DiscussMormonism.com

Good point, Darth J.

Kishkumen wrote:

Philo Sofee wrote:Kish,
You are as adroit as ever, and I enjoy your ideas. However, there is just one thing you lack here. The fact (just ask him!) that the brethren ARE scripture. So, the living scripture trumps the dead stuff, yes? I have seen this justification by apologists already, and just wish to inform you of how out of date your concern here is. The Lord is at the helm, the church has never been stronger. All is well, Zion is on the way, let us partake of the fruit of bigotr.....er life, yeah, the fruit of life, and enjoy the spirit dwelling within our and the brethren's bigote.....er loving breasts, yes, enjoy the spirit in their loving breasts.....

My dear Philo Sofee, how much I appreciate you coming to this humble thread to engage with me on this issue. Unfortunately for the Corpologetic position--because I deny them any portion of the name Mormon, which means "more good"--scripture is the measuring stick against which any teaching or policy must be measured. Since this policy it out of harmony with Holy Writ and contradicts the very words of Jesus Christ the Savior Himself, the Corporation has no claim to be the Church of Jesus Christ. Their priesthood authority has been terminated.

Oh beloved Kish of Kishes...... don't you see your problematic approach here? You are being logical, rational. Oh my brother, that thou wouldst have faith nigh unto salvation. Logic mingled with the scriptures of men will not work. Only faith like unto Enoch, Methuselah, and Melchizedek, and maybe Abraham, will accord one the celestial heights of greatness, glory, and power. Remember Brigham's stellar observation, GLORY! GLORY! GLORY! That is what we are all after. Forget that a few toes get stepped upon. It's not a loss to the Lord who can make children of Abraham from rocks were he to wish to do so. Nay the Lord is good and great and wishes all (except those weirdos the church has identified) unto his fold. Remember ye not Nephi's admonition? Me either, but it was vital for us to grasp and fathom and rejoice in the choices, bigoted or not, of the Lord, who is the Creator of all. Can he not have a say of whom he will save or not? Nay, I say unto thee, though I walk through the valley of the church of death I shall fear no policy, for mine is the love of all, like unto God, yes? And thus we see the failure of the logical approach. If one will not listen to one that has been sent, how will one listen though a deadbeat be raised from the dust? See? You use your brain too much. Oh that thou wouldst be like unto Alma, or Heleman, or Laman, and stop insisting on using your God given brains which are meant to evolve into mush thereunto. The Lord desires not a good heart and mind, the Lord desires one to liken oneself unto a snail, the foremost majestic of the Lord's creations, and slither into the kingdom on one's humble belly, not slog through logic to arrive and derive the truth for oneself. Learn this one lesson, and thou shalt have the fruits of gambling in Las Vegas and winning, though by cheating or honesty, it is all the same unto the Lord.

Jersey Girl wrote:

sock puppet wrote:Kish,

For me, JSJr apostatized when he claimed that he was told by Jehovah that none of the churches of 1820 were 'true' or 'correct'.

Matthew 18:20 "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I [Jesus] in the midst of them."

All Christian gatherings have Jesus. For JSJr to have proclaimed otherwise was his apostasy from Jesus' own proclamation.

Jesus obviously does not feel constrained to go through the LDS bottleneck of the FP/12.

sock, I've never seen anyone raise that issue. That was awesome thinking on your part.

I think that Sock Puppet is quite correct. He stated the fundamental problem, a gangrenous wound. This is the device which inflicts fear into all children raised in the church. It is the idea which creates an emotional demand to believe or else.

It would be different if the church was founded on the idea the traditional Christianity needed renewal and rethinking, that there is too much narrow selfishness inbred into it. I think much of the better qualities in Mormon culture come out of this view.

What eloquence! Philo, you know your Corporation of the First Presidency of the Post-LDS Church. Yes, my goose is cooked, if my goose is their goose, in which case it is either way cooked. But, my goose is not their goose. Therefore, it is not cast into the fire. Seek ye not to reason with cooked geese, whose hearts are truly carbonized and brains are vaporized, for this is the part of the fool.

Lest ye labor in vain upon a reasoning empty, consider that I do not seek to convince this stiff-necked generation. Whether they reason or not, it is no matter. For I have offered my witness and wiped my garments clean of their blood.

Kishkumen wrote:I post this for those who may be lurking and wondering why I have started to discuss the new policy preventing the children of gay parents who are married to their gay partner or cohabiting with a gay partner from getting baptized. Consider this scripture:

Matt. 19:14 wrote:But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

With this new policy, the LDS Church is breaking a commandment spoken by Jesus Christ during his mortal ministry: "Suffer the little children, and forbid them not, to come into me."

Then this:

D&C 68:25-27 wrote:25 And again, inasmuch as parents have children in Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized, that teach them not to understand the doctrine of repentance, faith in Christ the Son of the living God, and of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands, when eight years old, the sin be upon the heads of the parents.

26 For this shall be a law unto the inhabitants of Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized.

27 And their children shall be baptized for the remission of their sins when eight years old, and receive the laying on of the hands.

Here the divine commandment is for children to be baptized for the remission of their sins when eight years old. There is no condition placed on this baptism. The scripture never says, "unless that child's parents are sinning in "x" way." This is very clear.

And whether it applies specifically, the larger principle of this canonized article of faith is something I think does apply.

Articles of Faith, 1:2 wrote:2 We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.

By denying baptism children who are eligible for it, according to canonized divine revelation, at the age of 8, and by penalizing children eligible for baptism because of the sin of their parents, the LDS Church has entered into apostasy.

Reverend, it could be argued that God creates variations on humanity to test our compassion. If so, this church has failed. Who will be cut out of the flock and driven off next? And who does this help but the wolves?

I don't know, Brother Mak. These are sad days.

The Rev wrote:the LDS Church has entered into apostasy.

Thank you Reverend, I will put a call in to update our official list of apostate sects now.

Gadianton wrote:

The Rev wrote:the LDS Church has entered into apostasy.

Thank you Reverend, I will put a call in to update our official list of apostate sects now.

Thank you, Dean Robbers. It is important to recognize this for a number of reasons.

The Rev wrote:the LDS Church has entered into apostasy.

Well, Dear Reverend, you have gone and done it now (and none too soon, by the way).

You are no doubt waiting in rapt anticipation to see what our friend DCP has to say about you this time.