Saturday, March 31, 2007

Faith in God

I am pretty sure we all agree on this one- the evidence of a Higher Power. (Except maybe a few.)

Durring the times of trial and suffering, when you see only one set of footprints, it was then that I carried you. ~
Footprints in the Sand

Master, the Tempest is Raging~ Hymn

These are a few things that come to mind for me. Any thoughts or expierences that anyone has on this subject would be welcome here. I also thought it would be nice, because Easter is right around the corner.


1 – 200 of 213   Newer›   Newest»
TBM said...

I'm not sure this is a forum that I'd want to share those kinds of experiences. They're very special to me, and other posters would take great glee trashing them. "Cast not your pearls before swine, lest they trample them underfoot and turn again to rend you," as Christ put it.

Anonymous said...

I have always felt comforted after reading Footprints in the Sand. Master the Tempest is Raging has always been a personal favorite...I miss singing it as a group.


Anonymous said...

Matthew 16 says,
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

The same should go for true prophets and hallmark religious leaders of any denomination. (including atheist tongue in cheek )

bbgae said...

You are right, of course. I wasn't asking for you to if you don't feel comfortable. And, I didn't start this because I wanted to debate the existance of God. Evidence is too strong a word. I really started this thread so I could tell why I cannot deny a 'Higher Power', reguardless of my reservations.

I tried to edit the title post, but it hasn't popped up yet. Let's see if it works. Please forgive me if it posts twice, instead. :)

There were two instance when my prayers were answered with such clarity and switfness, that no matter how shattered my faith was, I COULD NOT deny the evidenc of a 'Higher Power'.
It is these two expierences alone that are responsible for my being agnostic instaed of atheist.

bbgae said...

also- I LOVE the little cream filled chocolate easter egg candies..... :)

Anonymous said...

2:11 Wherefore remember, that once ye, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called Circumcision, in the flesh, made by hands;

2:12 that ye were at that time separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of the promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye that once were far off are made nigh in the blood of Christ.

2:14 For he is our peace, who made both one, and brake down the middle wall of partition,

2:15 having abolished in the flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; that he might create in himself of the two one new man, so making peace;

2:16 and might reconcile them both in one body unto God through the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

2:17 and he came and preached peace to you that were far off, and peace to them that were nigh:

2:18 for through him we both have our access in one Spirit unto the Father.

2:19 So then ye are no more strangers and sojourners, but ye are fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God,

2:20 being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone;

2:21 in whom each several building, fitly framed together, groweth into a holy temple in the Lord;

2:22 in whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of God in the Spirit.

Thank you God for Jesus, the Cross, His Blood and His Resurrection and Your Grace.

bbgae said...

That is beautiful. : )

Anonymous said...

To anonymous,

Matthew Ch 16 verse 27.



1st Corinithians Ch 6 verse 9.
No ye not that the unrighteous cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.

How then do these saying reconcile with you cross of Jesus, and your blood of Jesus, and his Grace.

And if you 'worship' Jesus, (or his blood or death) how then do you reconcile that doctrrine Matthew Ch 19 v 16-17, where in jesus admonishes a man that he is not good, but God alone.

bro B

Anonymous said...

The truth will always have converts and apostates. "When the student is ready, the teacher will appear."

Which if those are you?

ATAR_i said...

We will be held accountable for our life (works), BUT the caveat here - it's not the works that SAVE us - it's GRACE.

So yes, God wants us to be saved by his grace, and then lovingly wants us to change, and live according to his purposes. Even though we are saved, we STRIVE to live a life worthy of the calling we have received.

By Christs death are we made righteous, not by our works. Our works cannot save us, for despite our best efforts, they are nothing, and cannot wipe out the sin. ONLY the living sacrifice of Jesus, Gods only begotten son, can do that.

I hope that explains the theology a little bit there.

(this is basic Judeo Christian theology - I'm not certain if it's the same for LDS)

fttc said...

Atar- I have debated this a little in the past on this blog. One statement you made poses a question in my mind.

You said "we STRIVE to live a life worthy of the calling we have received". What if we do not do this? Are we still saved? If we are why should we strive to do so when it is much easier to just follow our carnal nature and only live for ourselves? If we can be saved when we cheat our neighbor and this cheating allows us to live a carefree life why would we not do this? Why would the teachings of Christ mean anything to us if we are saved by simply saying we accept Jesus into our life?

Anonymous said...

Saved? Meaning what exactly?

Part of the LDS belief is that there are degrees of glory; earned rewards that go along with the saving grace. Hence the three wives theory of the FLDS (although most minds have been abused in relation to it)

fttc said...

Anon 1:03

???? How do you get from three glories to three wives? I grew up with those in the FLDS and you'll have to enlighten me on this one.

Anonymous said...

People who imagine their lies to be true hate apostates because they whistleblow. As an FLDS "apostate", I am continually appalled at the lies we have spread about rival groups; they just won't quit surfacing.

ATAR_i said...

FTTC - That's a great question.

As theology goes, when you accept Christ as your Lord and savior, and are baptized in water, old things are passed away, and you are a new creature.

If you truly have changed, then you should WANT to please the Lord. I'm certain God has the ability to see into the heart of Man and Know wether his heart truly was given over to God, OR if was just a rote prayer without any true repentence and rebirth.

So, while technically I don't believe works save you - I beleive they show evidence of a heart changed by Gods mercy.

I hope that makes sense.

Great question.

Anonymous said...

Actually it is a dumb question by someone pretending not to understand who in fact knew perfectly well that:

The correlation is that the doctrine (although of questionable understanding and origin) is that there are requirements (works) to attain the higher degrees of glory.

Still the greater question is what is the (your) meaning of saved.

But I confess, I know that you can't answer that question knowledgeably.

Anonymous said...

bro B
I am confused by your questions and scriptures.

I agree Jesus did say.No one is good but God. But I believe Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit.

Matthew Ch 16 verse 27.

Yes, we will be accountable for our works. Jesus blood covers my sins, so my works, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit will bear good fruit.

My works are as dirty rags without the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

2:1 And you did he make alive, when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins,
2:2 wherein ye once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the powers of the air, of the spirit that now worketh in the sons of disobedience;
2:3 among whom we also all once lived in the lust of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest:

2:4 but God, being rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,

2:5 even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace have ye been saved),

2:6 and raised us up with him, and made us to sit with him in the heavenly places, in Christ Jesus:

2:7 that in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus:

2:8 for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

2:9 not of works, that no man should glory.

Paul wrote this to the Church at Ephesus.

It is still true today. Nothing has changed.

In closing Paul said
4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as also ye were called in one hope of your calling;
4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 4:6 one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all. 4:7 But unto each one of us was the grace given according to the measure of the gift of Christ.

fttc said...


You mentioned baptism. In your belief is this a necessary ordinance to being saved?

Anonymous said...

If you believe in Jesus, believe in HIS teachings, and HIS words and HIS spirit, and the example of HIS life.

And go do them.

bro B

ATAR_i said...

4:33 - I can answer the question knowledgably, solely according to Biblicsl Theology. I have no erudition in the BOM D&C or any Mormon scriptures - and could not answer it according to FLDS or LDS theology.

FTTC - water baptism is the physical act, and, as Jesus said 'repent and be baptized'. Baptism was usually followed shortly after a person confessed his sins and asked Jesus into his heart.

However, is it necessary? No, would be the extremely simple answer. As it states in the Bible, the criminal on the cross next to Jesus would see him in 'glory' - and there was no opportunity for his baptism.

So yes, I believe that you can get to heaven without baptism, but I wouldn't want to test my faith, because again - I think God looks on the heart, and sees a mans soul. And God doesn't like to be tested.

Anonymous said...

Life is about the challenges we face every day and how we deal with them. Jesus said, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect." He also said, "Come follow me." To follow Him would mean that we should use the brain God gave us to decide for ourselves how to live righteously and successfully.

We are told that God loves us and we know that is true, but it is up to us to qualify ourselves for His eternal presence.

Jesus came the first time to atone for our sins. When He returns He will come to reward every man according to his works. (Matt. 16:27)


fttc said...


Thanks for the answers. I am learning more about your theology and I find it fascinating to a point. I can see where some of our differences lie. It is as difficult I think for me to see the reasoning behind your views as it is for you to see mine from the LDS/Joseph Smith veiwpoint. That we can discuss it without name calling and damning each other is terrific.

I could tell you I'm ready to convert as it is still today. :)

Anonymous said...

10:1 For the law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things, can never with the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually, make perfect them that draw nigh. 10:2 Else would they not have ceased to be offered? because the worshippers, having been once cleansed, would have had no more consciousness of sins. 10:3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance made of sins year by year. 10:4 For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins.
10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, But a body didst thou prepare for me;
10:6 In whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hadst no pleasure:
10:7 Then said I, Lo, I am come (In the roll of the book it is written of me)
To do thy will, O God.

10:8 Saying above, Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein (the which are offered according to the law), 10:9 then hath he said, Lo, I am come to do thy will. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10:10 By which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 10:11 And every priest indeed standeth day by day ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, the which can never take away sins: 10:12 but he, when he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 10:13 henceforth expecting till his enemies be made the footstool of his feet. 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. 10:15 And the Holy Spirit also beareth witness to us; for after he hath said,

10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them After those days, saith the Lord: I will put my laws on their heart,
And upon their mind also will I write them; then saith he,

10:17 And their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holy place by the blood of Jesus, 10:20 by the way which he dedicated for us, a new and living way, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
10:21 and having a great priest over the house of God;
10:22 let us draw near with a true heart in fulness of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience: and having our body washed with pure water,
10:23 let us hold fast the confession of our hope that it waver not; for he is faithful that promised:
10:24 and let us consider one another to provoke unto love and good works;
10:25 not forsaking our own assembling together, as the custom of some is, but exhorting one another; and so much the more, as ye see the day drawing nigh.

bbgae said...

This is one of my favorite passages:

Ask, and ye shall recieve; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.

I have come to realize the thing I want most, is forgiveness. Both from God, and my family, and friends. I have forgiven myself, and I think God forgives me, but I've felt sooo guilty for leaving and hurting my family and the people I was close to.

And I am going to share something so awesome with you guys. Something happened between me and my family yesterday.

I am going to have perma-grin for a few weeks. :D :D :D

Anonymous said...

Matthew Ch 16 verse 27.


Love your insight Bro. B.


Anonymous said...

1 Peter

1:10 Concerning which salvation the prophets sought and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:

1:11 searching what time or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did point unto, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glories that should follow them.

1:12 To whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto you, did they minister these things, which now have been announced unto you through them that preached the gospel unto you by the Holy Spirit sent forth from heaven; which things angel desire to look into.

1:13 Wherefore girding up the loins of your mind, be sober and set your hope perfectly on the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ; 1:14 as children of obedience, not fashioning yourselves according to your former lusts in the time of your ignorance:

1:15 but like as he who called you is holy, be ye yourselves also holy in all manner of living;
1:16 because it is written, Ye shall be holy; for I am holy.

1:17 And if ye call on him as Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to each man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning in fear:

1:18 knowing that ye were redeemed, not with corruptible things, with silver or gold, from your vain manner of life handed down from your fathers;

1:19 but with precious blood, as of a lamb without spot, even the blood of Christ:

1:20 who was foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world, but was manifested at the end of times for your sake,

1:21 who through him are believers in God, that raised him from the dead, and gave him glory; so that your faith and hope might be in God.

1:22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in your obedience to the truth unto unfeigned love of the brethren, love one another from the heart fervently:

1:23 having been begotten again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, through the word of God, which liveth and abideth.

1:24 For, All flesh is as grass, And all the glory thereof as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower falleth:

1:25 But the word of the Lord abideth for ever. And this is the word of good tidings which was preached unto you.

Anonymous said...

Original post:

'These are a few things that come to mind for me. Any thoughts or experiences that anyone has on this subject would be welcome here. I also thought it would be nice, because Easter is right around the corner.'

My reply:

That footprints on the sand post is written by a young Christian mind. It does not hold true for the whole walk of Faith.
There will be times when we will also feel, 'Father why hast though forsaken me.'
That is, if we are truly having our souls cleansed from all sin and becomeing Christlike in our own selves.

One must be careful that we dont mix up the desire for a mushy love, with the unchangeable requirments of eternal law, which God himself is also bound by.

Those who teach otherwise are not yet qualified to represent the two edged sword of Godliness.

Do not put your trust in them that speak soft words, that say all is well in Zion, that say, believe and you are saved. But obey the commandments, and keep the Sabbath, pray always, that you may grow in the spirit of God, and so have an entry abundantly ministered unto you into the kingdom of the Father.

Anonymous said...

1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world knew him not.

1:11 He came unto his own, and they that were his own received him not.

1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name:

1:13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.

1:15 John beareth witness of him, and crieth, saying, This was he of whom I said, He that cometh after me is become before me: for he was before me.

1:16 For of his fulness we all received, and grace for grace.

1:17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him

3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.

3:17 For God sent not the Son into the world to judge the world; but that the world should be saved through him.

3:18 He that believeth on him is not judged: he that believeth not hath been judged already, because he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God.

3:19 And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil.

3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, lest his works should be reproved.

3:21 But he that doeth the truth cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, that they have been wrought in God.

Anonymous said...

bb email me
I'm dying to here the news
go to my profile for my emai

Anonymous said...

So, bb, tell us! I wanna know the good news!

bbgae said...

I looked in your profile, and I can't find it. Could you e-mail me, and I will reply?

10:20- you can e-mail me too, if you'd like, and I will tell you then.

I don't want to get them into trouble- they didn't do anything they shouldn't. But I won't talk about it here, for their sakes. :)

ATAR_i said...


but I'll email you too.

Anonymous said...

Are church services in Centennial Park open to the public? Do you know when/where they are or who to contact about attending one?

Anonymous said...

The statement of Johns below intends that believing in Jesus means obeying the GOSPEL Jesus taught, verses waht the sanhedrin and pagans were teaching at the time.

'3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.'

Its about obedience to a precise set of GOSPEL standards and principles, not simply a professed belief.

Even the devils profess a belief.

bro B

Anonymous said...

Hey Bro. B

John 1.12 But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name (Jesus)

Luke 23:39 And one of the malefactors that were hanged railed on him, saying, Art not thou the Christ? save thyself and us.
23:40 But the other answered, and rebuking him said, Dost thou not even fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?
23:41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.
23:42 And he said, Jesus, remember me when thou comest in thy kingdom.
23:43 And he said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise.

The thief on the cross believed on Jesus and was saved. He did not have time for "precise set of GOSPEL".

Folks it is simple. A professed belief in Jesus, His Blood, His Resurrection, God's Grace.

ATAR_i said...

Bro B.

A well made point, but emphasis cannot be placed solely on a 'precise set of Gospel standards'. YES - we are told to live our lives according to His standards BECAUSE we are saved by grace.

The GRACE saves us, the LIFE is the outward expression of a heart changed by God.

Anonymous said...

That's the whole point 11:15, now we have come full circle.

You have to do more than just profess it or you'll end up being one of those to whom He says: "I never knew you."

bbgae said...

You cannot know with any ammount of certainty who God will say He knows, and who He will say he does not know, because you are not Him.

It seems to me, both sides say God's Grace is important, and following God's rules are also important. Who can say which is the MOST important? Why does it matter?

Anonymous said...

Look up hypocrite in the dictionary. That might take some of the confusion out of it for you.

Anonymous said...

anonymous and atari,

you are simply repeating what others have told you these scriptures mean.

You most certainly believe what you are saying, but I am different to you, in that while I too was taught what you have been taught, I saw that I did not know, but olny believed, and being of pure and sincere heart and mind I went not to man, but to God, every week while sitting in Christian Churches, and I tell you for free what it took the spirit 4 years to teach me.


bro B

Anonymous said...

So bro B atari and I have to believe what you tell us.

I believe in scriptures and the Holy Spirt that Jesus gave me when I accepted his Free Gift of Salvation.

Yes, our works and words will be judged for our reward in heaven.

God forgives and forgets if I am sealed by Jesus Blood.

Will I keep sinning, yes as long as I am in this mortal body. Should I willfully sin no, Jesus gave us the Comforter, His Spirit to guide us.

Jesus said..
Luke 6:27 But I say unto you that hear, Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you,

6:28 bless them that curse you, pray for them that despitefully use you.

6:29 To him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and from him that taketh away thy cloak withhold not thy coat also.

6:30 Give to every one that asketh thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. 6:31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

6:32 And if ye love them that love you, what thank have ye? for even sinners love those that love them.

6:33 And if ye do good to them that do good to you, what thank have ye? for even sinners do the same.

6:34 And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? even sinners lend to sinners, to receive again as much.

6:35 But love your enemies, and do them good, and lend, never despairing;

*****and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be sons of the Most High: for he is kind toward the unthankful and evil.*******

Anonymous said...

No, you should not believe what I tell you because I tell you and because I testify in any manner of piety etc.

You should be founded upon the confirming spirit which copme to men and women from above to them personally, (as was Peter)

If someone tells you a think totally opposed to what you presently believe (and I have) then you have a choice and decission to make.

You may disregard it out of hand, you may consider it in a shallow way, you may consider it over a period of time. I have been rather abrupt and breif, mainly to avoid wating my energy and time, so you could ask me more if you were interested other than to simply argue.

Regardless, you should not believe unless you really find out differently to what you currantly believe.

Blind obedience is for young children, not accountable adults, and blind belief, like blind unbelief, will ere in time, only blind belief contains an element of faith, but also often self righteousness.

You dont get extra points with God for believing in a true principle over a false principle.

Its what you do with true principles that instills a change for the better within you.

bro B

bbgae said...

That was a good post, Brother B.

Anonymous said...

"By Christs death are we made righteous, not by our works. Our works cannot save us, for despite our best efforts, they are nothing, and cannot wipe out the sin. ONLY the living sacrifice of Jesus, Gods only begotten son, can do that."

...what a load of crap

such a petty ignorant god he must be, isn't any wonder why satan makes friends so easily

keep sweet eldorado,

Anonymous said...

Your welcome bb,

Dear stg,

'what a load of ....'

not an incorrect description of the false doctines left over from the middle ages catholic corporation and its franchised fake sale of 'salvation.'

However, the priesthood would not use that term, and when we lower our conversations in correction of falsehoods, we dont encourage the spirit of God to bear witness of the truths we speak.

Thoug I understand the frustration and the need to explain ones considerable distain.

bro B

Anonymous said...

well bro b

What do I have to do or say to gain God's favor and salvation?

Be a member of the priesthood?

ATAR_i said...

I think we have discovered a difference in theology - again.

What I believe I hear STG and Bro B saying is that your life, your works, are the prime determiner of where you reside in the afterlife.

What an anon and I believe is that works, and even a well lived life cannot save you, only Gods Grace can. However, A life changed by God, would be reflected in the words, deeds and acts of an individual.

Am I close?

the_lerker said...

I'm pretty sure no one actually knows how it all works, well, for the simple fact that no one has ever died, and then lived to tell about it.

Oh, and by the way, no book was ever written by gods own hand, so that's about as much stock as I put in any of what you guys are saying.

I'll decide what save's me.
You decide what save's you.

Anonymous said...

Dear lerker,

not only do I know, but I also know that I know.

if you decide what saves you, then you shall reap according to your present wisdom.

But if you surrender your will to God, that he may lead in your life, even though you do not know were that may be, then you shall reap according to a wisdom greater than your own.

Personal and intentional obedience as best YOU CAN to the basic Ten Commandments as given of God to Moses (exodus 20v2-17)is a good safe start for any man or woman who wishes to surrender their life to God.

Have you read these ever? Do they figure prominatly in your consciousness and your weekly practices? Do you keep them in remembrance?

They are the foundation for increasing ones conscience. (and for obtaining increasing degrees of the spirit of God)

bro B

Anonymous said...

To 7.48 annon

No, you do not have to be a member of the 'Preisthood' to gain Gods favor or salvation.

Because the word preisthood is simply the description I use to describe a man working to achieve Godliness.

What, think you that there is a box of 'preisthood' that can be dispensed from God or heaven and 'given' to someone.

No, the mormon and FDLS presithood is very often misunderstood, and considered that it can be bestowed, whereas any such bestowel is more often than not a combination of acceptance of that persons sincerity and faithfulness to a point of minimum standards and an oppotunity to walk futher to Godliness.

The real 'preisthood' of God, the actual taking on of all Godliness, is a lifes walk, not something obtained in an instant.

The better question brother, is what do you have to do to obtain your own peace of mind with God?

bro B

Anonymous said...

To Lerker:

You're right. You can decide who saves you. Then you can spend eternity with the decision you made.

As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

bbgae said...

I completely agree with your post.

I also agree with Atar: we found another difference in theology.

Bro. B-
You can't KNOW. You can BELIEVE you know, but 100% truth in this matter is impossible, because as someone stated, no one has died and then come back to tell us how it is.

What does it matter which theolog we think is correct? It only matters to ourselves, becasuse we are the makers of our own destiny. Go ahead, think you are right. Know you are right. Does it REALLY matter if anyone else believes you?

Anonymous said...

Well bbgae I agree with you I will serve the Lord Jesus.

But it does matter my dear. The devil is such a master of deception.

That's the diffence between us. I do care where you spend eternity.


Anonymous said...

I can Know what God has given me to know, I do not say I know all things.

bro B

the_lerker said...

My father was basic knowledge to him... that WJ was a prophet, in fact, I'm sure he still knows. Point is, he didn't know because WJ obviously isn't.

Fact is, there are millions of people on the earth reading the same bible and the same book of mormon and for some reason, there are a million ideas on how everyone else should be living there lives and which church they should be going to.

I'm just a simple guy and maybe I'm missing something here, but I think I'll be the judge of me and whether or not I'm saved will depend on my own conscience of how I made this world a better place while I was here.

I'll probably ask myself at the end: How did my family turn out?
Did I overcome any weakness that I had? Did I influence people to be great, or did I bring them down? Did I give back to the community? Did I make sure my Dogs had a good life? Did I do the best that I could with what I had? Did I listen to my conscience(also known as the ten commandments)?

After asking myself these questions, I'll probably judge myself, and as soon as I'm done with that, God will most likely ask me what I came up with, and I will know in my own heart whether I'm saved or whether I'll need to be re-tested. And if I need to be re-tested, I'll probably come down and haunt you sorry buggers just for fun.

I left the Creek, not because I'm a bad person, I still don't consider myself an apostate....but because I wanted to have control of my own life so that I could be held fully accountable for it in the end....and I think that's the way it should be. I seek guidance from those that I think can make me wiser, not from those that claim to be the authority of all things godlike.

I'm sorry Bro B, but when someone tells me they know something that they only have faith in... they're usually the first one I ignore. I've already played that game for the first twenty three years of my life. Been there, done that. All I can say is, you havn't had your entire belief sysyem crushed right before your eye's and been forced to stand strong on your own two feet yet.

the_lerker said...

And by the way, I always log in to post, so if it's not in blue, it's not me.

Thanks 10:38

Anonymous said...

I dont live in the U.S.A. lerker, and I have had my faith tested from a young age.

I wont lie to you, I would get nothing from it.
If I only believe something, I'll say so, if I know a thing, I would also be able to tell you when and how that thing or point of doctrine became certain knowledge to me. If I dont know, I'll say that also. If I was taught to believe something, then that too is different to me believing it of my own thinking.

I also dont recall useing that well misused word 'saved.'

From what exactly I would ask?

My point always was, we dont become able to enter (or contribute) to a 'kingdom of heaven' such as Jesus is in save we also are that state of heaven within ourselves.

Your walk would be interesting, and I do wish you well in Faith.

bro B

bbgae said...

Brother B-
I like you. :)

Anonymous said...

bro B

Canada aye? The B is for Blackmore?

Anonymous said...

Not Canada.

Not Blackmore.

And to you lerker, I re-read your post, about having your faith crushed, which would be a trying experience, and one each of us may need to come through (there are no religions without faulty doctrines) and so some of us are called out of them, to lay aside the false hoods, keep the best principles, that we may BUILD UPON THE TRUTHS. I am a builder, and a keeper, never one to through the baby out with the bath water, and your life can teach you not to trust man, but to trust God, its a valuable lesson for a young seeker.
And all things work to the good of them who love God, who are the called, according to His purposes.
Have you had personal spiritual experiences that you would like to share Brother? I would be sincerl;y interested in hearing them. I'll swap a few if you would like.
About having control in your own life, well I dont know what you left or what you kept or anything much, so I cant say much about that with no info.

I would say that I belive the example of Jesus Christ was to live with God in control, with a will surrendered unto God, though not necessarily without Sabbath keeping.
I just can not see how one can bring their houshold together under a God focused spirit without a Sabbath morning gathering as the spiritual and primary purposeful focus of why we are on earth, and our covenants to 'always remember him.'

I dont wish to place any burden upon you and yours, but to say what I have honestly found is the minimum I have to do to retain and hold the spirit of ongoing spiritual growth to Godliness in my home.

bro B

Anonymous said...

Honest? You sound so much like the Canadians, although not overtly pious, a bit on the preachy side.

To your credit though, You don't give the impression that you preach one religion and live another.

Anonymous said...

A little boy opened the big family bible. He was fascinated as he fingered through the old pages.Suddenly, something fell out of the Bible. He picked up the object and looked at it. What he saw was an old leaf that had been pressed in between the pages."Mama, look what I found," the boy called out. "What have you got there, dear?" With astonishment in the young boy's voice, he answered, "I think it's Adam's underwear."

muggsey said...

bro. B

What is a believer saved from? Eternal separation from God, in other words, HELL. I can't make it any simpler.

Anonymous said...

Bro B is an Aussie?

Anonymous said...

8.22 Yes.


It is not true that God sends his children to hell because they never heard of his son.

Who taught you this?

Certainly not the Bible, certainly not the teachings of Jesus, certainly I would hope, not your personal sense of justice.

Perhaps you are beliveing same because that is what most religious societies teach.

Again this simplistic notion is a left over from the world dominated religion of the middle ages.

You are allowed to learn things other than they have set forth you know. But to do so, you would first have to admit to yourself the difffernce between knowledge and belief, admit also that you do not know, and have a desire to learn more than you presently believe.

Not trying to be smart, but trying to explain how I grew from where your mind is at, to where my knowledge is at.

bro B

Anonymous said...

Happy Easter-especially at this time when we should give special recognition and thanks to our Savior!

Bro. B
I have been so very impressed with all you have written and the fabulous way you have of expressing your thoughts.

On another blog I read your beautiful, personal testimony and was so pleased that you would share it with us. Thank you.

It seems that there are very few people, young or not so young, who take God's work as seriously as you do.

May our Father in heaven continue to watch over and bless you.


Anonymous said...

Thank you jc

those were special words.

I do know that God is real, I mean I really really know this, and I also know I am a spirit in a body, from personal experience.

So its not so hard to stand up for these things,

what has been a chalenge is sorting through many half truth doctrines, and coming to the ability to stand up for truth while loving all were they are at.

I guess this is what it means to 'administer' the Gospel.

Its nice to have a place I can speak more freely about religious principles, where others are also interested.

May God also bless you in all your righteous desires.

bro B

muggsey said...

bro B.

I don't know what planet you think of as your home. I did not say anything concerning 'hearing' about God's Son. Hearing has nothing to do with acceptance of His shed blood as the price God paid for YOUR SIN, and MINE. Deaf people can still become children of the LIVING GOD. We, who can physically hear, may hear all matter of things, good and evil, important or irrevelant, as we go about our daily lives but, neither heed the meaning nor make any attempt to determine if these things are even important to our life. It makes no difference if the hearing represents the present or the future. It is the acceptance of this Gift, called GRACE, that through our faith allows us to ever be in presence of THE LIVING GOD.

Ignoring HIS GIFT to YOU separates you eternally from God's presence, aka HELL.

This is pretty simple too!

muggsey said...

bro B.


I forgot to comment on your self assurance and ego. How does one become so smart?

I think if you really knew the scripture you would come to the ealization of the fact that God never changes, WAS, IS, and EVER SHALL BE, neither slumbers nor sleeps.

The Bible I consult daily was developed from ancient texts proved again and again through the centuries.

If you believe that Joe Smith's, or his sucessors have more understanding than Issaiah, Daniel, John, Paul, Peter, Samuel, David, and Jesus, you are barking up the wrong tree. That ol' dog simply won't track. The original 'Mormon' was based upon a stolen novel and nothing in later additions, D's & C's has improved upon the original.

Tripe is still tripe. Hog guts don't change into a coconut cake nor pecan pie.

Yep, I'm back on track again, like it or not.

the_lerker said...

{I forgot to comment on your self assurance and ego. How does one become so smart?}

How could one be so ignorant?

Muggsey, you have defined the way almost every person on this blog feels about you to a T!

I'm happy that you have become so educated in the contents of the bible, moreover, how righteous you have become. I'm sure the Lord looks down upon you with a smile on his face. I surely hope all of your fellow humans have come to recognize it as much as I have.

There's some recognition I know you've been looking for. I hope that makes your day.

Anonymous said...

Mugsey, are the rumors about your addiction to methamphetamines true?

Anonymous said...

Dear mugsy

It is not displeasing to hear that you belive in God, and that this belief includes that God does not change, from yesterday, to today, or tommorow.

Because some people who read the Bible claim that he has changed the requirments of salvation, from a 'saved by the law' system pre Christ, to a 'saved by his blood and death' acceptance, post Christ.
I understand both these saying as being flawed due to the misunderstanding of scriptural context.

But the spirit of God has taught me that the whole notion of people entering the higest realm of heaven by professing a belief in him, or his blood, or his grace, or his death, wont actually make any difference to the realm you inherit at the close of this life, unless you also seek to obey his teachings and counsels and emulate his love.
Being led of the spirit of God into or onto this refining path, this walk of Faith, is the way, and his 'blood' is used metaphorically in the Bible, not literally. His blood wasnt magic, it was no different to yours and mine.
So I would encourage a humble entry onto this path, and not a profesing of this 'saved' stuff, because one confesses him.

Can you not see the 'saviours' in your own life yet, the people whom without which you would be worse off, are these not the grace of God to you, why look you back 2000 years when saviours are about you, whom you truly need?

If one says, I love Jesus, but has told goodly parents to go to hell, then they ought first turn and repent of that sin, (IN HEART AND DEED) for who can say they love God, and yet dishonor goodly parents, who gave them very life, breath and the greatest love they had.
If one hates those who has loved them most, can that soul really love someone who they have not met.
So, we cannot say we love God or Christ, if we dishonor the light we are bron into. Jesus honored his aprents, 'and was subject unto them.'
If you do not like my words, you would not like the words Jesus would speak, for it is the same spirit I have been led to follow, though I testify of it alone.

What words I would have to say about Joseph Smith and the BOM is not for you, but for those who honestly wrestle with those things.

bro B

Anonymous said...

Muggs, I take back the compliment I gave you when you posted a somewhat sane (and thankfully SHORT for a change) post. You are so d**m RUDE!!! Bro B has just as much right to post his opinion on here as you do. Insulting him for it is uncalled for. If you can't allow his voice to be heard, you shouldn't even be on here in the first place. I for one am going back to skipping over your boring and egotistical post from now on.

Anonymous said...

I dont feel like I have been insulted, every person is where they are at, and if you love people, you have to allow and accept where they are at, even if that means they feel my words are heritical and warmly disagree.

However, there is limited time for all things and all people, particularly with those they come in contact with, and it is not possible that all souls could recieve all knowledge in an instant.

But thanks 5.44 for your thoughts, I am grateful to those who set up the site that it gives me contact with people who are a bit closer to who I am.

bro B

TBM said...

Muggsey: "The original 'Mormon' was based upon a stolen novel"

No, it WASN'T, Muggsey!! Have you forgotten we had a long, long argument about this about a year ago? I pretty effectively demonstrated that the authors of that book you read had researched their subject so poorly, they hadn't even so much as read the Spaulding manuscript.

But you're still determined to believe people who've lied to you? deceived you? taken you for a fool? I thought it was only us Mormons who did that!

ATAR_i said...

Brother B

Whereabouts are you in Australia?

Since you are not brother Black from Mexico, or brother Blackmore from Canada, but brother B from Australia - generally where are you Aussie Land? - it's a big place.

bbgae said...

Have a good Easter, everyone. :)

Anonymous said...

Speak for yourself Lerker. I happen to think Muggsy has a pretty good handle on things.

Keep on gigging 'em Muggsy. Maybe they'll wake up before the find themselves roasting in the pit.

Anonymous said...

Oh, I forgot. Muggsy, you're right about the Book of Mormon, too. But perhaps you're too kind by saying that it was lifted from a stolen manuscript. The writing isn't even that good. Personally, I think old Joe turned around one day and pulled it out of his a**. Just another in a long line of hoaxes old Joe was well known for.

Anyway, keep up the good work, Muggsy. I've got your back.

Anonymous said...

To 12.54

The tenor and language of the above post disgusts me.

Your disrespect for what others hold sincerely as sacred does yourself (and your views) no service. One cannot outwardly express such base and coarsness, unless they already disrespect themsleves you know, and without they also have a hatred towards themselves. True religion would call you to seek within, for the root cause of this, or at lest pray for circumsatnces that will teach you a respect for those not as yourself. Its a process, it can take years, if you work at it that is.

Shame on you.Would you please refrain from this sort of disagreement.

bro B

P.S. Atari, with this sort of spirit on here, I would hardly wish to say where I am would I.

Anonymous said...

Too bad, Bro B. I'd love to have you here to kick around a bit. Remember, this is the Texas blog and Texans aren't known for tolerating fools lightly. That applies to you, too, TBM

Anonymous said...

Yes Muggsey, it's hard to read the similarities of the BOM and Spaulding’s book and not come to the conclusion that there is a lot of plagiarism happening there. It reminds me a lot of another story that borrowed from stories that preceded it. In the book I am referring to the authors took feats and occurrences from the stories of Hercules, Dionysus, Romulus, Apollo, Zeus and other myths and applied them to their own story. Here are a few of the things in that book that were borrowed from the mythology that preceded it.

- Born of a virgin on December 25th – Stars appeared at birth – Visited by Magi from the East – Turned water into wine – Cast out demons – Healed the sick – Betrayed for 30 pieces of silver – Transfigured before followers….

bbgae said...

Too bad you can't stay, Bro. B. :( I think they treat you better on the Share the Light Blog, however, so I do not blame you for leaving. I had my go-around with some of these guys, too. I don't agree with everything you believe, but I like you. :)

Anonymous said...

Hmm, I didnt say I would quit the site because of the post I read, but that i would rather not day were I am.

I am not offended personaly, but disgusted.

I would agian point out that one cannot bring forth but what is within them.

When we finally lay down our anger and what we percieve as injustice and hurt to us, so then our inner self can begin to be changed from resentful and base, to understanding and love.

That is the process for all of us, if we will take up the walk Christ taught. It would help you 12.45, to understand this very real process. You have to stop all blaming, accept that some things in your past were your fault, while other things were not your fault, but your chance to take on and negate some of the sin in this world.
It would make you happier on the inside, more at peace, when you release the need to blame others.

bro B

ATAR_i said...

Bro B.

I only ask because I was there for a month, and my sister for over 6 years. I had a chance to knock around a bit - mostly in the Blue Mountains.

I won't way where I'm from either - I get it.

TBM said...

Thank you Bro B. My experience is that 12.54 is very much the exception on this blog. Most other people are respectful of one another's views.

6.51 it's hard to read the similarities of the BOM and Spaulding’s book

I'm quivering in antipation at the shred of evidence you're going to produce in support of that one.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Bro B. My experience is that 12.54 is very much the exception on this blog. Most other people are respectful of one another's views.

6.51: Texans aren't known for tolerating fools lightly ... it's hard to read the similarities of the BOM and Spaulding’s book and not come to the conclusion that there is a lot of plagiarism happening there

Texans are also full of crap. You've never read the Spaulding manuscript!!!!!!!!

TBM said...

Admin, can you try to get the delete system set up again? There is a way of doing it through the "dashboard", but it doesn't work.

bbgae said...

Ok, Bro.B.,
I stand corrected. I'm glad you aren't leaving, and I think you have every right to not reveal your location. I gave a hint on mine, but I won't say for certain, either. :)

muggsey said...

Well, it looks as if the fleas found a new dog to jump on. If I am the target, so be it. Your snide remirks have no effect except to tickle my funny bone.

The one thing each of you seem to never understand is that your approach to worship of God isnvery much like putting the cart before the horse (a little Texas metaphor here).

Acceptance of the blood of Jesus, and trust in HIM & HIM alone preceeds any work of any denomination. The only question that will be asked at the Judgement Seat of Christ will be, "Is your name written in the Lamb's Book of Life?" If this question can't be answered in the affirmative nothing else you may have DONE has any merit at all. If you are saved, good works are a natural by-product of the Born-Again Christian. If you are not born-again, all the works you could haul as baggage in all the trains, cars, trucks and airplanes in the world would not impress Christ, the Judge and King. The question to be answered before that JUDGE has nothing to do with works butm whether you have accepted his distinct and simple plan for salvation.

How does one assure themselves that their name is written in "The Lamb's Book of Life? Follow the plan of salvation that has never changed. It has remained the same yesterday, today and forever.

First, to have a better understanding of why we are having these differences read Galatians 1:6-9; then read the first seventeen verses of the third chapter of "JOHN'S" gospel, Ephesians 1:15 - 2:10; James 1:5 - 2:24; Romans 3:10; 3:23; 5:8,9; 6:23; 10:9,10; 10:13. These verses attest to that which I have testified since my first post on this blog. These scriptures represent only a mote of dust when compaired to the monolith of truth contained within the pages of the Bible. IT stands alone. IT needs no further comment. IT IS truth as the only Word of GOD.

These are but a few of the passages confirming that salvation comes thru Jesus and Him only. I invite you to carefully read each of these passages completely. Give special attention to the passage in Galatians. This passage gives authenticity as to why I oppose your teachings so strongly. I do not hate you. I don't like the things you support and cling to. I don't like the way you justify any action by side stepping the clear instruction of the Bible in favor of a bogus work, written solely to confuse and bilk a poor and un-educated people out of their savings and preying upon superstition. Mormon is Not of God.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

To mugsey,

I'll repeat what I said to others who believe as you do earlier.

You are simply repeating what others have told you these scriptures mean.

You most certainly believe what you are saying, but I am different to you, in that while I too was taught somewhat similarly to what you have been taught, I saw that I did not know, but only believed, and being of pure and sincere heart and mind I went not to man, but to God, every week while sitting in Christian Churches, and I tell you for free what it took the spirit 4 years to teach me.


I did not get this word for word out of the Bible, or the Book of Mormon or the D&C etc.

The spirit of God taught it to me.

You are a spirit in a body, your character,personality, tendencies, automatic responses and addictions both good, bad and inbetween, show where your spirit (YOU) is at, at present.
This cannot be changed in an instant, it must be worked at. God cannot change your spirit, though when you are humbled, he can give you a taste of the love he is and we need to become. He can give you a conversion experience, but that changes you only to a degree, (thats a bit of grace) the rest of what you need to do, to build your character as Godly, you will need to do. You must be led of God, (not the spirit of man) into this work, else its just religiosity. Same goes for any Mormon, FLDS, Christian, Buddhist, Jew, Islamic.

My words give all of life purpose and serious intent, these I testify were given me of God.
Your words allow for any sort of life, up to a death bed confession of accepting some ancient death and spilled blood to 'wash away your sins.'

If your doctrine was an aeroplane, it would disintergrate in a gentle brezze before the engines were started. You read words from a manual that are taken out of context and the only way you can get people to believe them, is to ask them to switch off their minds and employ a blind belief without understanding, because there is no way you can explain how someones sins get 'washed away' by a death 2000 years ago.

If we accept Jesus as being our example, and the leader of our life, and if we surrender our will totally to him, (not his blood) and if we repent of our sins, and put them away, then are we washed of our sins.?
Each person and case is different, if you have observed people going through this process. Yes everyone is different, and what sin is removed by this process varies in every person, depending on a variety of facts, including were they are at.

Surley you have observed the broad difference between peoples who have undergone this process.

The proving and growth goes on, and on, and on. It is a shame this is not understood and explained by the people who also believe in this process

I would like to recommend a good book by a Christian brother, his name is George Ritchie, the book is called 'Ordered to return.' Its about a him as young doctor, he died of pnemonia uring WW2, and Jesus took him on a tour of at least five realms of spirits, but he was prevented from entering the highest realm, then he was returned to his body, which had been dead some 10 minets or so. The spirit of the book bears witness to me that it is true, that he did not make up this near death experience, and I recommend it highly to earnest seekers of truth.

bro B

muggsey said...

Yawn now, sceam for fear later. I'll bet you won't be in hell 3 seconds before you suddenly realize Muggsey had it right and now it's to late to change anything. You'll just begin to realize you're on fire! Just think, 1000 trillion years wondering what's that smoke I'm smelling? I'm on fire but nothing burns up, yep, you're the fuel, not choice but flamable.

It's your choice. No one is forcing anything upon you. There is no prophet, priesthood council, elders, apostles or anyone else between you and the Judgement of the Lord and Savior of the world, Jesus Christ. You may become His child saved by the grace he gave to you with the purchase price of his own blood on the cross. If you only trust, by faith, in His willingness and ability to save you you will find that His Love is sufficient for all your needs.

I know this concept seems awfully simple to minds complicated by false teaching, and lies upon which you have made yourselves gods, in your own sight. What a shock is coming your way! Your "celestian" heaven is as flimsy as you are in the assurance of your salvation.

Again, I don't hate you. Why should I? I have no reason to hate you as individuals. I dispise the false gods you serve but, I don't wish you harm. I wish that you would simply turn to Christ Jesus, for in Him alone can you be saved. What greater desire could I, or any human being have for another, than to pray for their salvation?

Why would a loving God make salvation hard to understand? He wants fellowship with mankind. But, you can be sure that this GOD of LOVE will tolerate your indifference only until you sin away your day of grace. When will that be? I'm not your judge, but HE who created you, WHO sustains life, WHO gives you bounty and WHO gave HIS son to die in your place IS your JUDGE and has set your number of days on this earth. Don't you even fear GOD?

Anonymous said...

To mugsey,

your words:

'I wish that you would simply turn to Christ Jesus,...'

This means obedience to his words, teachings, spirit, example and commandments. (not a recitation of Pauls letters to the greeks and romans etc, taken out of intended context.)
I purchased a bible with his words in red for this purpose, to the better see what he had said.

When I say you cannot explain how his blood washes away ones sins, you start on the hell fire stuff. Hardly a loving God eh? Sounds middle ages catholic to me.

Are you going to look into the book I recommended?

bro B

muggsey said...

bro B.

Your last post has convinced me of your instability. I'm sure that in your magnificient immagination that you rivel GOD Himself in understanding and intelligence.

You don't know me, nor my background. How can you claim spiritual superiority without knowing from whence I come? If I wanted to brag, God forbid, I could dress you down in a second but, that's not my intent for being here. If I'm in GOD'S will and witnessing to the truth, that is what is superior, not my intellect.

You ask, "Just why are you here?" "You are very insensitive to my opinion!" "Your stance regarding those sacred cows I have come to love hurts my feelings." Boo hoo! Cry a little but, before you burn through to the quick you'd better take a few things I argue to heart.
1. You can't save yourself. God will never be impressed with your education, your belief system nor your works.

2. None of those things listed above were purchased at the cost of Jesus life, which paid the cost of your sin.

3. The debt for mankind's sin has been paid. Your willingness to accept that paid-in-full debt as God's gift to you is at the core of your eternal life. Think about it.

muggsey said...

bro B

The book you suggest has as much credibility as does the Di Vinci code, Peter Pan, The Book of Mormon or the Wizard of Oz. If I want to read Fairy Tales there are plenty in the library.

Jesus' death on the cross was witnessed by hundreds who attested to his death.
His personal appearance before women at the tomb, to the two men on the road to Emmaus, to Peter, before the ten apostles and the eleven, including Thomas, to up to 500 at His assention, and to Paul on the road to Damascus is not a sole witness telling of his own experience. I choose to believe the Bible as GOD'S ONLY word. That is my choice. I will not recant.

muggsey said...

bro B.

I'm so glad you purchased a Bible. Red ink may make it easier for you to determine just what Jesus said. You might be surprised if you read the black words. If you read only the red words, by themselves, you will only become more confused. Ta-ta

muggsey said...

bro B.

The whole Bible, including much of what is written in red ink refers to the "hell fire and brimstone" you seem to fear so. Only those who fear death fear the threat of hell.

Anonymous said...

The book we call 'the Holy Bible' was first colated in our language by Whycliffe in arounf 1300, then Coverdale in 1400, then the reformers in 1500 and so on. 700 years at best, yet many have lived in every nation long before, during and after these times.

There has been more time upon earth when this (INCOMPLETE)collection of ancient scriptural writings was not in existence than when it was.

I do not believe in a God of goodness, truth, justice and love, who would cast all those into hell before this time simply because they could not read what was not available or not written.

bro B

Anonymous said...

Also, the books of 'the Bible' are a collation of writings, many of Faith, some historical, some poetic, some simply the best Moesus knew, such as Genisis, but not necessarily a book of absolute fact or truth.

This is to me simply a staement of fact, not a personal attack upon you or anyone.

bro B

muggsey said...

bro B

Your viewpoint appears to be that of an agnostic. You neither believe nor dis-believe.

We will probably agree in relationship to observance Wycliff, Coverdale but don't forget Tyndale. All in all the three individuals are more responsible for the Bible being translated into English from it's original languages, Hebrew, Aramic and Greek. The point is not the translation into English it is the fact that in spite of multiple wars and captivities the Hebrew people have maintained and protected those collections of writings we call the Book of the Old Testament.

Likewise, most of the New Testament wasn't written until 35-40 years following Jesus' death and resurection. The early church leaders did not have all of the testimonies of all those who ultimately wrote the New Testament in a single collection. All had been hand written and passed from church to church for the purpose of educating Christians as to just who it was that they had professed trust. As time progressed these early church leaders were able to obtain and preserve the works of Matthew, Mark (whom we believe received his insight from Peter) Luke, a Greek and companion of Paul on his Missionary Journies to the European Continent. Luke wrote his Gospel (much information from Peter but a great deal, especially concerning Jesus' birth directly from Mary, Jesus' mother) and the book of Acts of the Apostles, which has served as a history of the early church and of the early spread of the gospel. John is responsible for John's Gospel, 1-2-3 Epistles of John and the Revelation of Jesus Christ. Peter wrote 1-2 Peter, James the younger brother in the flesh of our Lord wrote his epistle, primarily to the Jewish membership of the early church. Jude, another of Jesus' flesh and blood brothers wrote the epistle of Jude. The arthor of the Book of Hebrews remains a mystery though many scholars believe Paul to have written this epistle. All the other epistles were written by Paul, a violent persecutor of the early church. He was converted to Christianity through the personal testimony of Jesus Christ. It took several years for Paul to convince the early church that he had indeed experienced a conversion.

Roman and Greek Orthodox scholars were involved in assembling and accumulating the works now called the new Testament. Catholicism did not prevail in the Roman Empire until the time of Constantine. The start of that church was by order of the state authority. A large number of Christians were in existence and operating independently of the Empire of Rome, who never accepted Constantine's edict and continued to worship the Lord according to their own convictions. It was these people who never bowed to the shackles of a State-Church who collected the works of the New Testament, determined what the canon should include, excluded the Apocrapha and then protected these collective works from Roman hands. It was really John Guttenberg, who invented movable type, that made the Bible available for common use. Bibles were constantly under attact from the Catholic heiarchy, and in many ways still are.

According to their teachings a priest is supposed to be the only person in a particular parrish capable of understanding spiritual meanings. The church has claimed the right of decision to allow communion or to excommunicate it's membership as a matter of control. According to their practice all individuals are Catholic if they are born into a Catholic parish. They can only receive the sacraments if they complete special classes designed to instill a dogmatic belief in the teachings of the church and submission to the priesthood. They are then elegible for communion.

The Reformation came about in Europe and spread throughout the known world. People were professing belief in Jesus as Lord even in China, India and other idolatrous nations. The King James Version, which is held by many to be the only authentic Word of God came about as an edict of James I of England in the first decade of the seventeenth century. That one translation has undergone at least 12 revisions.

With today's reference libraries, scholars in Hebrew, Greek and Aramic, and with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, many of the chapters of the known Bible have been proved by comparison to these ancient documents. the translation from the earlier texts have proven true.

As far as "hell fire and damnation," this is the end of God's Judgement on man and the earth. In a cursory inspection of the cross-reference of the King James Bible under the heading "Judgement" there are 65 references to a coming judgement. I am posative that there are at leat five times that many references if all related headings were researched. The mention of "hell" and "impending judgement" far outnumber the references to heaven and/or eternal rest. Had the subject of hell and judgement not been important, and the need to be heeded. Why would that particular subject be so frequently addressed in the Bible if it were not true? All those references are to warn people of future wrath and/or perfect peace. This is the individuals choice.

God is The God of Love. He has proven that through the willingness of taking on the burden of man's sin upon himself. In God's eyes man is intended to be judged only one time, at the Judgement Seat of Christ. However, due to man's continuous rebellion and belief that he alone knows more than God, the non Christian will undergo a second judgement. this is referred to as the Great White Throne Judgement. Neither Jesus nor those admitted into His presence after the Judgement Seat of Christ will appear before God to have all their sin revealed and to be sent to hell. God has shown mercy to mankind since the creation. At the final judgement he seeks justice. Those who are not of Christ are against him and therefore will enter the second death, eternal separation from God's presence. A thousand trillion years in hell is only the beginning of judgement.

Either the Bible speaks truth or I, and thousands of others past and present will have trusted in vain. But, even if God's word somehow proves to be wrong, I have had the opportunity to live over six decades, teach Bible Study to various groups for over forty of those years and have sharred a witness of God's love directly to thousands of loved ones, neighbors and friends and indirectly to unknown numbers of human beings. What is a better way to live? Does wealth gurantee happiness? Is fame the ultimate goal in life?

I have taught Jesus' love and compassion for a sick and dying world, what could be better? Nothing, as far as I am concerned. When Mormon Missionaries come to my door I ask them if they are willing the hear my testimony concerning the Grace of God. If they, at any point attempt to change the subject, or use their little book of mormon as reference I stand and in their presence wipe the dust off my feet. I then ask them to leave and request that they wipe the dust off their feet as soon as they have departed my property. To a mormon that act is very significant.

God so loved the world that He gave His Only Begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God sent not His Son into the world to condem the world, but that thru Him the world might be saved.

GOD IS LOVE to those willing to accept it. However, GOD IS JUSTICE to those who reject that love

I Rest My Case

Anonymous said...

I Rest My Case

We wish.

Anonymous said...

Not a bad response mugsey,

heres where we disagree.

You say we are saved from going to hell by 'grace' which by context you use the same intended meaning as Luther, that is: that it is a sort of gift and mercy from God.

I say you misunderstand the whole message of God in the Bible, for two reasons.
1. Because in truth it says exactly what you say it says, that we are saved by grace ete.
2. Because many before you have taught exactly that.

As a young man I too was taught many Christain things, but between the ages of 24-28, while sitting in the L.D.S. church, the spirit began to bother me, for I watched all about me do pretty much what they wished, and then every now and then they would confess some gratitude for the 'attonment' or Jesus love or what ever, but carry on living rather unconscious lives, not much different to anyone in the community, and sometimes rather more wordly.

I contemplated this for many months and after some time concluded that there was something wrong with what we believed the attonment was or actually did, in spite of what is written in the Bible about salvation being dependant upon confessing Jesus and accepting his grace.

After this I thought that perhaps I had better visit all the other Christain churches, which I did, and to my horor, many were much worse. They actually teach in Baptist/presbetarian and Anglican churches around here that there is NOTHING you can do to gain your salvation, because GOd/jesus has done it all and that you MUST simply belive, because that is what faith is.

I testify that the spirit has taught me differently, that everything we do leaves its imprint in us, its effect in us, and its effect in others, that everything matters, that it is scriptures taken out of their original context that allowed Luther and co to mistake the gaining of a better personal salvation without actually being a better person.

The grace of God in many of these scriptural references, applies to the fact that Jesus gave his life, for the world AT THAT TIME. To change the religion of the world in that place and at that time, from a belief in the sacrificial system and law saving system, to a 'surrender of heart, conduct and attitude to God' system. That was his teachings, and giving his life for his testimoney was his gift, but it was not magical, and even those of his time hardly understood his measnings. They too had to be wrenched out of pagan minds. Like he said, have I been with you so long, yet still you do not get it?

So that is where we differ.


bro B

ATAR_i said...

Bro B.

I believe your heart is sincere, you seem like someone who has given his spirituality a lot of thought and effort.

I don't think we shall ever agree, because much of your theology comes from personal revelation, which, by it's nature, is...personal.

In all truth and sincerity, I cannot accept it as 'Gospel' for that very reason.

I don't mean to negate in any way what you feel has happened to you, or your personal experiences and revelations - that's between you and God - however, I do hope you understand why theologically, our differences will stay on either side of a great divide.

I appreciate your willingness to explain your beliefs openly, and I hope I have not expressed any hostility or rancor over our differences.

I think we agree on much, and differ on much.

All in all - an interesting discussion.

TBM said...

1.55, It seems not to have occured to you that bro B and Muggsey are not required to entertain you. If their discussion is of no interest to you, why don't you go read something else?

Anonymous said...

Thanks atari, for those decent sentiments. I dont recall any hostility from you.

Honest conversations do us all good, and we are blest that we hold Christ as our example, else perhaps we would not be so tolerant of one another.

But to use Luthers words, 'I can no other.'

Therefore if I frequent this site, I will testify to other readers against the saved by grace (beliefs alone) doctrine, vigorously, honestly and warmly, for the souls sake of those young of mind who would be misled by this falsehood.


bro B

muggsey said...

bro. B

I understand your frustration. I too over the years have attended services in Catholic, Episcopal, Luthern. Methodist, Presbyterian, Mennonite, Baptist, Assemblies of God, Pentacostal, Diciples of Christ (Christian Church) and church of Christ, (they use lower case on the word church so I follow example, in Texas I grew up the the concept that they held to was that of Alexander Campbell, so they were also known as Campbellites and are strict Calvinists.

Catholic and Episcopal services are very much alike. Luthern and Methodists follow much of the same belief system but without the starch. Some of the most fervant and most wonderfully expressed gospel singing I ever have heard was in a Methodist Church. Presbyterians, Menonites and Baptists hold to the doctrine based upon Ephesians 2:8,9. Presbyterians are much more formal in their worship but the basic doctrine is the same for the three groups. Pentacostal' add healing and speaking in unknown toungs as proof of their salvation. Diciples of Christ and church of Christ follow strict Calvanist teaching. In many ways they are more like Mormons than any other named group. To them salvation depends upon immediate baptism by imersion and presence each week the sacraments (The Lord's Supper. Their faith is demonstrated in faithful attendance, sitting in judgement of anyone who does not agree with their doctrine and strict adhereance to observence of their doctrines concerning baptism and the Lord' Supper.

I fall into the Prespbyterian, Menonite, Baptist thinking. The main points of doctrine are:

You are saved by your faith in the grace of God as demonstrated in Jesus' sacrifficial crucifixion on the cross for the eternal forgivness of the sin of man, past, present and future.

This faith, although not allways perfect in every individual. Followers of this doctrine are totally aware when they are involved in sinful activity, and know though they are saved the felowship with God has been damaged. In this belief system persons demonstrate their belief and trust through the Holy Spirit's guidance to assist in choice making, to pray and admit yor sin(s). Then, I believe that we are to obey Jesus' challenge to the young woman caught in adultry, about to be stoned to death, "Go, and sin no more." Did she continue to sin? In all probability she did, after all she was a product of Adam & Eve. Could she be reconciled to God? Yes, her repentance suffices to gain full grace once again.

You say, "But that's too easy!" Was it easy for God to give over Jesus to dife on the cross easy? Was Jesus hanging on that cross naked, beaten, bloody and deserted by his followers easy? NO! His resurrection was a great shock to the early believers. Jesus told them to retire to the upper room and pray. At the end of ten days fulfilling this instruction, God's Spirit came, as promised, and dwelt in the heart of believers. If subsiquent sins required Jesus to be-crucified each time a sin was committed would God allow it? Yes! But God, in his compassion and wisdom knew that Jesus' precious blood was sufficient to wash away all sin, past, present and future.

Many people have a soft place in their heart for those who have never heard the gospel. I speak for myself, and not for God and I don't that anyone has an inerrant answer to the question concerning these folk eternal future. Again, this represents my thought, not anyone elses. If an individdual who never heard the gospel dies I don't think that they are hell bound. I don't think they are heaven bound either. I believe that merciful God allows them to lie in their graves. These may or may not even face a judgement. Against what by what standard would judgement come? However, to those who have been exposed to the message of God, his plan for the salvation of man and for whosoever rejects that free gift of Grace, whether he/she were 'good people' or not, they are bound for the lake of fire. They were shown a choice and they failed in this task, so God, on His Throne will adjudicate every man who has refused to accept God's divine gift to hell. Christ's blood was wasted in an effort to assist them in securing their soul. Forgivness to them was available, but rejected. The only option is hell. Many of those who have never heard the name of Jesus have and are worshiping idols, made with their own hands. Were these people givem a choice? Yes, and they chose tradition.

Vast passages of the New Testment refer to the Eternal Security of the Believer. This is the essential building block of true Faith. The building blocks are by-products of a man's admiting he's a sinner, accepting this Grace as his own, and proving that Grace is alive within him by his good works and deeds. These are not to impress his fellow man nor God. God knows all, when a sparrow falls, when a single hair falls from our head. To him there is only a present now. Time has no meaning. If God owned a clock it would have no hands. He has no callendar, he neither slumbers nor sleeps. He hears his children's cry.

My personal experience started as a small child. I do not remember a time when my folks did not study the bible daily Thanks was offered prior to sitting down to partake of a meal. the same situation was true at any Relative's house. Christmas, although the dactual date may not be December 25 and Easter were special events in my Home. They celebrated the birth and resurection of Jesus the Christ. I was brought up to believe in God's power and mercy. I had the oppertunity to offer a child's prayer for the health of my father. The prayer was answered and the malady never returned because that was a part of the prayer when I was only three years old. I never remember a single moment that I was not aware of God' love for me. At the age of nine I wanted become a member of the church. I knew that a public profession of faith in Jesus as my Savior followed by baptism was required. After reviewing God's plan of salvation, I accepted it to fill my own need, I asked for forgivness and turned my live over into Jesus hand. I know beyond a shaddow of doubt that it is HE who saved and is keeping me and am awaiting either my death or his coming at the end of the age, whichever comes first.

I have answered your question with a lengthy narrative hoping that you can gain peace and tranquility in your life by surrendering to Jesus. He is my Lord and Savior. There is allways room for one or ten billion more in His precius kingdom. The option is ultimately yours to decide.

Anonymous said...

Thanks mugsey,

I actually have peace in my mind upon sufficient doctrine to trust myself as a teacher of others.
This took me to age 35 to get, and a lifetime till now of serious investigation of All salvation doctrines, plus many spiritual experiences.

I have been to spirit realms while I sleep, leaving my body and dealing with many both living and dead, We will not dwell in the grave when we die. I know that the Bible says this in one and perhaps two places, but that was simply the best knowledge that particular witer had.
Each writer of the books we have in the Bible was not an all knowing person, they were not unlike the best of us in our times, (do you think that olden times people were better than us? or that there are no righteous amongst us now who could not write scriptural books?) No they only had to exercise more real faith because they had no Bible, and thankfully less entrenched enforced belief systems.
But they did never say in any place in the Bible, here is a book of infalible answers, of all the answers, and dont you be finding fault with our best knowledge.)
Inspired books by all means are contained in the Bible, but as to a clear and concise record of truth and fact, that is not what it is, it does contain flaws, annecdotal history and perhaps some false hoods.

For instance, the rainbow story after the flood, was not written by Noah, but by Moses from anecdotal stories taught to him, just like all flood stories found in many cultures. My problem with the rainbow story is that physics would have had to change post flood to pre flood. So I suspect it was the mind of man that called the rainbow a sign from God that he would never again flood the earth.

Another problem in the Bible is the genealogy of Jesus.

It says that he was the son of David.

Then in Mathew Ch 1 it gives the geneaolgy supposedly of Jesus, to his grandfather Jacob, and his father Joseph, as if I suppose to show that Jesus was of the linage of David. Promlem with it is that he was supposed to have been born without any assistance from Joseph, negating the whole of Mathew Ch 1 verses 1-17.
Yet it particularly says in verse 1, ...The generation of Jesus, the son of David. So that sentance is a lie!!!

So why bother with all those verses if he was not related to that linage??????????????
I think my question is a fair question dont you??

Moving on to the geneolgy given by the writer of the book of Luke, we find a diffferent geneolgy attributed to Jesus, back to Solomons other son.

In Luke 3 verse 23 it says that Josephs father was a different man called Heli.
Now I am aware that this second geneolgy is attributed to Marys side of the family, (EVEN THOUGH THE BIBKLE SYAS OTHERWISE) but if so, they screwed up by giving Joseph 2 fathers.

Now personally I dont particularly care at all how Jesus was born or who his father was, my point is simply to point out a TECHNICAL ERROR AS TO FACT IN THE BIBLE.


Also I do not take that verse in Revelations that says, 'he who add or subtracts from this book etc... will be in big trouble'
That I take, applies to the book the writer was writing, not the whole Bible collection, which most probably had not yet been all written much less colated.

But my reasons for holding the Bible as a book of Faith, but NOT NECESSAILY FACT IN ALL PLACES, is simple because I have been taught by the spirit a few things, (not many) that show me that it is the best book of our spiritual forefathers, that it introduces us to what they knew, or thought they knew about God, that it contains a testimony of Gods working in the lives of ancient peoples, and more particularly that it contains the teachings and gospel of a man called Jesus, who also said, 'call me not good, worship me not, there is one good, that is God. Have NO other Gods before God, and that God, was not Jesus, but who Jesus prayed to.

In the Gospels of the Apsotles not including Pauls letters, there are 137 individual references to Jesus being the Son of God, and God being a separate personage to Jesus, and only 13 that say in any suggestive manner, that Jesus and God are the same person. One cannot get over the paryers Jesus prayed to an external being, nor the visitation on the mount, the voice that bore witness, 'this is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased.' It is another invention of the constantine counsels that makes Jesus and God the same being, making Jesus into a super hero that we cannot emulate, the travesty being complete when we toss in Jesus blood as being magical and washing away past, present and future sins.

I weep for the simple truths of cause and effect, and for young minds, who grow up from mamalian ignorance, and are taught this caphoney of lies. No wonder honest men of common sense avoid religion, I would too had I not been raised in it and taught of the spirit of God what really is going on.

I hold Jesus the Christ as my Lord, I own 6 Bibles, all for different reasons, each having its use to me, and it is my primary scriptural book, but in God alone I trust, and I have learned a number of things that the Bible hardly touches upon.

You would say I suppose that Jesus went to heaven when he died, because he said to the HUMBLE thief, today you will be with me in Paradise. I say not.

I say he went immediately to realms of Spirit, for three days, preaching I suppose his gospel to the dead.

The scriptorial evidence for this is when he says to Martha at the grave, 'touch me not, for I have not yet ascended unto my father.'
That is pretty clear that he has escorted the theif to a place called Paradise on the day that he died, but that he had not yet been to the heaven of his father.
So paradise is one of the names Jesus used for spirit realms between heaven and earth.
God is not a disorganized God, he dosent have us waiting around in our grave when we leave our bodies, for room service or the next bus. There are so many many unrelated yet totally similar testimonies of those who have died on the operating table etc, that it is rather close minded or pig headed to ignore them. They are not just from new age hypies, they cross the whole spectrum of every society. Could you not at least investigate these things without a pre-condition of the outcome of your investigation?

Why would Jesus say, seek and ye will find, knock and ask and you will learn, if he should have simply said, read the Bible, it has all the answers, and just beleive what it says, and just believe in my blood shed for you???

He did in fact say, that those after him would do greater things than he, though I qualify this by saying ONLY UNDER THE DIRECTION OF HIS SPIRIT.

Your words below
Quote 'You are saved by your faith in the grace of God as demonstrated in Jesus' sacrifficial crucifixion on the cross for the eternal forgivness of the sin of man, past, present and future.' End Quote.

Jesus never said this or taught this. In those srciptues which use the word 'belief,' prior to its translation, comes from a greek adjective, meaning To DO, or TO ACT.
So it was intended that when you believed in Jesus in the times of the Apostles and Paul, that you left off from all unrighteousness and paganness, left of the letter of the law system, and that you sought after truth, ennoblement of character and righteousness.

We would do well to put ourselves into the situation of those times, wherein a confession of Jesus meant that if Jewish, you were cast out of the religion of the day, and out of your families fellowship, if pagan greek or Roman, you no longer had too many friends, and that your life became somewhat shorter for a variety of reasons, namely a PHYSICAL persecution from all sides.
Today if you voice a beleif in Jesus, you hardly face any of that, and to add to the ease of salvation that churches sell today, you dont actually have to give all you spare money, or repent properly, or seek righteousness, or put away worldliness. No, you just have to confess a belief in Jesus blood, sacrifice etc.
Doesnt something within you tell you that there is something amiss with this????
I mean, I dont need to read someones elses view on this, the whole spirit of it reeks of something rather out of kilter.

I see also that Luther rightfully AND BY THE SPIRIT OF GOD, rose up against the selling of absolvtion from past, present and future sins. Many brands of todays christianity are doing exactly the same thing, making the freindship of the world a false invitation to salvation.

These are a few of my testimonies of the Gospel of Jesus and of personal salvation, verses the doctrines of man, which draw near with their words, but not their hearts.

Hope they are of some value.

bro B

ATAR_i said...

Bro. B.

The Bible was written quite a long bit ago, and the figures of speech were quite different. Jesus was a descendent of David, and David was a descendent of Abraham. Immediately after that statement, it goes on to give the family tree.

So, that probably wouldn't be the best example of an error, because it's not an error.

The Messiah was prophesied to be of the 'house of David', a descendent, a SON of David's seed (not his LITERAL seed - but his ancestral seed).

That is the context it was being used in, and LITERALLY immediately following those statements is Jesus genealogy - so CLEARLY the author is not purporting that Jesus was Davids physical offspring, but his ancestral offspring.

Furthermore, If I state that someone is 'so FAT - they are fricken awesome', they can do all sorts of athletic tricks on their skateboard, and have washboard abs and a tight hind end - clearly I am not saying they are 'fat' as we used to know 'fat' in the 60's. I'm calling them 'phat' like 'amazing', 'cool', 'awesome'.

You can TRY to make it something it's not, but you cannot expect to make a credible argument to anyone who has any theological background, and certainly not with anyone who has studied the original txt written in it's original language.

I myself NOT being someone who has studied the original ancient texts, could read no further in your post after you made such a elemental faux pas which showed a basic lack of theological understanding on such an elemental level as to be absurd. How can I take any thing you purport seriously when you make such simple errors?

muggsey said...


I fear that bro B. has never known what having faith in God and His word mean. He appears to rationalize his own dogma while belittling that of those of us who have placed our faith and future in God's safekeeping.

One mis-quote has appeared twice: Ask and ye shall recieve, Seek and ye shall find, Knock and the door shall be opened unto you. For whoever asketh recieveth, He who seeks finds, and unto him that knocks, the door shall be opened.

Concerning the geneology of Jesus: Mary was of the house and lineage of David, so the geneology of Matthew is right on line. Joseph was also from David's lineage so, even though Joseph was not Jesus' literal father, he recieved great influence from Joseph's teachings. Jesus remained in Joseph's home until he was thirty years of age, and in all probability worked with his hands as a carpenter alongside Joseph daily.

Joseph and Mary were devoted keepers of the Law of Moses. This point is supported by two events and one statement regarding Jesus' upbringing.
Upon the eighth day since His birth, Jesus was carried to the Temple to be circumcised, according to the Abrahamic covenant. The family made a trip to the Temple in Jerusalem when Jesus was the of age twelve, in all probabiity to recieve his Bar-Mitzpha.
A referral as to Jesus' upbringing was made (this is not an exact quote) "and He grew in wisdom and statue, and in favor with God and Man."

Stories about the origin of the rainbow, the flood, the plagues of Egypt, the parting of the Red Sea, water from a rock, manna, quail, shoes and clothing that did not wear out for forty years, the parting of the Jordan at floodtide, the fall of Jericho's walls, Elijah being fed by ravens, the three Hebrew children in the firy furnace, the scattering of Senichirib's army, Gideon's defeat of his enemy with only thirty men, the virgin birth, the miricles of Jesus, Jesus' betrayal, trial, death on the cross, having arisen from the grave, his assention unto heaven, and on and on, are accepted as incidents requiring faith upon the part of the believer.

The peculiar thing is that scientific study has attempted to destroy these and other incidents and historical references. Not one single time have scoffers been able to dis-prove statements of fact, as mentioned above. The scoffers don't aknowledge their failure, they simply find another subject and attack again and again, never winning but continuing to criticize that of which they know nothing about.

An individual either believes or doesn't. If he doesn't believe there is no way for him to accept the substitutionary sacriffice of Jesus, Lamb of God, Who was, Is, and Ever Shall Be,as the author and finisher of our faith. Without that faith, and the assurance of the saving power of the Master they con only find fault with the doctrine of the Security of the Believer. They can't find the truth within themselves so they continually attact those of us who have such faith as judgemental, cold hearted, having no love for the poor, the un-saved, etc. I know of no effort these agnostics perform in an effort to serve as missionaries to a lost and sinful world. All they want to do is criticize our efforts and attempt to make us feel guilty for believing that the Great and Only GOD of the Universe has the power to save and keep his own children.

I believe that you and I generally agree on the theological truth of the Bible. We may not agree on other issues, but upon the truth in God's Word I believe that we are in one spirit. Faith in the Grace of GOD, now and for all time.

TBM said...

Muggsey: "the concept that they held to was that of Alexander Campbell, so they were also known as Campbellites"

Bet you didn't know that was also the church of Sidney Rigdon, before he converted to the LDS -- just a little piece of trivia that I thought I'd throw in! :-)

ATAR_i said...

TBM - I missed the Campbell connection - can you explain - I'm not certain how it relates.

Anonymous said...

The rainbow story, would require physics different to what makes the physical realm work as it presently does.

How light waves and paticles work would have to be altered.

This is no attack on the rest of the Bible,or the testimoney of God in it. Its an intelligent observation. I am able to have faith and not hold the Bible to be sacrosanct text as to technical accuracy.

Its says in Luke and Mathew different names for Jesus father.
Who then was his father, Jacob or Heli?

I agree entirly that Jesus was subject unto the religion of his birth, and that it says 'that he was subject unto them, meaning his parents. So ought we be subject unto goodly parents.

So that is a part of his Gospel, including keeping the Ten Commandments as a foundation for recieving the spirit of God. That is how he was led to be baptized you know, because he had fgulfilled and obeyed the truth principles and ennobling practices contained in his religion and culture, else he would not have been pleasing to God.

No man or woman can say they love God, and rebell againt the light of their birth.

Bro B

muggsey said...


I have been aware of the connection between Alexander Campbell and sidney rigdon for a long, long time. I also know that Rigdon abandoned the Mormons when Brigham Young was elected President instead of Rigdon, heir apparent of LDS. Abilene Christian University, Abilene, Texas has a lengthy diatribe written by Alexander Campbell denouncing Joseph Smith and his teachings, even though many of those teachings could well have come from Campbell's own pen.

bbgae said...

The LDS church is making a documentary wherein they discuss the mountain meadow massacre and polygamy. href''Here is a new page about it.

Anonymous said...

This is definitely NOT a LDS documentary. It's being produced by PBS about "The Mormons."

I've read that the LDS church authorities are a little unhappy about it - even though they cooperated with the producers. They're especially unhappy about being linked to polygamy -- again.

Check out Brooke Adams' blog dated April 6.

Anonymous said...

BTW, bbgae, your link is a little messed up :) Here's a better version of it.

bbgae said...

Thanx. :)

TBM said...

Atar_i, although Sidney Rigdon initially trained as a Baptist minister, he had taken on a Campbellite congregation in Mentor, OH. The Campbell brothers who founded the church, and with whom Rigdon was personally aquainted, advocated a literal interpretation of the Bible. But they didn't go quite far enough for Rigdon's tastes, who fell out with them also, although he maintained his congregation. One of Joseph Smith's first missionaries, Parley P. Pratt, was a member of Rigdon's congregation, and his first call after converting was on his old minister in Mentor. Rigdon also converted, as did most of his congregation, and that was the origin of the Mormon community in Kirtland, Ohio. Many of the greatest names in the early LDS church -- Charles Partridge, John Corrill, Lyman Wight, and others -- were members of Rigdon's Campbellite congregation, or were acquainted with Rigdon.

Muggsey, actually Rigdon had fallen out (Rigdon made an unfortunate habit of falling out with his churches!) with Joseph Smith some years before Smith's death, and taken off to Pennsylvania in a huge pout. After he heard of Smith's death, he rushed back to Nauvoo to claim the leadership for himself. He wasn't totally unsuccessful. The church splitered into half a dozen offshoots, of which Brigham Young's was by far the biggest. But about 500 followed Rigdon back toward the east. But Rigdon was only a great orator; he was a lousy leader, sanctimoneous and a poor organisor. His church dwindled but never disappeared entirely. These days, it's called The Church of Jesus Christ, often called "The Bickertonites", and has about 15000 members, mostly located in Pennsylvania.

TBM said...

10.40, I don't get the impression the LDS church is unhappy with allegations of polygamy as such, more the emphasis placed upon it. Given it plays no role in the LDS church today, and was only incidental to the Mountain Meadows Massacre, makes it surprising that the film makers decided to devote so much attention to it. In the context of the massacre, polygamy is at best rather irrelevant.

I must admit, I get rather annoyed that the one thing everybody that I'm introduced to (even people who are trying to be polite and friendly) immediately asks me, "How many wives do you have?" Then when I tell them, "Only one," the next question is always, "Do you have anyone else in mind?" I tell them No, so the third question is "Why not?"

I always want to tell them, "So Mormons used to be polygamous! Get over it!"

bbgae said...

The first question everyone asks me when they learn I was plyg is, "So how does that all work? Is there just one big do you get a bed that big; are they custom made?" And the next question is, "Do you people really marry your own relatives?!"

I think I win that one, TBM! :)

muggsey said...


I don't have a lot of time to spend "bloging today", IRS time!

You might go to the following site for insight into Alexander Campbell and his connection to the early Mormon movement and his opinions concerning what transpired.

I came across this article while researching the posibility of Smith and Campbell's groups having possibly early common roots. I located this article in the on line library @ Abilene Christian University, Abilene, TX.

TBM said...

There's a typo in your link. It should be:

There's quite a lot of Campbellite papers on that page. I assume you're referring to the one about "An analysis of the Book of Mormon ..."(long, long title; not one to make you drag it off of the shelf of Barnes and Noble)? I have to say, having skimmed through it, I'm not eager.

Tell me honestly Muggsey; is it just the usual Mormon bashing? Because if so, I really -- I mean REALLY -- doubt it has anything new to tell me. Believe me when I tell you that, as regards anti_mormon propaganda, I really have heard it all. Every single little bit -- because all those anti-Mormon publications all just rewrite what everybody else has said. I don't think anyone (including Ed Decker and the Tanners) has come up with anything startlingly new since the 1880's.

So if you're hoping that Campbell's arguments are going to save my soul, I think your tax return is probably going to provide you with more excitement today.

Or does it does actually reveal some genuine insight into Campbell's relationship with Rigdon? If so, I would certainly be interested in reading it. But please let me know what you think I'm going to find. Because that anti-Mormon stuff -- I'm more interested in "America's Next Top Model"! No really, I am!!!!

muggsey said...


If I thought that the writings of Alexander Campell would have any ability to open your eyes to the gospel of Grace I certainly would recommend reading it in detail. I'm sorry about the error in the link. My eyes are not nearly as good as they were thirty years ago. I copied what I believed to be the link from the top line of Internet Explorer. I originally found this article about three years ago by chance. I typed in Abilene Christian University Library/ Writings of Alexander Campbell. I did not know what to expect. I have hard copy on filebut haven't reviewed it. I do remember a reference to Sidney Rigdon. From study I found that Rigdon's first affiliation with a particular faith that he had served for a time as Pastor of a Baptist Church in Philadelphia, Pa.

Having a number of relatives and associates who were and are staunch members of the 'church of Christ' (emphasis their's). In spite of their doctrine reflecting most of Campbell's teachings they refuse to admit that they in any way sprang from Campbell, but directly from Jesus Christ. (Sounds a bit familiar, they are not the only group to make a similar claim.
The Diciples of Christ, (Christian Church's) teachings also reflect Campbell. The teachings are strongly based upon the early teachings of John Calvin although I strongly suspect that they would better be called Hyper-Calvinists. I know that at least several of those who broke into the jail in Carthage, Ill. and killed Joseph Smith were followers of this persuasion.

Read the article, challenge Campbell's teachings. I find him truthful in many things and extremely adamant in placing blame upon other persons in other situations. My interpetation would in no doubt be different than yours so, the only way for you to gain an objective viewpoint is to read the article for yourself. It is listed under the title "I. Separate Publications" - sub-titled Delusions:

Incidently, just in case you are not aware of the fact, Abilene Christian University was chartered in Texas by the 'churches of Christ.' They co-op together in education but, do not think of themselves as a domination. Each congregation is led by a Minister, officiated by Elders and Deacons. There is no hiearchy, each congregatiion is autonomous.

ATAR_i said...

I don't think it's the 'September Dawn' movie that's totally upsetting to them. The link above seems more pro-mormon - probably in response to September Dawn

ATAR_i said...

TBM - was Rigdon a primitive baptist, or what type of baptist was he?

ATAR_i said...

Oops - this is the official September Dan Website

TBM said...

Well, Muggsey, I read it, and what a royal pain in the butt it was! It suffers from all the usual weaknesses of anti-Mormon propaganda, starting with the tiresome constant use of mocking disrespect and sensationalist buzz-words, hoping to convince the reader through repetition rather than persuasion. How many times does he call Joseph Smith an "ignorant impudent liar" or an "impious fraud"? There comes a point when the reader wants to scream, "I GOT THE POINT ALREADY! CAN'T WE JUST GET ON WITH IT?"

The typical anti-Mormon's taste for insult always amazes me. It's the principal charasteristic of their rants that makes them so tiresome to read, and is completely counter-productive. If you want me to sympathize with your point of view, it's probably best not to call me a "dupe" in every third paragraph!! If you're trying to convince me of your sincerity and nobility, is it such a great idea to reveal so blatently how utterly obsessed and consumed with hatred you are?

More specifically, time and time again, Campbell abitrarily assumes his own opinions as the benchmark against which to compare the Book of Mormon and find it wanting. I won't fault the man's faith, but if you don't accept his interpretation of the scriptures, then his whole argument stands up like a cathedral made of Jell-O.

Similarly, he jumps to conclusions, usually the most damning one possible, without examining the possible alternative explanations, or attempting to find out what Mormons themselves think -- for example, the usual one that the Book of Mormon says Jesus was born in Jerusalem (point 8). He keeps saying, "The Book of Mormon says this, and the Bible says this, therefore we know that Joseph Smith is an impious fraud." But as anyone who has ever studied scripture knows (and he himself must have been well aware), there are almost always a myriad different interpretations that can be applied to most scriptures. That Bethlehem is so close to Jerusalem that these days, it's almost a suburb; that the BoM could well be refering to "Jerusalem" in the way that people from Fort Worth often say they're from Dallas; that it's absurd to assume Joseph Smith himself wasn't aware of Christ's birthplace, is all stuff Campbell doesn't bother mentioning -- of course, that would be far too honest for his own aims. He prefers to behave just like Joseph Smith and pull the wool over the eyes of all us dupes. But since he's not an ignorant impudent liar, and he's only duping us in the name of the truth, that's okay.

It goes without saying, he makes no reference to evidences that tend to support the Book of Mormon's veracity (We labored those pretty hard on another thread a couple months ago), or even to balance his comments with a Mormon response. Oh no, we can't be allowing people to make up their own minds the way the Book of Mormon encourages people to do!

Unfortunately, Rigdon was never mentioned once. So that was a waste of my time. Next time you recommend a reading, Muggsey, I'll make a point of watching "America's Next Top Model" instead. At least their bitching and whining is entertaining.

TBM said...

atar_i: "was Rigdon a primitive baptist, or what type of baptist was he?"

That's a good question. I don't know, and I don't remember ever coming across a clarification. Wikipedia just says he was a Baptist.

Had the Baptists developed formal divisions by that time? It was a very informal organisation for a long time.

muggsey said...

I agree, A.Campbell's style of commentary is a royal pain in the rear end. My chief reason for checking him as a refeence in the first place was the fact that he was a contemporary of both Snith and Rigdon.

As far as what kind of Baptist Rigdon was, I don't know. I think that there are somewhere in the neighborhood seventy different grouups, under various titles, American, Northern, Southern, Free Will, Primitive, Seventh-Day, Independent, Hard Shell, Conservative, Fundamental et. al. Too many to try to keep up with. Some of them join with other of like conviction into conventions, others are totally independent. Their vary nature is to be totally autonomous, to not baptize anyone not old enough to understand what salvation and baptism mean, and then only if the individual has voluntarily, upon their own volition, stepped out and made a public profession of their faith in Jesus Christ. Of course, Baptists are not the only church group who practices those policies. Why do I know about them? You cn't spend your life in central Texas and not become pretty well acquainted with Baptists

muggsey said...


I'll have to take issue with you over Bethlehem and Jerusalem being the same. Yes, today they are less than five miles apart, but it was a distinct and separate location to individuals during the reign of Herod the Great. The three Wise Men, who came to Jerusalem from thes posed the question to Herod concerning the birthplace of the "King of the Jews." Herod, being perplexed, called the priests and scribes to ask them as to where the Christ was to be born.

These men told Herod that the Christ was to be born in Bethlehem of Judah, referring to the prophesy of Micah 5:2.

KJV 2. But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

The rest of the chapter is interesting as related to the purpose for Christ coming to earth, as far as Israel is concerned. Events predicted are yet in the future.

Bethelem is the birth place of David, who became Israel's second King, and whose line of decendency from which Jesus came. See Matthew Chapter 1:1-16

For this reason Jesus is often referred to as Son of David.

TBM said...

Muggsey: "I'll have to take issue with you over Bethlehem and Jerusalem being the same"

Yeah, I figured you would, though I don't think I'm really in the mood just now to get into a fight about it:) (It's 5 a.m. where I am, and I'm only online because I can't sleep!) I threw that in as an example of how, where several different explanations could be applied to a single thing, Alexander Campbell invariably siezed upon the most damning one he could think of while ignoring all other possibilities.

Like I said above, it's absurd to assume that Joseph Smith wasn't aware of Christ's birthplace. The following is a short article explaining the Mormon POV.

TBM said...

2 Kings 14:20 "And they brought him on horses: and he was buried at Jerusalem with his fathers in the city of David"

muggsey said...


2 Kings 14:20 referes to Amaziah.

Check Luke 2:4 - Bethlehem was Jesus' birthpace. This village had been home to David's father Jesse and was the place Samuel went to select a new King for Israel, to replace Saul, See 1 Samuel 16:1 This is the place where David was annointed to become King of Israel, while he was still a lad. At the time of David's assention to the throne of Israel, Jerusalem was called Jebus, it's citizens Jebusites. (Joshua 19:10; I Chronicals 11:4.) The city was protected by a fortress called Zion. It was not until after David's assention to the throne of Israel that he led his toops to capture Jebus 2 Samuel 5:1-10. David made Jerusalem his capital city, brought the Ark of the Covenant to the city and planned the building of a temple, built by David's son Solomon.

ATAR_i said...

Well, I know they had primitive baptists, it was pretty popular in the early 1800's - and the timing seems right.

might have a bit of information, they considered themselves to be the 'original baptists' or something like that.

Interestingly enough you can find both Sindey Rigdon, and Campbelisms in the search box. I believe the texts are fairly old, some going back into the mid 1850's - really fabulous archive of Primitive Baptist Perspective.

TBM - I think you will find the writing interesting given that much of it was done right around the time of the formation of the LDS church, and the debate was very contemporary and hot.

And, you gotta love the men at the top of the page.

And...I'll leave it to you how I know about this site - let's play a guessing game - c'mon - it'll be fun!

Anonymous said...

god does not exist.

ATAR_i said...

alright - anyone else?

Anonymous said...

Not to worry tbm, the very exactness with which muggsy interprets the Bible will also be the thing that will condemn him.

There just HAS TO BE something that he missed.

TBM said...

I'm not very inclined to sit around declaring who will or will not be hurled into the flames of hell. Muggsey's sincere enough, and honest and courteous, and I'm quite certain all that will count for quite a lot in the end.

atar_i: OOF! that's a lot of writing! I eventually found the entry about Mormonism. I laughed. I can't imagine where they got the idea that Sidney Rigdon worked in this printer's shop that he's supposed to have stolen the manuscript from. I did like the comment "so-called church" -- as if the LDS church isn't really a church at all. I don't what their definition of a church would be, but I think if they'd looked at it seriously, they'd have to accept that it qualified. Whether they agreed with it or not is a different matter ...

Oh and ... God exists. No doubt 9.45 has loads of scientific proofs for his persuasion, and I have just as many spiritual proofs for mine. 9.45 will, of course, discount my proofs as fanaticism and / or imagination. I discount his as being fundamentally ignorant of where religious people are coming from.

TBM said...

atar_i: And...I'll leave it to you how I know about this site - let's play a guessing game - c'mon - it'll be fun!

All right, I'll go first -- you're a Baptist? Of the primitive persuasion?

Anonymous said...

tbm, about 9:45,and scientific proof,todays socalled science,has too many of the same characteristics that turns me off about religion ie, "believe it on the strength of authority,and consensus, or your a fool."


bbgae said...

I'll go next. I think you were a baptist also. Either that, or you are fascinated with religion in general and stumbled upon the site by accident in another search. You seem to know a lot about many religions.

muggsey said...

It seem as if everyone has a particular take regarding just what the Bible is, whether it's the Word of God, something else or of no importance. With that last statement I'd have to take issue. Too much of the written history of the world, from the earliest known writings, express belief in a supreme being.

As you well know, I have told you so often, I am a born again Christian, having accepted Jesus Christ as my own personal Savior through my own faith. God, with his unbountiful love, refered to as grace, knowing that man cannot save himself, paid the ultimate price as fayment for sin. HE redeemed mankind from sin by giving himself a human existance for the purpose of dying on the cross as payment for all sin, for all time. By redemption I mean it's kinda like God gave you a bunch of green stamps, that he had paid for himself, the supply of stamps is never ending. As you sin, fall short of God's expection, God claims some of those stamps He has given you in payment for your sin. Those stramps are represented by Jesus' blood. Every time you sin and some stamps are taken in payment an equal number of stamps are freely given to replace that which was given over to pay for your sin. To really serve God, I believe that you, an individual purchased as you were, in sin, through the gift of the green stamps (Jesus Blood on the Cross, aka God's Grace.) If you live a life in keeping with God's will, the result of your attempt will produce good works, which are not intended to impress yourself or anyone else, but as an example of God's Love being shown as good works. These works serve only one purpose, to show the results of God's working in and through your life.

Really, this testimony is rather simple. My faith in God's love produces works to honor God.

feralfem said...

Okay Atari, I'll bite... here's my SWAG on how you know about the site:

Your daughter found it while doing research for a school (or perhaps church) project/report. :-)

Anonymous said...

I think Atari was one a Primative Baptist preacher, before being abducted by aliens and forced to undergo a sex change operation.

hehehe (\;-D

ATAR_i said...

OMG - 4:53 - how did you know?


No to all - but thanks for guessing.

In the 1800's one of my ancestors was a leader.

muggsey said...

annon. 10:14

No doubt there have more than a few things I have missed. The one thing that I did get, that to me is more important than the sum total of all other "things" is God's love, through Jesus Christ.

Christ is all I need! I don't need for anything else.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, No doubt.

If it were up to know-it-alls like Muggs there wouldn't be any Christians. It is "preachers" like this who make the whole religion thing sound disgusting to so many.

Your life IS your testimony, not so much what you say you believe.

This is one of the few things you've said that gets any traction:

"These works serve only one purpose, to show the results of God's working in and through your life."

muggsey said...

Annon. 10:33

I don't know very much. I don't need to! I do know this, that Jesus Christ is my Savior, Lord & King and that one day soon he's coming back to earth to take me home with him.

I'm not preaching, I'm teaching, testifying to what I know to be truth and doing exactly what the Lord has given me the talent to do, in His Holy Name. So, if I am not telling the truth I'm a liar. If I am a liar, He who is my constant partner in life, even Jesus my Lord is also a liar. Are you willing to go there?

Am I perfect? Not even close. Introduce me to someone who declares themself as being perfect and I will immediately recognize either a liar or Jesus Christ whom I already know as perfection.

Anonymous said...

Joseph Smith said
"We believe that religion is instituted of God, and that men are amenable
to Him, and to Him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious
opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but
we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules
of worship to bind the conscience of men, or dictate forms for public or
private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never
control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the

bbgae said...

It's interesting that Joseph Smith said that. Look at some of the religions that came from him which DO NOT do anything BUT control the conscience and suppress the freedom of the soul.

Muggsey, are you a minister?

Anonymous said...

I'm no worshipper of Joseph Smith, but if the religions in his day all sounded like Muggsey, I can certainly see why he started a new one!

Anonymous said...

Muggsey have you actually read through the Doctrine & Covenants I wonder? I mean without the jaded the viewpoint.

It seems to me like the only problem might be proving some things by your Biblical standard, which itself couldn't evens stand up to the same criteria for proof at all. But on the other hand you cannot use the Bible to disprove anything there either.

Pretend for one read that you didn't have any prejudice and only look for things that might agree or disagree with your view of Christianity. (Not some rank apostate dime-a-dozen affidavit for a change)

After all you are talking to people here who have actually made comprehensive studies of both texts. So you come across nothing short of blasphemous to a lot of them.

In my view your vitriolic criticisms and "I am saved" rhetoric is as self serving as some of the things JS wrote might "seem" to be to you.

Anonymous said...

I tried not to post on this topic, I honestly tried.

When I was young there was a man who I respected very much (I’ll just refer to him as URoy). In a conversation about belief, truth, and knowledge, he said ‘if you really had the knowledge to fully understand what you are up against, you would get down on your knees and beg God night and day to bless you with the faith you will need to believe in his teachings.’ (Not a direct quote, I remember the big words and the message, just not the exact verbage)

I remember this ocasion because earlier that day I had gotten up in front of our Sunday School class and did something we did quite often as kids…I bared my testimony, or, I repeated what I had heard countless times in my young life…I basically stated that I knew that Joeseph Smith was a prophet of God and the Book of Mormon was true whether I believed it or not…sounds kind of funny now after not thinking or saying these words for the last 30 years.

Before this day, no one in my entire life had ever questioned my “knowledge”. I was always patted on the back for having such a strong testimony for a person so young. But in reality, I just wasn’t afraid of getting up in front of people and repeating what the person before me said. Did I really, truly know it? I must have, didn’t I? I had proclaimed for all to hear that I ‘knew it to be true whether I believed it or not’. I must have known it. Maybe I was trying to piece together words and sentences that I thought URoy and God would want to hear so I wouldn’t be disbarred from Heaven.

I never forgot this, and it was yanked front-and-center the first and only time I saw and smelled a 3 day old corpse. There are a lot of things we say we believe and a lot of things we say we know, but one thing I fully knew at that moment…there ain’t no revivin’ a 3 day old corpse. At that moment I finally understood what URoy had been talking about….’If you fully understood what you are up against, you would get down on your knees and BEG God for the faith to believe in his teachings…’

We often talk about what we know, what we believe, what we think is true, but we don’t give much consideration to how things actually happened. We feel if we ask too many questions then we won’t be found worthy in God’s eyes. We take things for granted and easily convince ourselves … of course a new star was formed that night, of course Joseph Smith was a prophet, of course there was a virgin birth, of course the golden plates existed, of course He walked on water, of course warren is a prophet, of course He died for our sins and was brought back to life after 3 days in a cave, the Lord works in mysterious ways, it was a different time back then.

That was the day I stopped making excuses. I didn’t have the necessary faith, I couldn’t fake the necessary faith, I begged God for the necessary faith, but it didn’t happen.

Its kind of arrogant to state you know something when in fact you really just believe it. Now you may believe it with your complete body, mind, and soul, but it doesn’t make it true and it doesn’t make it fact. And if you fully understood what you were up against….


bbgae said...

Wow, LTG.

I remember listening as the sermon you referred to was read, and you got it almost exactly right. Word for word.

That was an awesome post.

I was initially going to tease you about not posting on this thread, but then I read the rest and :)

feralfem said...

Damn it, LTG!! Why is it that almost everything you share is SO akin to my own experience. Maybe because we are about the same age and therefore had similar experiences - even if we are (or are we?) of opposite genders?

I was considered one of the finest examples of faithful young womanhood in "the work." I'm not at all sure that's how the entire congregation saw me, but I was repeatedly assured of it by the brethren. (Believe me, it's tough trying to stand steady on a pedestal.)

I DID believe, body, mind and soul, everything I was born into, taught and tried diligently to practice. I was going to be the epitome of the perfect priesthood woman.

I, too, was extremely good at lying (I can call it that now) or as you put it, saying and doing the "right" things - things I "knew" the respected authorities over me (father, mothers, husband, priesthood council) wanted to hear.

It wasn't a corpse for me, nor any singular event, that scotched it all for me. However, I knew in my heart of hearts I was not what they cracked me up to be. When I finally acknowledged that to myself, I also "knew" all the respected authorities DIDN'T know, DIDN'T have the divine knowledge they claimed, DIDN'T have a clue about the "real" me, therefore, in what ELSE were they in error? Well, the rest is history...

LTG, your last paragraph is most eloquent. I couldn't agree more.


TBM said...

LTG: "Its kind of arrogant to state you know something when in fact you really just believe it"

Okay LTG, please don't assume I'm trying to be ornery here (because I'm not), but have you ever stopped to question how you know something? For example, I assume you are no molecular biologist or doctor; therefore, how do you know that the Microbial Theory is correct? How do you know that the entire underpinning thesis of western medicine isn't all just BS? How do you know that viruses and bacteria even exist?

Generally, when I ask people that question, people reply something like "Observation has provided the proof." But until about 150 years ago, observation of the same illnesses and symptoms, and the same deaths and recoveries, "proved" completely different theories.

For example, 4000 years ago, a Greek named Hippocrates came up with "The Theory of Four Elements," which argued that all things were made of different proportions of earth, air, water and fire. And illness was the result of an "imbalance" in one of these elements.

So, if your patient had a fever, and was red and hot, you would diagnose that he had an imbalance of fire. You would then cut open one of his veins and let out some of the hot, red stuff -- and, [b]lo and behold[/b], your patient's redness would pale and his temperature would drop! Observation proved the theory was true.

And so convincing was the proof that The Theory of Four Elements remained the fundamental thesis of western medicine until about 300 years ago. By then, western doctors knew that what all the ancient doctors knew was completely wrong, and that illness was actually caused by bad smells (or "poisonous miasmas" as they called them). So strongly did they know this that when a London doctor named John Snow suggested that city's annual cholera epidemics were actually related to the water people drank, he was ridiculed the world over. You only had to go to any city with a cholera problem to know it came from bad smells! And where city governments had laid down sewers to take away all the raw sewage that produced the bad smells, cholera disappeared overnight! Thus, they knew that disease came from poisonous miasmas.

Actually, when London's sewage system was finally constructed, it was because of the intolerable stench of sewage, and not for any health reason! But now, of course, we know that is all nonsense, and we know that disease is actually cause by microbes, don't we? And we know that all you need to do is destroy the microbes, and you will destroy the disease.

And that's why nobody ever dies from cancer, right?

Thus my question, do you know the Microbial Theory is true?

Or is what you call "know" really just a strong belief?

Because if we were to transport you 200 years into the past, every doctor in the western world would tell you that you were talking nonsense -- and he'd be able to prove it.

Anonymous said...

bro b
who is the keeper of your soul?

muggsey said...

Why consult something you believe to be nothing but tripe?

I believe the Bible. It is it's own best comentary.

I don't need some semi-literate practicioner of divination to lend a comment. He has no credibility, none! Those who refer to his comments as scripture know no more than he so, what I observe is a merry-go-round of dogs chasing their tails.

As far as reading mormon, d&c, pearl, or any other such rubbish I don't believe any of that stuff, I'm not in the compromising business so I'll keep on believing in God's word, not Smith's literary disaster.

Evan as I write this, there has just been another killing at NASA in Houston, a kid has been arrested in Colorado because he came to school carrying firearms. It's far past the time to be chasing myths and time to face reality. This world is sick. The satanic forces are driving in all directions to cause confusion and doubt. I intend to stand firm upon that which I believe and have believed since I accepted Jesus Christ as Lord & Savior before most of you were born.

Anonymous said...

Of course. That's what I figured you would say Muggs.

It was obvious that you hadn't really read anything you are so vehemently criticizing, in spite of all you had to say "about" it like a parrot.

The irony is that you can find the time and culture the inclination to read and research and digest and reference every piece of tripe, dogma, and garbage you can dredge up to back up your prejudice. Same old.

You have made it clear though, that your opinion has to be discounted to nothing but rhetoric. You are your own best commentary.

Anonymous said...

Today I went to a local nursery to buy some pampas grass. The cashier kept calling it pompous grass. I finally said to her "men are 'pompous' this is 'pampas'"

I just can't help relating today's exchange with the topic at hand.

Men are pompous! (grass is not)

Anonymous said...

You got me. My 3rd grade book learnin' didn't cover microbial theory...but neither did my master's or doctoral courses.

If microbes were causing the cancer, I guess you didn't kill them all.

Somewhere in there you have a point, but I'll admit, I didn't get it. Maybe it'll make more sense when I read it next weekend and its not so late.


TBM said...

"And the Lord did say unto Muggsey, Of all manner of BS thou mayest accept freely, but of the literature that is praiseworthy, thou shalt not accept, for in that day, thou shalt surely die"

Sometimes, I think Muggsey is tempted to listen to satan, who tells him, "Ye shalt not surely die, but your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good from evil"

But Muggsey has thus far remained true and refused to partake!

TBM said...

LTG: "My 3rd grade book learnin' didn't cover microbial theory...but neither did my master's or doctoral courses"

Really? Mine did.

muggsey said...

You are right tbm. I HAVE read snips from several of the mormon works and quite a bit of the Book of Mormon. I have read more pro and con remarks from apologists and individuals who find gross deceit. There are just too many coincidences of like findings and conclusions among those who find fault with the origin of Mormonism and especially with the idea that there were Christians in the
Western emisphere prior to the various geographic European discoveries. 'Canned' rebutal offering denials and refering to one of the works originating from mormon writers being deemed sacred are continually used as back-up for the apologists points of view. Never do these apologists seem to dig deeply into ancient scriptural texts to support their beliefs. BJS (before Joseph Smith) nothing substantive appears to support even the need for such a work.

God's plan of salvation was perfect. The redemption price for sin had been paid. Patterns for living the Christian lifestye were in place. One thing that must be understood. The Bible was not available to the masses but was chained to the pulpit, written only in latin prior to Luther, who did an early translation into German and Tyndale who bypassed the Vulgate and went to the Ancient Copies, Most Ancient Copies and Original Manuscripts to develop his translation directly into the English language. The use of Guttenberg's printing press allowed this marvelous work to be printed in mass production and copies to be distributed all over the English speaking world.

This Bible, Tyndale's translation of the Old and New Testament did more to spark the Great Revivals and the turn of mankind toward worship of the Lord God than any other single influence.

Other translations followed: Coverdale, Matthews, Great, Geneva, Bishops, King James, Revised Version, American Standard Version, The English Bible, the Living Bible (Paraphrased), Phillips (paraphrased), New International Version, New King James Version, New American Standard Version and countless other translations. (Note: Wycliffe is purposfully omitted because it is a direct translation from the Latin Vulgate.)

With the ability of men to learn and cross-reference various translations, in various languages, a renewal of interest in the written word of God has come.

Every ear shall hear but not every heart will confess. This is prophesy and on the final day, at the final moment every eye will be opened to truth and man will call out in fear for the rocks to fall upon him to hide them from the face of the Lamb of God, even Jesus called the Christ.

ATAR_i said...

LTG and Feral,

I so did enjoy your posts. Although not in FLDS or LDS, I had an experience not dissimilar to your own - a scales the fell before my eyes sort of time.

I didn't disbelieve in God, for some reason, that has never been an issue for me. But I did question all the rhetoric that surrounded the social issues, customs, beliefs of my church.

I was also the epitome of a 'good girl' - I asked no less than perfection of myself, and my behavior.

Without revealing too much, I will tell you that personal tragedy has struck my family in this past month, I'm reeling a little bit, I wish I could say more, but I appreciate my anonymity here too much.

TBM said...

Muggsey: "'Canned' rebutal"
As opposed to the canned criticism, ill-informed and selectively researched, that you mechanically consider to be of unquestionable reliability. You actually take the Spaulding manuscript seriously, for crying out loud!

Anonymous said...

I take umbrage with the term "apologetics" to begin with. It presupposes guilt. You should not have to apologize for an accusation, or an allegation.

They can completely loose the argument hands down, but you are still the apologetic for defending your faith?

It's just another creative way that apostates, enemies, other "apologetics" and anti-* activists have of foisting their prejudice onto those who don't really know the truth, or don't agree with their position.

Who should apologize, really?

bbgae said...

It is NOT a weakness to apologize.

Anonymous said...

It is if you are apologizing for believing in being honest, true, chaste and benevolent, and doing good to all men. Or any of the other Articles of Faith.

Anonymous said...

take umbrage with the term "apologetics" to begin with. It p

anon,I believe that were you to look up the word,"apologetics" in your dictionary, you may be a bit suprised.


Anonymous said...

tbm, does the spalding manuscript still exist? it was my understanding that it was lost.

TBM said...

It was discovered in Hawaii in 1885, and has been lodged in the library of Oberlin College, Ohio, ever since. If you copy and paste the following URL, you can read it (you won't be thrilled!), together with an introduction explaining the story behind its discovery.

TBM said...

7.02: I don't like that word either. It gives an impression of someone under pressure, rather than forthrightly standing up for his convictions.

Anonymous said...

True Bluebeard. Taken in that sense it is more complementary but it is still a morphed meaning that most likely originated as a label from the accusers.

It's still one of their favorites.

Sort of like religious fundamentalist is morphing into wacko extremest.

Then there are the fundamentalist apologetics. Those are the really deluded ones.

At this point, when you've "confessed" to being an apologetic their attack turns to screwed up sensational doctrines and indefensible incidents that the "apologetics" are supposed to defend and it cycles the whole argument into nothing but another opportunity for them to vent their same old invective, again.

TBM said...

I can tell you've done this before, 9.11 :-)

Anonymous said...

anonymous,your analysis certainly has merit, but I believe that the metamorphosis, actually occures when an accuser stops referring to an apologist as a defender of a cause,and uses the term as an admittance of guilt.


Anonymous said...

I agree again Bluebeard, but the problem is they can trap themselves in the Liar's Paradox and not even know it, while you, as defender of truth, on the other hand, do not get to afford yourself that luxury.

In other words, they use your ethics against you, and you can't do that to them because they don't have any.

So in the end you do have to apologize. But it is to apologize for giving them another opportunity to blaspheme.

I always feel some guilt for doing that.

muggsey said...


It is amazing to observe your use of apologetics in support of your own case!


Anonymous said...

See how Muggs uses the word. Case in point.

muggsey said...


I remember our endless and fruitles discussion of the Spalding manuscript. My opinion has not changed, it never did. If you think my dropping the issue was submission to your point of view you are mistaken. I simply came to the point where I saw that you were not going to be pursuaded to change your outlook as I was not being of the opposite opinion. Just because we do not agree on this issue I see no reason not to continue our debate. Is it not better to agree to disagree than stop discussion? Let's hang in there. I note of late that my posts seem to nearly gain rebutal. That's OK, I'm an American who stands on the first bill of rights: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;: Amendment I U.S. Constitution (1791)

One of my greatest desires is that congress and especilly the courts would read and understand the very simple meaning of the statement in this ammendment following the comma. The court system does not take this second part into consideration when they make rulings concerning morality issues and by their actions they are indeed interfering with free exercise of religion within our nation.

muggsey said...

Attack, Attack, Attack----

You folks STILL have not addressed the fact that there are no supportive writings from any source except from those who have something on the line that they need to prove. And, these supportive documents all post-date JS's little fantasy journey. I've been over this so often that it is becoming a bore.

Can anyone give me a straight answer? Something offered by a non mormon to support your tale?

Anonymous said...

However does this for Muggs, be sure and include proof that there is a God also, or you can rest assured his argument will NOT stop there.

TBM said...

"Can anyone give me a straight answer? Something offered by a non mormon to support your tale?"
That's a strange demand from a proponent of the Spaulding manuscript. What independent, impartial evidence do you have to support your position?

I can give you something offered by p*****-off ex-Mormons. Will that do?

I never imagined you had changed your opinion as a result of that thread. But that doesn't affect the ridiculousness of Spaulding manuscript argument.

muggsey said...

And it surely doesn't support that JS received his revelation from anyone but himself, or that American Indians were once from Israel, or that there were EVER any golden plates, reformed egyptian, seer stones etc. etc. etc. to infinity.

Annon. 12:01

I can't prove to you that there is a GOD. Why waste my time? You've made up your mind, made your choice and will live and die with the consequences.

I live by faith. Faith in what? In God Allmighty, creator, sustainer, savior, king and the spirit of God's eternal invitation to all who would---Come, the door is open. Believe that God loves you, in spite of your claim to not believe in him, give your inner self over into His care, His promise, His salvation.

You don't believe in God. I don't believe that you are an atheist nor an agnostic. I think that you are a sinner in grave need of that which God offers free, but, it's your choice, not mine. I just plant the seed, God reaps the harvest.

Anonymous said...

You are so good at jumping to conclusions Muggs, but you could be more wrong.

A sinner? Aren't we all. Except you of course. You've got your ticket punched for only confessing to believe.

Anonymous said...

wouldn't A true Christian ethic preclude one from so readily taking offense to something as mundane as another's ecclesiastical convictions ?


Anonymous said...


Why are you so threatened by Mormons? Is there something in their theology that rigs true? Threatens your world view?


TBM said...

It's a shame you don't apply the same rigorous requirements to the evidence on your side, Muggsey. While the Mormons' evidence about the Spaulding manuscript may not be ideal, at least we have some.

But then again, even if I were able to produce "something offered by a non mormon to support your tale", you'd just move the goalpost and demand an even greater level of reliability, wouldn't you? Because ultimately, this is not a quest for the truth -- it's just about proving the Mormons wrong.

But what you don't seem to comprehend is that your repeated sermons on Faith and Works undermine your own position. I believe in Christ. I accept Christ as my Savior, entirely in the way that you have so often urged me to do.

If I persist in an erroneous conviction in the BoM and the LDS church, then by your own arguments, that just one more sin that Christ atoned for anyway. So what's the problem?

Anonymous said...

The Privilege of Religious Freedom 1843-44

But meddle not with any man for his religion: and all governments ought
to permit every man to enjoy his religion unmolested. No man is authorized to
take away life in consequence of difference of religion, which all laws and
governments ought to tolerate and protect, right or wrong. Every man has a
natural, and, in our country, a constitutional right to be a false prophet, as
well as a true prophet. If I show, verily, that I have the truth of God, and
show that ninety-nine out of every hundred professing religious ministers are
false teachers, having no authority, while they pretend to hold the keys of
God's kingdom on earth, and was to kill them because they are false teachers,
it would deluge the whole world with blood.
Joseph Smith

muggsey said...


I have given several references as to the Spalding Manuscript as the source of Mormon. If you check my past postings I'm sure that you will find authors, book titles, references, publishing houses, dates of being published etc., etc., etc. I think my evidence is more believable than any I have seen from your point of view, otherwise I would relent and apologize for causing so much trouble.

TBM said...

Muggsey, why don't you conduct the best research of all -- why don't you read the Spaulding manuscript yourself, and compare it to the Book of Mormon yourself. If you did that, I think it would be immediately obviously to you just how much of it Joseph Smith copied.

But that's the one thing you'll never do, isn't it? Because like I said above, you're not interested in the truth, just in hearing that the mormons are wrong.

muggsey said...


You are aware that there were two manuscripts aren't you? The first one was the one from which Smith took his liberties in stealing the story line from which "Mormon" derived. The second was found much later in the library in one of the early towns where mormonism was attempted and failed, Kirkland, if I remember correctly. The most interesting bit of accompanying information is the fact that the "manuscipt" had long reported as "lost", but then suddenly, and conviently, redescovered long after JS's death. The one, reportedly found was manuscript number two, not the one concerning the "wandering" tribes of Israel!

Spaulding's first manuscript was the one that was reported as being the original, submitted for print, but presumed to have been destroyed by the fire.

But, just suppose JS did receive a message from the Lord concerning the correct form for a church, in his dream. Joseph, being known for somewhat unethical practices supposedly was introduced to God and Jesus. How did Smith escape this Divine Encounter? The Bible explicitly states that sinful man cannot stand in the presence of God and live. If God so much as looks upon an unrepentant siner he/she, the sinning human, is destroyed immediately, for no man can look at God and live.

It is so strange that the angel was supposed to have introduced JS to both God & Jesus. If the GOD & JESUS I worship came into my presence, and I was sin free enough to continue to live, I would know them both, intimentally, as they would know me. An introduction, as such would serve no purpose, I certainly wouldn't have to be introduced and neither would they! After all, I'm one of their creations, just as are the rocks, hills, trees, sky, planets, all life and the entire universe.

I was born once, physically, a second time upon my profession of faith in Jesus Christ as my Savior, Redeemer. I will die only once, at the end of my physical life. My soul, which belongs to Jesus will continue in His presence forever. The only possible exception to my dying would be that I was caught up with the hosts of living Christians, immediately following the Resurection of those in Christ who have pased-away. We, resurected and alive are "the Bride of Christ", and will be taken prior to the Great Tribulation to celebrate the end of times and the marriage feast of the Lamb and HIS Bride, the saved from earth, from all time. These folks are there because they live by faith and believe that their Salvation was not earned but freely given as a "Gift" known as GRACE, to all who accept Jesus as Lord.

The Spaulding doccuments are not your only problem. Sorry.

TBM said...

At the moment, we're arguing about the Spaulding Manuscript -- the rest is a side rail.

Now, you're the one that was going on about evidence a couple posts ago. Have you any evidence that there were two manuscripts?

Let me save you time and just give you the short answer: "No"

The manuscript was discovered in Honolulu in the archives of the former state printer of Ohio, L. L. Rice, who had retired there.

The first suggestion of multiple manuscripts was made in 1885, when Charles Deming, a prominent anti-Mormon of the 1880's was informed by L. L. Rice that the manuscript was most definitely not the origin of the BoM. Faced with the prospect that all his work would be undone, and he himself would look a fool, he suddenly popped up this theory that Spaulding had more than one manuscript -- something that had never before been previously mentioned.

On top of that, L. L. Rice (who was no friend of the Mormons) investigated Deming's claims and found them groundless -- that the manuscript in his possession was the only writing Solomon Spaulding produced.

Since then, no-one has found any reliable other evidence that Solomon Spaulding ever wrote another manuscript.

I must confess to being bemused by your stubborness. I'm not asking you to accept the truth of the BoM, or even to say that Joseph Smith didn't copy it from something else. I'm just asking to accept the blantently obvious that if Joseph Smith did copy the BoM, he didn't do it from the Spaulding Manuscript.

If you're about to leap in with the argument about "Manuscript Found" vs "Conneaught Creek", don't bother. Spaulding's title for the work was "Manuscript Found". Rice had placed the manuscript in a wrapper upon which he had written "Manuscript Story --Conneaught Creek". Conneaught Creek was an invention of Rice's, not Spaulding's.

So sorry Muggsey, but the "two manuscripts" idea, like most of your ideas about the Mormons, is wishful thinking. It may suit your ends, but that doesn't make it true.

Of course, where Mormons are concerned, you and your ilk believe the end justifies the means. If you can't come up with anything genuine, you'll just lie.

Anonymous said...

Once again it becomes obvious that Muggsey hasn't read either, but goes on and about both as though he were some kind of authority on the subject, regurgitating his (same old) prejudicial opinions.

Makes me wonder if he isn't doing the same thing with his Bible.

Anonymous said...

TBM , when I was a little kid in Sunday school at Shortcreek, we were studying "the history of Utah. it was a huge volume, maybe 4" thick, I don't remember who the author was. anyway, this same argument about the book of Mormon and the Spalding ms. was in there. the parts I remember, don't seem to be in there (the Ms. I got from the net) as I recall, the travelers that got lost, and ended up in America, were from the ten tribes of Isreal, not from Rome. any way, maybe you can refresh my memory on this subject.


muggsey said...


see 5/3/07 6:05 pm

Anonymous said...

Good idea muggsey, just give us the joke number from now on. We've heard all yours a gazillion times.

TBM said...

Muggsey, please refresh my memory. What is this evidence that is more believable than the fact that the Book of Mormon bears no resemblance whatever to the Spaulding manuscript, whether in story or in style?

If I told you that Pontiac's designs were copied from a banana, what do you think might possibly give you grounds to doubt my assertion?

Uncaduff: I don't know what that book would be. But the Spaulding Manuscript does contain a portion where the Roman expedition to the Americas encounters a group of Jewish settlers.

Anonymous said...

What I could never fathom about all the Book of Mormon nay sayers was that if it were touted as a work of fiction, then the author would have to be right up there in their esteem and world renown literary class as J.R.R. Tolken, or J.K. Rowling.

"Made up" names, places, languages, epics of exacting detail of people places and things and an exceptionally intriguing page turning story line that moves people to accept it as profound insight sometimes.

But with a major difference.

The message is viable, uplifting and productive. In the end, it has a moral benefit. It leaves a promise of being prospered for believing and living the principles of the Gospel and a condemnation for rejecting them. Is this so new a concept that other "Christians" get all miffed over it? Is science, archeology and history so exact now, that no one can claim to be inspired in those fields, without being excoriated?

So what IF these people in this story were not actually the Native Americans. And what is so wrong with assuming they are, and that it gives them another opportunity to receive the fullness of the Gospel? And then is it a big problem that the people who believe this make an effort to bring them into and understanding of it. What if they are? Then what?

I believe it is true and historical, but what if it was only a made up story about peoples being directed, blessed and prospered if the they served the Lord, and driven persecuted, punished, cursed, and eventually destroyed if they didn't.

So what if it does teach the same lessons over and over, that are taught in the Bible for the same reasons. And what's the problem with advocating the Ten Commands, having charity, taking care of the poor, widows and fatherless. Why would anyone be offended if someone tells a story about someone like the Savior, who comes and does the same things, teaches the same principles, beatitudes, does similar miracles and leaves the same promises.

Why would anyone get haughty, stupid and arrogant about faith promoting stories, lessons on the effects of faith, and stories that tell of prophecy and miraculous incidents?

I couldn't care less what Harry Potter does. Or how many hobbits live where and do what. So if the Book of Mormon was made up mythological fiction, what's the big deal?

Only one reason, I think, why people get caught up in a crusade against the Book of Mormon, or it's author; they are offended by the truth. Indifference or even ignorance, wouldn't do it.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 213   Newer› Newest»