The foundation of modern christianity

[Pax]

Originally posted by Verto
Ah yes, the racist LDS. Persecuted in Missouri because it was feared a LDS majority would rid the state of slavery. The LDS church has neither practiced nor preached anything that was not first done so by the Lord to the Israelites.

And polygamy is not condemned. It is no longer practiced, and thus those who continue to do so are condemned, but the concept/principle of it is not something rejected by the church.

This is my point. It would have been very easy for a political leader(Constantine, King James or even King David) to change the wording of the bible to fit there needs. In fact a corruption of the bible helps explain its many contradictions.

Now take your Mr. Smith. Any information that said that slavery was okay would have either come from the bible or the history of the victors. If we are all god's people it does not make sense that god would have some of his people subjugated by others. If there is only one god then he probably does not want his creations to bow before eachother but only to him. So somewhere in the bible it condones slavery and Joseph Smith went with that or somewhere in some history text it said the isrealites practiced slavery and J. Smith saw that it was good. It's not. It's and evil dehumanizing practice. I cannot believe that god would condone it at any point in time in any shape or form. SO WHATEVER THE PROPHETS SAY THAT SAYS IT'S OKAY TO SUBJUGATE A PERSON OR GROUP OF PEOPLE IS A PRIME CLUE FOR A CORRUPT ORGANIZATION WITH CORRUPT PRINCIPLES

[Pax]

As far as marriage. I don't see why any man would want to marry more than one woman. How much of a headache do you need!!

[Dr Strangelove]

To be fair what Verto was saying is that the LDS never condoned slavery. Since the Mormon church originated in the North that's probably an accurate statement.

That does not however excuse the Mormon doctrine in the earlier part of the 20th century (pre-1970s?) that black people were inferior to whites, or creations of Satan.

I don't recall any Catholics here accusing me of apostacy. Like I said, they're more likely to lump all Protestants into one basket with the more radical fundamentalists, and label us all a bunch of ignorant bigots.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
That does not however excuse the Mormon doctrine in the earlier part of the 20th century (pre-1970s?) that black people were inferior to whites, or creations of Satan.

Black people are not creations of Satan. Brigham Young said, "all spirits are pure that came from the presence of God." The mark of darker skin was placed upon the descendants of Cain, and other people throughout the years. However, their darker skin was not their curse, it was simply a way in which they could be distinguished.

Joseph Smith baptized several blacks, and conferred the priesthood on at least one that I know of, who later became a member of the Quorum of the Seventy. There was some debate about the restrictions placed on blacks with regard to the priesthood, whether the time had come for them to be allowed the priesthood, whether Joseph Smith intended for them to have it. This was not something that had never 'popped up' before the 70s. It had been going on from the late 1800s. The Church had continued to state blacks should have full equality under the law, and would be allowed into the celestial kingdom(which is the highest degree of glory the LDS believe one can reach). Several committees, prophets, apostles and other Church leaders expressed a desire for the blacks to be granted the priesthood, and it was finally allowed in 1978, at which time the Lord permitted it.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Verto


There was some debate about the restrictions placed on blacks with regard to the priesthood, whether the time had come for them to be allowed the priesthood, whether Joseph Smith intended for them to have it.

Meaning that other than those whom Joeseph Smith ordained in the early 19th century blacks were barred from the LDS priesthood until 1978.

[Verto]

Yes.

[Az]

Interesting side debate about whether a sinful thought constitutes a sin. I think that in Judaism, most thoughts do not, however jealousy does.

[Pax]

Originally posted by Verto


Black people are not creations of Satan. Brigham Young said, "all spirits are pure that came from the presence of God." The mark of darker skin was placed upon the descendants of Cain, and other people throughout the years. However, their darker skin was not their curse, it was simply a way in which they could be distinguished.

Joseph Smith baptized several blacks, and conferred the priesthood on at least one that I know of, who later became a member of the Quorum of the Seventy. There was some debate about the restrictions placed on blacks with regard to the priesthood, whether the time had come for them to be allowed the priesthood, whether Joseph Smith intended for them to have it. This was not something that had never 'popped up' before the 70s. It had been going on from the late 1800s. The Church had continued to state blacks should have full equality under the law, and would be allowed into the celestial kingdom(which is the highest degree of glory the LDS believe one can reach). Several committees, prophets, apostles and other Church leaders expressed a desire for the blacks to be granted the priesthood, and it was finally allowed in 1978, at which time the Lord permitted it.

Your statements are very nuanced. The foundation of your argument is apparently Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.

I am questioning the legitimacy of any and all christian sects that originated on after during before christ on the basis that anything in the bible is probably corrupt and for each day of existence. That is to say each moment from when the original words were spoken the possibility of corruption and contamination increased exponentially. There are questions about statements that were written 30 minutes ago for things that were witnessed an hour ago.

As far as the Mormons, I don't know very much about them except for the things I picked up from Mormon Sci-Fi authors. This is probably not the best reference point. I can say however, that you have not argued that Joseph Smith was oblivious to christianity prior to forming the LDS. You have also stated that he has had knowledge of the bible and has attended a christian church prior to forming the LDS. The only way I could believe that he formed the LDS without any influence from the Catholic church is if he was totally ignorant of christianity and one day he came out of the desert with holy scrolls. At this point it sounds like he adapted the already tainted Catholic originated bible.

In other words you can put a BMW body on a Hyundau but underneath it's still a Hyundai.

[Verto]

The point I was trying to get across was that the LDS church is not a reformed version, or extension of the Catholic or Protestant churches.

[Pax]

Can you probe that the LDS has no link to Christianity. My point is that it still looks like it was based on RC to me. Especially the concept of saints.

[Verto]

Not at all. To us, Saints is a term for any follower or disciple of Christ.

[Verto]

And yes we have links to the Catholic church, through our shared Christian beliefs.

[Aeson]

Pax,

Your argument just doesn't work. (I actually agree with the result you get, just not how you go about getting there.)

Lets call original Christianity C, Christianity with Pagan influence (or just attrition through time) C(P), 'modern' (at the time of any reformation or reconstitution) RC Christianity C(M), and use C(X) to denote a nebulous version of Christianity.

You say C existed at one point. So it's a given.
You say C became C(P). This is arguable, but for berevity we'll just assume it as another given.
Then you say C(M) must be C(P). This is where it just falls apart.

The factors involved in C are obviously not static, as C became C(P). So the factors in C(P) are also not static, and could change to C(X). Why then couldn't C(X) = C? Why couldn't C(X) be based on C instead of C(M) as claimed in Mormonism, or be based on a changed version of C(M) that returns it to C as claimed by reformation?

It just makes no sense to assume that C->C(P)->C(M)->C(X) is the only way C(X) could exist, even if the first two step are givens. This is because C(P) is a type of C(X), so saying C(X) must be derived from C(P) makes C(P) impossible to be derived. C existed without being derived from C(P) or C(M) and so it obviously is possible that C(X) can be derived without being based on C(P) or C(M). C became something else, and so C(P) could become something else as well, even reverting to C.

You need to show how C(M) is based off of C(P), and how various versions of C(X) are then based off C(M). Just saying there was contact between C(X) and C(M) does not mean that C(M) transfered it's properties of C(P) to C(X). C(X) could very well have only taken properties of C(M) that conformed to their original states in C, or could have derived properties of C without going through C(M) at all.

[Pax]

It is my firm belief that the scriptures in the bible have been altered many times. I don't understand how you could really argue the obvious.

The two most obvious people to corrupt the bible in modern times have been King james and Emperor Constantine. Let's just focus on Emperor Constantine. Instead of math let's try evidence.

A= Orignal words/Inspirations of god
A is a totally uncalculateble variable

B = Available words of God at Jesus Death including Jesus words.
B is a variable that is lost.

C = First Council of Nicea
C represents a point in which Emperor Constantine could potentially exercise extreme influence on the Cult of Christianity.

D = Is the point when Emperor Constantine sponsored the creation of the bible itself.

We have just established opportunity.
His decision to convert to christianity at a crucial point in his career shows that he is more than willing to lie to suit his own goals.

When measuring the Bible's biggest hero vs the bible's creator we have a contradiction in character and occupation. Jesus Christ was a revolutionary. He challenged the powers of the day. He would not have condoned the actions Constantine in his name. So it is quite mysterious that the Emperor is a follower of the anti establishment Jesus. Not only that but it's right there in the bible where Jesus is giving the Emepror the ultimate product endorsement. Give unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's. Almost as if Jesus and the Romans had entered into a very lucrative contract. Christianity by the Roman Empire. Detective would question whether or not Jesus given his character could have said such a thing. I know that the context has been explained to the point where it's okay that he said it. But it's not okay, Jesus as the sun of god would have been more savvy than to allow his words to be twisted so easily. I believe the conclusion is foul play.

Like I stated previously there are many points before and after Constantine when the bible scriptures could have been tampered with. That is just one of the more obvious times.

Any water from a poisoned well is poison.

[Jon Miller]

umm, why do you keep going on about constantine

the Bible books, as we know them, were mostly agreed upon by Constantine

you are talking BS

JOn Miller