ChristianForums banned Christ.

[godrulz]

Nothing like having the "rational & logical" foundation of a ...



..... BURNING BOSOM !


... as yer apologetic.



:crow2:Buzz

Burning bosom (Dalits)...are you familiar with Gospel For Asia's great work among them www.gfa.org

 

[Mustard Seed]

There is a difference between defending the faith and telling out and out lies. If you had been defending the faith, I wouldn't have said anything at all. I just had to refute the lies.

No hard feelings. :wave2:

I stated nothing that was an out and out lie. Your portrayal of such as a lie IS THE LIE. You were refuting the truth in deference for the lie that supports the mistakes you've made. I'm perfectly happy to let God be the final arbiter with respect to who is the liar and who's the defender of veracity.

 

[no avatar]

I stated nothing that was an out and out lie. Your portrayal of such as a lie IS THE LIE. You were refuting the truth in deference for the lie that supports the mistakes you've made. I'm perfectly happy to let God be the final arbiter with respect to who is the liar and who's the defender of veracity.

You assume that because I called the lies, lies, that I am calling you a liar. However, same is not true. It is entirely possible, I suppose, for you to have been fed the lies and really believe them, however, that doesn't make them any more true. They are still lies, whether you believe them to be truth or not. It's a shame you close your eyes to the truth, even when your own church's historical associations states those things happened.

http://www.mhahome.org/
http://www.jwha.info/

 

[godrulz]

Does 'The Restoration' refer to Mormon groups? Jesus promised He would build His church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it (Mt. 16). The gospel was once for all entrusted to the saints (Jude 3). It is a wrong assumption that the Gospel was lost for centuries and that a controversial Smith had to restore it (in a form not recognized anywhere in Church history)?! It is true that the impact of the gospel waxed and waned at times, but God has always had a people. The Reformation was of more significance than Smith's false gospel.

Mormon history and doctrine is fascinating. It shows that it is a manmade organization that has had great success (minor compared to Christianity through the centuries).

 

[no avatar]

Does 'The Restoration' refer to Mormon groups? Jesus promised He would build His church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it (Mt. 16). The gospel was once for all entrusted to the saints (Jude 3). It is a wrong assumption that the Gospel was lost for centuries and that a controversial Smith had to restore it (in a form not recognized anywhere in Church history)?! It is true that the impact of the gospel waxed and waned at times, but God has always had a people. The Reformation was of more significance than Smith's false gospel.

Mormon history and doctrine is fascinating. It shows that it is a manmade organization that has had great success (minor compared to Christianity through the centuries).

There are different "restoration" groups. The Disciples of Christ/Campbellite movement are one such group (and all that came from them), the other is the Mormons (and all that came from the Joseph Smith movement). Mustard Seed and I are talking about the Joseph Smith restoration. (However, historically, they are tied to the Campbellite movement because a popular Campbellite minister came into the early church and brought his whole congregation with him, as well as some basic theological teachings that defined the early Latter Day Saint church.

 

[godrulz]

In Pentecostal-charismatic circles, there was another 'Restoration' movement spawned from modern revivals. It was a supposed restoration of things like the 'Tabernacle of David' (worship), 5-fold ministry (including presbytery/prophets), church as spiritual Israel, etc. It has some connection to the 'latter rain' movement. Bible Temple in Portland, Oregon promoted this 'Restoration' movement. I have not heard much of it recently.


http://mb-soft.com/believe/txn/discipch.htm

This does not sound like an LDS off-shoot?

 

[no avatar]

In Pentecostal-charismatic circles, there was another 'Restoration' movement spawned from modern revivals. It was a supposed restoration of things like the 'Tabernacle of David' (worship), 5-fold ministry (including presbytery/prophets), church as spiritual Israel, etc. It has some connection to the 'latter rain' movement. Bible Temple in Portland, Oregon promoted this 'Restoration' movement. I have not heard much of it recently.


http://mb-soft.com/believe/txn/discipch.htm

This does not sound like an LDS off-shoot?

That link is to a description of the Stone-Campbellite movement (which I commented on in my post above.) It sounds like early LDS theology because a prominent Campbellite minister brought his congregation (and his theology) into the early Mormon restoration. The Campbellite movement was around for about 25 years before the early LDS church came into existence. The LDS church, however, diverged from those beliefs, into beliefs/practices that are not Biblical in nature, that the Campbellite movement never thought about, let alone accept.

 

[Mustard Seed]

Nothing like having the "rational & logical" foundation of a ...



..... BURNING BOSOM !


... as yer apologetic.



:crow2:Buzz

Wrong. The apologetic is not the testimony. The apologetic is simply the assertion that your issues, your claims, are either not true or irrelevant. This has nothing to do with proving the testimony, rather to prove it's plausiblity and the plausibility of those things it's based on.

No one can prove, through any amount of apologetics, that the resurection took place, or that if such could take place that it did take place where when why and how the Bible says it did. In reality it runs in the face of generaly accepted logical, rational, and scientific paradigms and prevailing systems of thought. So this whole mocking of testimony or the defense of those things it is based upon is a fool's erand if you ascribe to anything but agnosticism, and even then it has the potential for issues.

 

[oftenbuzzard]

Wrong. The apologetic is not the testimony. The apologetic is simply the assertion that your issues, your claims, are either not true or irrelevant. This has nothing to do with proving the testimony, rather to prove it's plausiblity and the plausibility of those things it's based on.

No one can prove, through any amount of apologetics, that the resurection took place, or that if such could take place that it did take place where when why and how the Bible says it did. In reality it runs in the face of generaly accepted logical, rational, and scientific paradigms and prevailing systems of thought. So this whole mocking of testimony or the defense of those things it is based upon is a fool's erand if you ascribe to anything but agnosticism, and even then it has the potential for issues.

Could ya translate that into coherent English?

:crow: Buzz

 

[Mustard Seed]

You assume that because I called the lies, lies, that I am calling you a liar. However, same is not true. It is entirely possible, I suppose, for you to have been fed the lies and really believe them, however, that doesn't make them any more true. They are still lies, whether you believe them to be truth or not. It's a shame you close your eyes to the truth, even when your own church's historical associations states those things happened.

First off, it's not terribly relevant who of us you are calling dishonest.

Next, your mere assertion that they are lies is NOT verified NOR have you even attempted to offer sufficient rebutal to my evidences showing the erroneous foundation your presumptions are built up around. I've never denied the existance of those groups. I've not denied those things clearly born out in historical records. I've simply disputed your extrapolations from them. You are playing the fool in trying to take your presumption based conclusions and play them out like they were fool proof certainties. As if God himself had appeared to you and affirmed to you that all your assumptions utilized in calling these things lies were tenable in light of omniscience. And then you yourself play dishonest by trying to make it look as though I'm in denial of history when it's NOT the history I dispute but your flawed reading of it.

 

[Mustard Seed]

Could ya translate that into coherent English?

:crow: Buzz

Coherency of that, if not readily available to you at present, can be obtained via the intellegent utilization of a reliable English dictionary. Try taking the words you don't know and then find their entries and then read them and then think about them to help you discern what is being said and how they best fit into the context.

If you didn't follow that here it is simplified--

Try and use a dictionary for the words you don't understand.

It would be good for you. Help you learn and expand your vocabulary.

 

[Lighthouse]

oh please now.. do not get on the MS.. I do this.. my name is TYJ

Actually he was referring to you laughing at my calling him "Mustard Stain."

 

[fiducia]

Coherency of that, if not readily available to you at present, can be obtained via the intellegent utilization of a reliable English dictionary. Try taking the words you don't know and then find their entries and then read them and then think about them to help you discern what is being said and how they best fit into the context.

If you didn't follow that here it is simplified--

Try and use a dictionary for the words you don't understand.

It would be good for you. Help you learn and expand your vocabulary.

Perhaps you should look up the definition of "coherent." I didn't have any trouble with the meaning of the individual words (I don't think he did either). It's the way you strung em all together.

Oooh, wait.....now my bosom is burning....

WHEW! That's better...

 

[oftenbuzzard]

Perhaps you should look up the definition of "coherent." I didn't have any trouble with the meaning of the individual words (I don't think he did either). It's the way you strung em all together.

Oooh, wait.....now my bosom is burning....

WHEW! That's better...

Well put, fiducia.

The ultimate testiomny tamer:
[size=-1]Rolaids®[/size]

:crow2:Buzz

 

[no avatar]

First off, it's not terribly relevant who of us you are calling dishonest.

Next, your mere assertion that they are lies is NOT verified NOR have you even attempted to offer sufficient rebutal to my evidences showing the erroneous foundation your presumptions are built up around. I've never denied the existance of those groups. I've not denied those things clearly born out in historical records. I've simply disputed your extrapolations from them. You are playing the fool in trying to take your presumption based conclusions and play them out like they were fool proof certainties. As if God himself had appeared to you and affirmed to you that all your assumptions utilized in calling these things lies were tenable in light of omniscience. And then you yourself play dishonest by trying to make it look as though I'm in denial of history when it's NOT the history I dispute but your flawed reading of it.

A. You offered no evidence for me to rebut. All you offered is a fairy tale.

B. I can at least offer the testimony of friends of mine that state that their great grandmother's family, with others, came out of Utah during the polygamous era and they were pursued by the Avenging Angels and some of their party was killed by them.

C. My husband's great, great, great-grandfather (Alpheus Cutler) was a member of the Council of 50, so there is no question that it was real, and there is no question about it's purpose.

The extravagant self-confidence of Smith and other Mormon leaders, reinforced by the faith and expectations of their followers, knew no bounds. It was in such a temper of mind and heart that the Council of Fifty, that extraordinary group for strategic planning, proposed to detach Nauvoo from the State of Illinois and make it a powerfully garrisoned independent state under the guise of a federal territory; to launch vast, paramilitary mission-colonizing ventures beyond the western territories of the US; to create a Mormon state in Texas; and to nominate Joseph Smith for President of the US.​

Robert B. Flanders, "The Kingdom of God in Illinois: Politics in Utopia," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought vol.5, no. 1 (Spring, 1970):35.

 

[Mustard Seed]

Perhaps you should look up the definition of "coherent." I didn't have any trouble with the meaning of the individual words (I don't think he did either). It's the way you strung em all together.

Oooh, wait.....now my bosom is burning....

WHEW! That's better...

If you can't comprhend them all strung together I assure you that it is not because they are incoherent when strung together, rather that your capacity to grasp what is being said is insufficient to the task at hand. This is not a failing on my end. Jesus was called a mad man when he spoke. It was not because what he was uttering was by nature incoherent but that those who were hearing it had rendered their capacity for comprehension impotent through either neglect or sin or both.

 

[Mustard Seed]

A. You offered no evidence for me to rebut. All you offered is a fairy tale.

I was rebuting the qualification of your statement as evidence. One needs not produce evidence to point out the failings in the assertions of others.

B. I can at least offer the testimony of friends of mine that state that their great grandmother's family, with others, came out of Utah during the polygamous era and they were pursued by the Avenging Angels and some of their party was killed by them.

Do you have proof that such was done under orders of the Church? Do you have actual written testamony of this that you can cite? I've not seen anything that demonstrates what you claim to have been the focus or intent or as even eminating from the actual church. If every organization was held to the acts of every single radical shooting from it then you could not very well hold to any substantive branch of Christianity and claim legitimacy.

C. My husband's great, great, great-grandfather (Alpheus Cutler) was a member of the Council of 50, so there is no question that it was real, and there is no question about it's purpose.

The extravagant self-confidence of Smith and other Mormon leaders, reinforced by the faith and expectations of their followers, knew no bounds. It was in such a temper of mind and heart that the Council of Fifty, that extraordinary group for strategic planning, proposed to detach Nauvoo from the State of Illinois and make it a powerfully garrisoned independent state under the guise of a federal territory; to launch vast, paramilitary mission-colonizing ventures beyond the western territories of the US; to create a Mormon state in Texas; and to nominate Joseph Smith for President of the US.​

Robert B. Flanders, "The Kingdom of God in Illinois: Politics in Utopia," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought vol.5, no. 1 (Spring, 1970):35.

[/quote]


I never doubted or questioned the reality of it's existance. What I DO question AND refute is the attempt to take the likes of what you have above, in this case an Anti-Mormon piece, trying to pass as intellectual/academic material, pass for authoritative extrapolation and interpretation as to the real meaning and intent of the actions of early LDS leadership. Show us the primary documents. These briefs that come to the same biased conclusions you do prove nothing. If they do to you then you have no claim on real logic, ration or anything approaching an intellectualy credible position. The church has published all the works it's been required to to maintain copyright to the material. It's in the public domain. You can get items such as a 40+ disc DVD volume of thousands upon thousands of photos of primary documents from the early days of the Church. Go through and point out the primary documents that show what you think is there.

Untill you can do more than produce this psuedo-intellectual drivel, untill you can point to primary sources (NOT stuff produced in 1970 yet speaking as though it was so much an unquestionable authority on the mid 1800's that it, unlike all it's truly academic peers, doesn't need to cite a single specific source in the course of the whole bold proclamation it made in your short quotation of it) and show and defend your, yet to be truly defended, points then you have NO real capacity to call what you are saying the "truth" nor what I have said a "lie".

En otras palabras

Bring it.

 

[fiducia]

If you can't comprhend them all strung together I assure you that it is not because they are incoherent when strung together, rather that your capacity to grasp what is being said is insufficient to the task at hand. This is not a failing on my end. Jesus was called a mad man when he spoke. It was not because what he was uttering was by nature incoherent but that those who were hearing it had rendered their capacity for comprehension impotent through either neglect or sin or both.

Well, neighbor, you're not Jesus, nor are you a prophet, nor was Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith has an eternity in Hell to look forward to, as do those who put their faith in him rather than in the Christ he bore false witness against.

I can't "comprehend" them because they are not truth. They are lies dressed up in intellectual language...lipstick on a pig.

Joseph Smith cannot save you, nor can the imposter Christ he proclaimed. Repent while it is still today.

 

[no avatar]

I never doubted or questioned the reality of it's existance. What I DO question AND refute is the attempt to take the likes of what you have above, in this case an Anti-Mormon piece, trying to pass as intellectual/academic material, pass for authoritative extrapolation and interpretation as to the real meaning and intent of the actions of early LDS leadership. Show us the primary documents. These briefs that come to the same biased conclusions you do prove nothing. If they do to you then you have no claim on real logic, ration or anything approaching an intellectualy credible position. The church has published all the works it's been required to to maintain copyright to the material. It's in the public domain. You can get items such as a 40+ disc DVD volume of thousands upon thousands of photos of primary documents from the early days of the Church. Go through and point out the primary documents that show what you think is there.

Untill you can do more than produce this psuedo-intellectual drivel, untill you can point to primary sources (NOT stuff produced in 1970 yet speaking as though it was so much an unquestionable authority on the mid 1800's that it, unlike all it's truly academic peers, doesn't need to cite a single specific source in the course of the whole bold proclamation it made in your short quotation of it) and show and defend your, yet to be truly defended, points then you have NO real capacity to call what you are saying the "truth" nor what I have said a "lie".

En otras palabras

Bring it.

I'm sure the original article was fully documented or it wouldn't have appeared in a professional journal, and since I have other books written by the same author (who happens to be a member of the RLDS church (and therefore not anti-Mormon)) and know the degree to which he validates his sources, I have not doubt that what he wrote there is true. Since you are LDS, you could just hop on down to your local ward library and verify it for yourself.

But I doubt you will since you have no interest in the truth.

 

[oftenbuzzard]

Well, neighbor, you're not Jesus, nor are you a prophet, nor was Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith has an eternity in Hell to look forward to, as do those who put their faith in him rather than in the Christ he bore false witness against.

I can't "comprehend" them because they are not truth. They are lies dressed up in intellectual language...lipstick on a pig.

Joseph Smith cannot save you, nor can the imposter Christ he proclaimed. Repent while it is still today.

And I think Tammy Faye Bakker is his make-up "artist."

:crow: Buzz