The Turncoats

[_harmony]

Stomp the floor and pull your hair Harmony, it will change absolutely and utterly nothing.

This isn't about me, Droop. This is about the church... changing.

Heck, just the changes in my lifetime (ie, the last 56 years) are many...

1. the lifting of the priesthood ban
2. women can say prayers in Sacrament Meeting now.
3. two piece garments, knee length, cap and short sleeves
4. closing the books
5. changing the meeting schedule
6. changes in the temple endowment
7. changing the status of Native Americans/Lamanites
8. settling instead of fighting lawsuits
9. firing all the janitors and forcing the members to clean the buildings and temples
10. moving from the concept of gathering in Zion/Utah to Zion being wherever the member lives

Some doctrinal, some policies, all changes, all because of pressure from society, the members, or the bank balance.

And Droop? Let's see your source for your claim of "the fastest growing church". Because I think you're wrong.

[_Brackite]

Here is Part From an Evangelical Christian Message Board, Discussion Thread, Back within the Year of 2001, with me back then as an LDS 'Apologist' debating with a few of the Evangelical Christians there, about basically Isaiah Chapter 43, and including about whether there is just only One God:
(Note: I simply went by 'Brack' way back then.):

JohnTheBaptist (54 posts) Dec-14-01, 10:54 PM (Pacific)

"Hi Brack"


Isaiah 43:10
10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

What do you make of this verse?

jtb

Brack (30 posts) Dec-18-01, 09:12 AM (Pacific)

1. "RE: Hi Brack"


Hi John ‘the Baptist,’

You wrote above:

Isaiah 43:10
10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

What do you make of this verse?


Well, let us go on to quote verses 11 and 12 of Isaiah 43.

11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.
12 I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god (foreign god) among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God. (KJV)

The Israelites were worshipping foreign gods during this time period. The Israelites have also had a history of worshipping these foreign gods (See e.g. Judges 2:12-13). These foreign gods that the Israelites were worshipping are also known as idols (false gods). From Isaiah chapters 40-48 the LORD through Isaiah is continuing condemning the idol worshipping that is going on among the Israelites.

Isaiah 44:9-10 - All who make idols are nothing, and the things they treasure are worthless. Those who would speak up for them are blind; they are ignorant, to their own shame.
10 Who shapes a god and casts an idol, which can profit him nothing? (NIV)
Isaiah 48:11-14 - For my own sake, for my own sake, I do this. How can I let myself be defamed? I will not yield my glory to another.
12 "Listen to me, O Jacob, Israel, whom I have called: I am he; I am the first and I am the last.
13 My own hand laid the foundations of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens; when I summon them, they all stand up together.
14 "Come together, all of you, and listen: Which of has foretold these things? The LORD's chosen ally will carry out his purpose against Babylon; his arm will be against the Babylonians. (NIV)
Isaiah 42:8 - "I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols. (NIV)
Isaiah 42:17 - But those who trust in idols, who say to images, `You are our gods,' will be turned back in utter shame. (NIV)

Well John, back to your question to me about what do I make of Isaiah 43:10. It is simple. None of the idols (false gods) that the Israelites were worshipping at that was formed into gods before the Lord God, neither would any of these idols (false gods) be formed into gods afterwards.

Take Care!

JD (27 posts) Dec-19-01, 06:21 PM (Pacific)

2. "RE: Hi Brack"


Hi, Brack--

That contention of yours has been answered several times by me and others. You've missed the whole point: ALL OTHER "gods" ARE FALSE "gods". There is ONLY ONE TRUE GOD,the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and that is what the complete context conveys.

You're having to resort to eisegesis in order to make the relevant passages conform to Mormonism's polytheism.

JD

Brack (30 posts) Dec-23-01, 07:03 PM (Pacific)

3. "RE: Hi Brack"


Hello JD,

You wrote above:

”That contention of yours has been answered several times by me and others. You've missed the whole point: ALL OTHER "gods" ARE FALSE "gods". There is ONLY ONE TRUE GOD,the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and that is what the complete context conveys.”

JD, I written a post about four months ago that dealt with the issue of whether there are many gods. Here is the Post that I wrote which is now in the Archives.

The following Scriptural Passage is from 1 Corinthians Chapter 8 verses four through six. Here is the Apostle Paul writing to the Corinthians.

1 Corinthians 8:4-6

4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.
5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. (KJV)

There have been many commentaries on this Scriptural Passage by both LDS and Non- LDS People. The following commentary on this Scriptural Passage is by Michael T. Griffith. Yes, Michael T. Griffith is LDS, but I found that his commentary on this Scriptural Passage to make more sense than anybody else’s commentary on this passage, and I am also including some of the other LDS commentaries on this Passage. For example, a few LDS Commentaries think that the Apostle Paul is starting to refer to true deities in the first part of verse five, while Michael T. Griffith correctly identifies that it is Not until the last part (the parenthetical part) of the verse where the Apostle Paul is referring to true deities. Here is Michael T. Griffith’s Commentary on 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 in blue font.

Joseph Smith pointed to Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 8:5, “as there be gods many and lords many,” as evidence of a plurality of heavenly gods. Some commentators maintain that the Apostle’s statement refers to pagan deities. However, an examination of the wording and context of this verse refutes this interpretation. The relevant section from 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 reads as follows:
…we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

If the parenthetical statement in verse 5 (“as there be gods many and lords many”) refers to pagan deities, then the first part of the verse makes no sense at all. Paul begins the verse by clearly referring to pagan deities, which he knows do not really exist. He says in verse 4 that :an idol is nothing.” Then in the first half of verse 5, he says the pagan gods are merely “called” gods, whether their alleged abode is in heaven or on earth. So there is no doubt that up to this point Paul is speaking about nonexistent, pagan deities. However, before moving on to his central point in verse 6, he parenthetically observes that there are many gods and many lords. The plain sense of Paul’s wording is that he is making a distinction between non-existent gods and real ones. In fact, a more accurate rendering of the Greek behind the words “as there be” is “indeed there are” (Grant 48, emphasis added).

Despite the plain sense of the wording in verse 5, some will objet to its implications by citing Paul’s statement in verse 4 that “there is none other God but one.” However, in verse 6 Paul specifically qualifies this pronouncement, saying, “But to us there is but one God, the Father…” (emphasis added). Notice the use of the words “to us.” In light of Paul’s statements in verse 5, the insertion makes perfect sense. Paul modifies his “one God only” remark with the declaration just a few lines later that “indeed there are many gods and many lords.” Therefore, Paul’s use of the words “to us” is a further, logical qualification of the statement “there is but one God.” With these qualifications, Paul brings the ideas in verses 5 and 6 into perfect harmony with each other. Paul’s usage here is positional, not numerical. To us there is “one God,” i.e., one supreme God, our Heavenly Father. But there are also other deities, among them Jesus Christ, “the Lord,” who is subordinate to and separate from the Father. (Michael T. Griffith: One Lord, One Faith: Pages 19-20.)

...

You also wrote above JD:

“You're having to resort to eisegesis in order to make the relevant passages conform to Mormonism's polytheism.”

JD, Mormonism is a lot more in line with henotheism. We Latter-day Saints worship only One God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Take Care!

Richard (71 posts) Dec-24-01, 00:35 AM (Pacific)

4. "RE: Hi Brack"


Hi Brack,

...

Commentaries are nice, but they are not the source of truth - Scripture is. 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 really is not teaching or trying to convey in any way that there are other gods. This is why Paul uses the words "So Called gods". The very beginning of the Bible itself shows that in the beginning God created the "Heavens and the Earth". When we look to verses such as Psalm 89:10-12 we see that the One God alone is creator of everything, for it says..."THE HEAVENS ARE YOURS, THE EARTH IS ALSO YOURS, THE WORLD AND ALL IT CONTAINS, YOU HAVE FOUNDED THEM."

The psalmist recognizes that the One God has created everything including the "Heavens".

Remember, it says in Ephesians 4 that Jesus Christ ascended far above "ALL THE HEAVENS" so that He might fill All things. There is no limit to the heavens that the One God created. I know you believe that God only created "Some" of the heavens and not all of them, but Paul clearly shows that God reigns even to the farthest reaches of space.

1 Cronicles 16:25-27 says... "For all of the gods of the peoples are idols, BUT THE LORD MADE THE HEAVENS". Now think about 1 Corinthians 8 and what Paul is saying.

Perhaps Nehemiah 9:5-7 says it best... "YOU ALONE ARE THE LORD, YOU HAVE MADE THE HEAVENS, THE HEAVEN OF HEAVENS AND ALL THEIR HOST, THE EARTH AND ALL THAT IS ON IT, THE SEAS AND ALL THAT IS IN THEM. YOU GIVE LIFE TO ALL OF THEM AND THE HEAVENLY HOST BOWS DOWN TO YOU."

Brack, Scripture shows us in a very clear and cogent way that there is but One God who created everything that exsists besides Himself. For God alone is uncaused, and has no beginning, which is why God is able to say in Scripture that He is "From Everlasting to Everlasting".

...

God Bless you!

Richard

[_Gazelam]

But the LDS church prevailed.

Actually, the historical record doesn't agree with you. The gentiles prevailed... the church ran. And after they ran, the government prevailed.

The gospel is the everliving water Harmony...

Be like water making its way through cracks. Do not be assertive, but adjust to the object, and you shall find a way round or through it. If nothing within you stays rigid, outward things will disclose themselves.

Empty your mind, be formless. Shapeless, like water. If you put water into a cup, it becomes the cup. You put water into a bottle and it becomes the bottle. You put it in a teapot it becomes the teapot. Now, water can flow or it can crash. Be water my friend.

[_Brackite]

Here is the another Post From that Discussion Tread, On that Evangelical Christian Message Board:

JD (27 posts) Dec-27-01, 01:53 PM (Pacific)

5. "RE: Hi Brack"

Hi, Brack-
It's virtually impossible for anyone to make Paul into a Polytheist, although Mormon "exegetes" have tried to. Balance the context of 1 Cor 8 with all the other biblical passages that teach that there is only one God. One God, period. CF the myriad passages in Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Isaiah especially where God asks rhetorically,"Is there another God (i.e. any other true deity) besides Me? I don't know of any". Even God Himself declares that there are NO OTHER GODS. Now, read 1 Cor. 8 in light of those passages in order to come to a proper exegesis.

JD
p.s. You are right in your assessment of Mormonism, it is indeed "henotheistic", which is a form of polytheism, i.e. worship of only one deity, while believing that other true "gods" exist out there.

All Right, That is enough Posts here, From that Discussion Thread, On that Evangelical Christian Message Board.

Next, Here are Four Posts From Me, On The Zion Lighthouse Message Board, Back within the Year of 2002, when I still considered Myself an LDS 'Apologist' of The LDS Church, and I was still a TBM back then:
(Note: I simply went by 'Bracki' on the Zion Lighthouse Message Board. And, I reduced the Font Size with these next four Posts for here.):

Bracki Re: 'Dr.' M and his defender #43 [-]

Hello sr1030,

You wrote above:

The Spalding theory is alive and well. It certainly has not been debunked. It is most certainly a valid theory as is the Ethan Smith Theory and the Joseph Smith theory.

Yes, I am afraid sr1030 to your great disappointment that the Spaulding Theory has been debunked. Have you ever read the Book, "They Lie In Wait To Deceive Volume II," by Robert and Rosemary Brown? In that Book, Robert and Rosemary Brown Debunks the Spaulding Theory that the late Anti-Mormon Dr. Walter Martin so strongly believed in and advocated it. You can download that Book from the FAIR Web Site. Here is the link to the Book, "They Lie In Wait To Deceive Volume II," from the FAIR Web Site.
http://www.fair-lds.org/Pubs/liw/liwv2.html
Take Care!

Bracki Re: sr's world #48 [-]

Hello Bob,

What about the lies that the late Anti-Mormon Walter Martin told. For example, he repeatedly lied about being a descendent of Brigham Young. What does sr1030 think about that. Sr1030, I have a question for you. Have you found any remarkable presence of complex chiasmus in the Spaulding manuscript as there is in the Book of Mormon? If not, then I strongly suggest that you should Not Proclaim that the Spaulding Manuscript was a source for the Book of Mormon.
Take Care!

Bracki Broken Link #57 [-]

Hello Capetown,

The link you gave me is broken. I did not get to go to the Web Page you wanted me to got to. This makes me Bracki sad.
Take Care!

Bracki Chiasmus #84 [-]

Hi Capetown
You wrote:
you can find the site at mormonstudies.com under the heading of FARMs defenses. The bottom line is that there is "chiasmus" in the Spalding writings. This might make Bracki sad, as well.

I guess the link was down when I tried earlier. I was able to get to that Web Page later on. So that made me Bracki happy. However, the examples of Chiasmus that they showed from the Spaulding manuscript were simple forms of Chiasmus. Those Chiasmus in the Saulding Manuscript were not nearly as complex as the Chiasmus found in Alma 13:2-9 and Alma Chapter 36 in the Book of Mormon.
Take Care!

[_why me]

The Church did survive but it really has jettisoned a number of seemingly important things along the way and those not without a fight. Of course polygamy is at the top of that list. And had the Church not jettisoned that practice it most likely would not have survived. Other uncomfortable teachings and ideas from the 19th century seem to have been left behind or at least down played significantly. As the Church entered into the 20th century it over the next 50 years it cast off its more parochial approach to gathering and entrenching to becoming an international organization. Of course another major change was the priesthood ban. I do not believe that was done under pressure however. But it had to change for the Church to grow in places where it is now growing rapidly. As for one of the fastest growing religions, I am not sure that is accurate at least for the past 15 years or more. Growth has slowed. In the US we barely keep up with population growth. Church wide we grow about 1.8% per year. Islam is growing much faster by birth rate alone. Other Evangelical groups seem to be growing faster world wide as well. We also have a dismal retention rate. It also seems and this by observation only, that LDS birth rates at least in the USA may be slowing some.

The LDS church does have its problems that is for sure. The Internet is one problem that is now being addressed. But in the beginning the LDS church was slow to react. And certainly there are a lot of verbal and written attacks against the LDS church that seem to be making an impact on membership and potential converts. And the doubt sayers seem to be working overtime in sowing doubt in people's minds. And there have been other changes. Polygamy ban, priesthood ban lifting among the two. But the internet is one problem that is not easy to overcome since many people can sit home and scan several sites within an hour and read all sorts of opinions on the LDS church.

But the root is still the same. The LDS church has not been proven false. The Book of Mormon has not been proven a fraud. And no one to my mind has come up with a silver bullet to explain the book away or impunge the testimony of the witnesses. Now one can blackguard Joseph Smith's character as a man and human being. And one can come up with all sorts of assumptions...but the root is still the same: the church has not been proven false.

[_why me]

Stomp the floor and pull your hair Harmony, it will change absolutely and utterly nothing.

This isn't about me, Droop. This is about the church... changing.

Heck, just the changes in my lifetime (ie, the last 56 years) are many...

1. the lifting of the priesthood ban
2. women can say prayers in Sacrament Meeting now.
3. two piece garments, knee length, cap and short sleeves
4. closing the books
5. changing the meeting schedule
6. changes in the temple endowment
7. changing the status of Native Americans/Lamanites
8. settling instead of fighting lawsuits
9. firing all the janitors and forcing the members to clean the buildings and temples
10. moving from the concept of gathering in Zion/Utah to Zion being wherever the member lives :

Some doctrinal, some policies, all changes, all because of pressure from society, the members, or the bank balance.

And your point is?????

[_why me]

And Droop? Let's see your source for your claim of "the fastest growing church". Because I think you're wrong.

The action starts about 30 seconds into the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Mjf04Fs ... re=related

[_Kevin Graham]

But I still have to question the reason behind the critics actions. Now of course, if conclusive proof is provided that the LDS church is false, well that is one thing...but so far that hasn't happened.

Yes it has.

And to prove it, the Church has to keep invgestigators ignorant of the things that would dissuade them from baptism. The only people who think it hasn't been proved are those who are already neck-deep in the Church. They've inested too much of their time, family, and finances into the social system that it leads to confirmation bias to kick in whenever that proof is shown to them.

We all know that if investigators were given a fair and balanced run-down on what the Church expects of us, the future of the Church would be bleak. When I say fair and balanced, I mean a presentation not predesigned by the Church. As it is, investigators are ignorant of so many things that eventually create spiritual discontent in their lives. The Church's answer to this is to keep them ignorant as long as possible so their attachment to the social system will eventually outweigh their appeal to reason.

[_John Larsen]

But I still have to question the reason behind the critics actions. Now of course, if conclusive proof is provided that the LDS church is false, well that is one thing...but so far that hasn't happened.

Yes it has.

And to prove it, the Church has to keep invgestigators ignorant of the things that would dissuade them from baptism. The only people who think it hasn't been proved are those who are already neck-deep in the Church. They've inested too much of their time, family, and finances into the social system that it leads to confirmation bias to kick in whenever that proof is shown to them.

We all know that if investigators were given a fair and balanced run-down on what the Church expects of us, the future of the Church would be bleak. When I say fair and balanced, I mean a presentation not predesigned by the Church. As it is, investigators are ignorant of so many things that eventually create spiritual discontent in their lives. The Church's answer to this is to keep them ignorant as long as possible so their attachment to the social system will eventually outweigh their appeal to reason.

I think you are absolutely right. By any reasonable standard, the Church is proven true. The only way around this is to create a supernatural riff in the way humans understand and perceived reality. But first you have to get the people to buy into your metaphysical mumbo jumbo that only supports Mormonism. The only way to prove Mormonism is by already accepting it is true and any contra evidence will "all work out in the end".

[_JohnStuartMill]

You consider being thrown out of Nauvoo in the middle of the winter "prevailing"? You consider being forced to change a fundamental part of the church "prevailing"? You consider caving in on blacks and the priesthood "prevailing"?

The church we have today is nothing like the original church, simply because they did not prevail. They caved in over and over, changing repeatedly in order to survive. Only the name remains the same.

Desperate and sad intellectual and spiritual deterioration.

Harmony is no longer a wolf in sheep's clothing, but simply a slavering wolf howling for the destruction of anything and everything that smacks of righteousness, goodness, or of the Spirit.

I assume you're talking about the things harmony mentioned in her post? You believe that the denial to racial minorities of full membership in the Church "smacks of righteousness, goodness, or the Spirit"?

Are you HIGH?