (notably the all-seeing eye) are found in the architecture of some LDS temples. There is an all-seeing eye carved into the granite exterior of the Salt Lake temple, for instance. But this symbol is far, far older than Freemasonry. It’s an ancient symbol, used to represent God’s omniscience. Rather than try to go into any of the details concerning our temples or any perceived relationship between Mormonism and Freemasonry, I’ll just point you instead to a very good website where you can read up on the subject for yourself:

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_masons.shtml

I don't have time right now to respond to your other concerns, but I will do so later this weekend.

Kathryn

Hello, all, well I read the links you posted. There was a lot of stuff in the Jeff Lindsay one, but I got the main ideas of it. I understand the temple and the ceremonies and symbols are sacred to you, so I will just keep my thoughts to myself. Scott, (Popeyesays), hooked me up with a tool he uses called Oceans, that has, like, ALL the books of every religion, so at least now I can read a bit of your books now. For me, I try to be careful when reading some of the 'gospels' and such that were not accepted in the original Biblical canon, like some of the gnostic writings, and ideas from the Alexandrian School. You know me, I am very BIble-only, that won't ever change. Not that other religions don't contain moral truths and such, for me, the Bible contains THE truth. I respect your belief in your books, I hope you respect why I do not believe in them. At least we can do that. I've enjoyed this thread, I am getting over my illness now, so, its back to work, thus less time here, but, if I get the chance to do some more research, I will try to ask some more questions in the future. Best wishes to you all, and may we all continue to grow and learn the truth!

Sincerely,

Joeboonda

joeboonda said:

Hello, all, well I read the links you posted. There was a lot of stuff in the Jeff Lindsay one, but I got the main ideas of it. I understand the temple and the ceremonies and symbols are sacred to you, so I will just keep my thoughts to myself.

Click to expand...

Jeff Lindsay's site is huge, but very worthwhile. You might want to bookmark it because it's probably the best LDS site on the web. In my own opinion, it's even better than the Church's official site, but that's just me. And the link I posted covers about 2% of what's available elsewhere on his site. This link will take you to the starting point of his LDS pages: http://www.jefflindsay.com/MyPages.shtml#religion

You know me, I am very BIble-only, that won't ever change. Not that other religions don't contain moral truths and such, for me, the Bible contains THE truth. I respect your belief in your books, I hope you respect why I do not believe in them.

Click to expand...

I know that, and I do respect your opinion. I can't help but wonder, though, why you are so convinced that it contains every last truth God wants us to know. For one thing, it certainly doesn't claim to be what you say it is. For another, there are numerous books mentioned in the Bible that can't be found in it. Some of these are additional epistles to various people from Paul. It would certainly stand to reason that these epistles would have been as valuable as the ones we have a record of. Had they not been lost, they might very well have been included in the Bible today.

And what about John 21:25? It says, "And there are also many other things whichJesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." How much more straightforward could it be stated? Not all of Jesus' works or teachings were even recorded. Of those that were recorded, not all survived long enough to be included in the canon. In my opinion, everything He did was important. He wasted no time at any point during His ministry in frivolous activities. Look at how relatively brief the gospel accounts of his life are. He taught for three full years, after all! I'm just trying to understand why you're so adamant about the Bible being the only record of God's dealings with His children when there simply is no evidence whatsoever that this is the case. Would you mind explaining?

Hi, here is something I found that might help explain my position on the subject, not that you won't reject it point for point, which is fine, but at least it may help you see where I am coming from a little bit, although there is so much more involved, its hard to put into one post. Hope this helps:


Adding to the Bible
When in discussion with Mormons I bring up the concept of the closure of Scripture and how we are not to add to the word ie. the Book of Mormon. This why we do not believe that another testament is acceptable or verifiable today. The book of revelation is the closing book for God’s revelation through his prophets to the Church.

We are told several times throughout the Bible not to make additions to God’s word that is called Scripture. Deut. 4:2 “You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take anything from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Deuteronomy 12:32 “Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it.”

Mormons will say this means not to add to the book of Deuteronomy. But although this command is found in this 2nd book of the law it is not exclusive to this one book.

Proverbs 30:5-6 “Every word of God is pure; he is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.”

Mormons will say this means not to add to the book of Proverbs. Again if we look at the context it says “Every word of God”, do not add to His words.

The Bible refers to its writings as Scripture 1 Cor. 4:6 “that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.”

Paul was reiterating what has been said in Deuteronomy and Proverbs. To go beyond what Scripture says means one is motivated by pride, the same character trait that made the Devil fall into sin.

Jesus and the apostles all concurred, “The entirety of Your word is truth” (Psalms 119: 160).

The importance of God’s word held in this respect is clear by saying in Psalm 138:2 “You have magnified Your word above all Your name” When a Mormon inadvertently states the book of Mormon is considered the word of God alongside the Bible they have removed the Bibles authority replacing it with a mans.

To clarify what they have done I would like to point out “After Joseph had translated the Book of Mormon from the gold plates, the Lord COMMANDED him to TRANSLATE THE BIBLE. ...[T]his young man, Joseph Smith, ...was commanded to translate the Bible BY INSPIRATION.” LDS “Apostle” Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 15, pp. 247-249)

According to Mormonism Joseph Smith rewrote the Bible in the early 1830's. Without any knowledge of Hebrew or Greek language or manuscripts, he 'restored' what had been lost. This 'restoration of the bible' is known today as the Joseph Smith Translation (JST). What makes this more intriguing is that the Inspired version tells us how Joseph Smith received this revelation to write a NEW Holy book “narrating the experience of Moses when he “was caught up into an exceeding high mountain, and he saw God face to face, and he talked with him”’

Joseph Smith was commanded by God to publish the new translation of the Bible “... I have commanded you to organize yourselves, even to shinelah [print] my words, the fulness of my scriptures ...(Doctrine and Covenants, 104:58).... the second lot ... shall be dedicated unto me for the building of a house unto me, for the work of the printing of the translation of my scriptures ... (ibid. 94:10).…hearken to the counsel of my servant Joseph,... and publish the new translation of my holy word unto the inhabitants of the earth (ibid. 124:89).

Joseph wrote: “I COMPLETED the translation and review of the NEW TESTAMENT on the 2nd of February, 1833, and sealed it up, no more to be opened till it arrived in Zion.” (LDS “Prophet” Joseph Smith, February 2, 1833, and Times and Seasons 5:723) “We returned gratitude to our Heavenly Father... having finished the translation of the Bible a few hours since....” LDS “Prophet” Joseph Smith, LDS “President” Sidney Rigdon and LDS “President” F. G. Williams, History of the Church, Vol. 1, pp. 368-369, July 2, 1833. In its completion there would be over 9000 changes.

February 1995 a BYU professor stated, “With the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible, the Prophet restored truth lost through the corruption of ancient texts and gave us the scriptures 'even as they are in [God's] own bosom, to the salvation of [his] own elect' (D&C 35:20).” (Kent P. Jackson, Ensign, 2/95, p. 63).

So we are to accept these just as one would accept the former 66 books of the Bible. Further we are to accept the fact the Bible is corrupted that it needed a modern prophet to restore its truth.

“Important changes were made in several thousand verses, but there are yet thousands of passages to be revised, clarified, and perfected. After his work of revision, the Prophet frequently quoted parts of the King James Version, announced that they contained errors, and gave clarified translations -- none of which he had incorporated into his prior revisions of the Bible. (Mormon Doctrine, Bruce R. McConkie, p.384, under Inspired Version of the Bible)

Joseph Smith’s “Inspired” version did not make any changes to Esther, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Obadiah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Malachi, Second John or Third John, all of which were deemed “correct” by Smith. However, The Song of Solomon was designated “not inspired writing” and was excluded. Joseph Smith made changes in the book of Genesis 32 different statements about the book of Genesis.

For example in his Inspired Version King James Version Genesis chapter1:1 And it came to pass, that the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Behold, I reveal unto you concerning this heaven and this earth; write the words which I speak.

2 I am the Beginning and the End; the Almighty God. By mine Only Begotten I created these things.

3 Yea, in the beginning I created the heaven, and the earth upon which thou standest.

Yes it all sounds like the Bible but it is not God’s word but a mans misinterpretation and addition of it. There is no Hebrew text that says this, so one can only wonder where Smith found these words? (Maybe he pulled them out of a hat). Clearly the phrase I am the Beginning and the End is a New Testament phrase as is Only Begotten (which is Greek -monogenes for God’s son). This proves Smith did not translate the Bible of which he knew NO Hebrew or Greek.

In Genesis 1-8 he taught that Adam, Enoch, and Noah all accepted and taught the gospel of Jesus Christ, this is impossible since the one the gospel centers on was not even yet born, died or raised.

188 changes were made in Psalms. Isaiah received more changes than any other Old Testament book.

The New Testament received more than twice as many changes as the Old Testament. Which makes not sense since we have more manuscript evidence for the New Testament than any other ancient literature. Smith was not aware of this because of his lack of education and the many discoveries that took place since he did his translation. Fourteen books remained unchanged after Smith completed his revisions, three of these (Philemon and 2 and 3 John) were in the New Testament. Smith proceeded to make 560 changes in the book of Luke. 483 in Matthew. John had 159 changes.

Smith said he helped translate only the books that we have difficulty with. What is very contradicting is that their church does not accept the Joseph Smith Translation as one of their Standard Works. Instead of his translation they use the King James Version that Joseph Smith found needing to be repaired because of it corruption. Go figure.

Now back to the Bible…

Prov. 30:6 “Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.” This was written long before the book of Revelation and as I have already pointed out it is not exclusive to this book. God is saying for MAN not to add to his words (God can expand on His Word, man cannot). So we need to ask if a man would be a liar if he added to God’s word? Would Joseph Smith qualify for this?

God says in the last book of his word Revelation 21:8 “and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”

To sum this all up Joseph Smith said an incredible statement: the book of Revelation was the plainest book God caused to be written.

Revelation 22:18-19 “For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”

I ask the Mormons would these curses would be in effect if anyone added or subtracted to the Book of Revelation in any way. Their reply is this would obviously be so.

Unaware that in the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible: he (Joseph Smith) had added to, or subtracted from the Book of Revelation over 85 times.

What does God say to those who do this?

Perhaps you can cite where you found this info. I wouldn't be surprised if it was from an anti-Mormon website, in fact, I think that's obvious. The website's lack of knowledge concerning the LDS faith is very evident. For example, it makes a point to say LDS does not even use the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. If the website had done its research, it would know the JST version of the Bible is owned, not be The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but by the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which now calls itself The Disciples of Christ I believe. Some of the inspired JST verses are contained in the KJV the LDS use, with permission from the RLDS. I'm confident that if we had legal ownership of the JST, it would be part of our Standard Works.

I don't have time to get into more of this (maybe later), but once again, we have an anti-Mormon website telling us (LDS) how we'd respond to certain questions and telling us what we believe. Give me a break.

nutshell said:

Perhaps you can cite where you found this info. I wouldn't be surprised if it was from an anti-Mormon website, in fact, I think that's obvious. The website's lack of knowledge concerning the LDS faith is very evident. For example, it makes a point to say LDS does not even use the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. If the website had done its research, it would know the JST version of the Bible is owned, not be The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but by the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which now calls itself The Disciples of Christ I believe. Some of the inspired JST verses are contained in the KJV the LDS use, with permission from the RLDS. I'm confident that if we had legal ownership of the JST, it would be part of our Standard Works.

I don't have time to get into more of this (maybe later), but once again, we have an anti-Mormon website telling us (LDS) how we'd respond to certain questions and telling us what we believe. Give me a break.

Click to expand...

Yes, I see your point, I think that they are repeating the typical response they have gotten when bringing up these verses to Mormons. The website isn't what I'd call 'anti' anything, I think they are trying to speak the truth in love to many different issues in Christianity. Yes they said the Joseph Smith Translation is not used by the LDS church, I think what they are trying to ask, is if he is the 'man', the prophet that started your church, and yet has all this error going on and changing the Bible, etc. how can you trust his revelations or teachings are from God? Oh, wait, you said it WOULD be part of your standard works if you had legal ownership! So, you believe his translation, with its many changes is right??? I am sorry, I guess we are from totally different universes, it just seem so obvious to me, the error. I guess I have studied and been involved in standard Bible-only Christianity for so long, that all this rings conterfeit to me, and I am sorry to say something that I know you don't agree with, I don't mean to make anyone mad, I know my ideas are just as heretical to you, and you feel that I am in error. I don't know that we can ever solve that, we can only share these things in love. I think its ok to state our beliefs and debate the differences, its ok if we both 'know' the other is a bit off in their religious beliefs, and its ok to talk about them. Now, I am not mad at anyone, I am sorry if you take offense to my posts, I know everyone thinks I am soooo, ignorant, I am willing to accept that. Just know I am not 'anti' you or anything. Just discussing, sharing my views, and hopefully all of us will appreciate where each of us are coming from. This thread is titled, "more love directed at the Mormons", or something like that, as a reply to the disrespectful words of AV1611, and my post, which was deleted, at least I gave books and page numbers in the info I presented all from Mormon authors, and with all respect, and do not feel I should discuss that here, as I respect the moderators. Well, I do love Mormons, and am trying to share and understand and even disagree, but in respect and love as well as I know how, as I have said before. Believe it or not I have learned a little from you all, even if it was about some misconceptions folks have on some things, and I hope maybe, I will have something to offer you, too. Well, may God lead us and direct us, and help us in our endeavors to learn more about him and be more like Jesus. I know I have a long way to go to be like Him, I am just thankful for his mercy and grace toward us undeserving sinners. I know I love Jesus, and I love you, too! Til' next time, farewell.

Sincerely,

Joeboonda

Have you read what changes Joseph Smith made to the Bible? Let's take for example 2 Thess 2:3 (because that happened to be the first JST I opened up to). It retranslates "for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first..." The JST states "fore there shall come a falling away first." The doesn't change the meaning, it just clears it up.

2 Thess 2:2 the real states "or be troubles, niehter by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us" That doesn't make sense. Why would they be troubled by Paul's letters? the JST reads, "or be troubled by letter, except ye receive it form us." Makes a bit more sense. And seriously, I'm on a way sugar low, so my hands are all shaky and I can't type.

I would like to point out that all the JST are footnotes, so you can compare to the original.

Here's some more examples. I'm taking these completely at random, just which ever ones I come upon. the JST of 1 Cor 12:2 changes "unknown" to "another."
1 Cor 11:20 changes "this" to "is it," which certainly is the only logical thing. When it reads with "this" the statement is just completely false.
Romans 3:24 JST says "therefore, being justified only by his grace..."
In Acts 2:20 it changes that old-fashioned word "wot" into "know."
JST of luke 2:46 changes them to him at the ending of the verse.

You see, they're all fairly small changes. it's not like he changed something humoungous, but rather, he clearified things and, in some cases, made false things true because of his more appropriate translation.