Apostasy from Christ' true teachings

I can't find a offical answer from the church. I have found some websights which help perhaps, DHC 1:315 is regarding the civil war and the word "generation" was actually understood as a "dispensation".Quiz[This message has been edited by Quiz, 11-14-2003]

[quote]When was a temple built in Independence, MO by the generation living in 1832 (D&C 84:4,5)?[quote] The day and time for the temple was changed for a future date. This is ok though, because the bible has prophecies which also were changed for certain reasons, as long as the prophecy is changed quickly, it does not harm the greatness of the prophecy or the proof that God exists or the idea that a prophet is not a prophet.Quiz[This message has been edited by Quiz, 11-14-2003]

quote:

---

OK.

​

Please give me a couple of examples of J. Smith's prophecies which you consider that he has fulfilled.

---

Their is one located on Post 128.

quote:

---

Please also list examples of what kind of evidence you would accept for each which would convince you that the the prophecies, in fact, were not fulfilled.

---

Read post 95 from RIE about the civil war and read post 129. The answer is more theoretical but it atleast answered the question. This kind of theoritecal evidence could be proof that perhaps he was not what Joseph Smith said he was.Quiz

1. (ASGARA)D&C 132 - answered - post 29
2. (ASGARA)Timeframe Apostasy would occur - answered in post 60 and 63
3. (RIE)romans mention jesus - not found, rie you are right from what I can find. - Still looking
4. (RIE)baptist being critical thinker, they are in the religous world. But I guess that does not count.
5. (RIE)gnostics = early catholics = no difference = they were already apostate.
6. (RIE) As a hypothetical person in this hypothetical courtroom, I say "Case dismissed." = you would be a bad judge, dismissing cases before reviewing all evidence.
7. (Prozacman and definition of sons of perdition) answered in post 116
8. (post 69) answered in post 70
9. post 77 answered in post 122
10. post 78 by RIE - answered in post 123
11. post 82 answered in post 86
12. post 80 still not answered by TL
13. (RIE) post 94, defimition of character - answered in post 126
14. post 95 - answered post 128-131
15. post 97 - answered in post 132
16. post 98 - question in 107
17. seer stone biblical? - search the bible for seer references you will find them.
18. truth about ancient translation - answered in post 124
19. post 108 - answered in post 115Did I miss any?QuizP.S. Conclusion, only a few of my answeres were theoretical most were factual and reveal some fulfilled prophecies. I will stand by these answeres knowing some of them are theoritcal.[This message has been edited by Quiz, 11-14-2003]

Scripture as it appears in D&C:130 14-17(14)I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following: (15)Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter.(16)I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face.(17)I believe the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time.You have to read the entire scripture to understand the context.Quiz[This message has been edited by Quiz, 11-15-2003]

If you read the scripture in context you are right the prophecy is a joke, but it does not point to a coming, rather it points to when he wont come. Not that he will come by 1890 but rather he wont come before 1890, but could come after 1890.Quiz

I never said D&C 130:14-17 was impressive and I never said it held water. I also want to add that this is the way most of the prophecies are which are christian base. The point is not that the prophecy was lame, the point is that the prophecy does not state that Jesus is going to come before 1890 which is the point Rie was stating.QuizP.S. We were looking for false prophecies, Rie was presenting that this prophecy was false because Jesus has not returend.[This message has been edited by Quiz, 11-15-2003]

I understand you and perhaps I agree with you.Quiz

That is a list I have been keeping, I was making everyone aware of the current list of problems on this thead around Joseph Smith because we are talking about Joseph Smith, then I tried to respond to the list rather then to the direct posts so people would work with the list, helps to organize things...QuizConclusion: Based off the civil war prophecy, I must agree that the church re-interpreted the information in a way that makes the scripture seem like Joseph Smith was not a false prophet but in eathercase if you read the civil war prophecy in context you think that Joseph Smith prophecied a world war not a civil war and as such you must come to the conclusion that this is a false prophecy. Thus making Joseph Smith False Unless they are right, which I highly doubt and like everyone in this debate probably thinks you have to take the facts and the fact is Joseph Smith falsy Prophecied about the civil war. note: you cant change this prophecy from talking about the civil war to another war beacuse in the begining it is specificaly talking about the civil war. With this conclusion everything the LDS church teaches has fallen, Their teaching of the falling away, their teaching of the restoration, all falls because the civil war falls and this makes the lds church look like nothing more then another reformation but worse, led by a false prophet but not only a false prophet but a witch. I want you to know that I came to this conclusion after re-reading all my responses which were factual as to the LDS doctrine. The LDS church seems to make exscuses for each prophecy and they claim to have a prophet to this day, and if they had a prophet to this day, I would ask why? why would they be so confuesed, why make exscuses for their problems.. Anyways thats it, the apostasy as explained has fallen, the presentation was incorrect. Kinda sucks because I was hopeing J Smith was true, but oh well. Thanks guys.. In anycase this does not have any problems with the Jesus of the bible BECAUSE he did prophecy that false prophets would come and we just discussed one and in anycase that prophecy has literly came true and you cannot say that is not a fact [This message has been edited by Quiz, 11-15-2003]

I agree, and I understand what you are saying. Like I said they (i.e. LDS church) could be right but I doubt it. You have to weigh the evidence.Quiz

I would say it was not the prophecies that made me believe, perhaps that was a misconception. I said I found the church through history. I have been deceived with theoritical answeres and I am glad that we had this conversation because perhaps I was confused. I have already stated that I lost the debate.It does not mean that I dont believe, this just means I doubt that Joseph Smith is a prophet now. I have had these conversations before but before, I was like talking to a brick wall, latly since I have came to this forum, I actually see were you have to stop convincing your self of certain things, because people will do blind acts beacuse they want something to be true, that was my nature for a short time. I was simply blind because I wanted so much for Joseph Smith to be true, but I see how he could not be true. Let me note that I am still a young kid, 22, and I may not know everything... I am happy we were able to debate, so that I could learn as this is the reason I came the forum. I always start with a brick wall as my defense untill I see the big picture and verify the big picture at which point if the big picture is authenticated I adopt a new view as I have done here. Joseph Smith is false from the facts, you cannot re interpret a prophesy which if I remember right, PAULK pointed out. Anyways thanksQuiz[This message has been edited by Quiz, 11-16-2003]

When I first found "Church Of Jesus Christ Of Ladder Day Saints" I already had a understanding that Christianity was apostate and it was biblical that such would happen, yet no churches I found tought about the apostasy, they all saw the scripture differently which pointed to the apostasy, and I disagreed, (i.e. all the different teachings) but then I found (after getting into more recent history research) a church which for the most part kinda brought together all the teachings of all the different churches and expelled the teachings which were obviously blasphemy, (I accepted the church without researching prophecies because of personal fulfillment) which at that point I began to look into the LDS church and I researched the church for 2 years before I joined the church. Yes, some missionaries came and answered a few questions but for the most part all my answeres came through prayer, or what I thought was revelation when really it was the adversary (sometimes you cant tell the difference as you can see their is alot of different teachings out their). My point is that I found the church through history and the church validated some of my own personal feelings which at that point I thought that it was a revelation of God that I should join this church. Now I am at the point were I am a "seeker" somebody that does not support any of the churches but finds they are all confused for the most part, but I still agree with the bible because evolution is limited in my opinion. I think that if you take evolution to far you are putting faith into it just like those who put faith into God. Anyways, thats me, peace.Quiz[This message has been edited by Quiz, 11-17-2003]

quote:

---

Even if the Theory of Evolution was completely wrong that doesn't mean that the Bible is correct. For the Bible to be the correct explanation for the origin of species (not life)on Earth, it needs to stand on it's own with it's own positive evidence.

​

Unfortunately, it fails pretty spectacularly at explaining what we observe in nature.

---

That depends on the interpretation. I would say that God of the bible did create life on earth, at which point Natural Selection and Sexual Selection took over, allowing mutation to occur. I think mutation is not a math err, but a problem with food intake instead. I am saying that mutation occurs because of drugs/bad food intake which can cause when preg. with child/mammel/animal whatever a mutation to occur. When the baby is born it appears mutated this is to blame the mother on, not the father. If the mutated baby is of the sexual selection then sure, change occurs in natural selection eventually. Yes, natural selection also happends to the atmosphere and this is also allowed from a biblical standpoint.

quote:

---

The thing is, the Theory of Evolution is just about as well-supported as anything gewts in science.

---

So is the bible in religon. In science macro-evolution and the mechinisms of it, are not fully supported and as such we cannot accept it factually. I would say the confusion in science is the same as the confusion in religon.Quiz[This message has been edited by Quiz, 11-18-2003]

quote:

---

However, the ToE is not affected by how life got here.

---

The TOE is effected becase you have to explain how from no matter came matter.

quote:

---

Mutation is either a replication error which has to do with chemical bonds, or it is caused by damage from radiation. There are any number of substances which can damage DNA.

---

replication error would suggest a mathmatical error, all though I do agree with damage from radiation but it is also damage from other substances too.

quote:

---

Actually, if the sperm is damaged, mutations can occur in the fetus.
There is an equal chance that a mutation will come from the father than from the mother.

---

My understanding is that mutation won't occur unless a "outside" source comes into the picture and adds something, which causes a inbalance then eventually a mutation, but this is not transferable from the father (a bad sperm wont duplicate it is discarded) as that would be acquired characteristics, the inbalance has to happen to the mother and only the mother while she is preg.

quote:

---

What the heck are you talking about?
The atmosphere does not reproduce with variation, so natural selection does not happen to the atmosphere.

---

your right, the claims are all theoretical.

quote:

---

No, the Bible being a divine book is completely UNSUPPORTED by any evidence at all!

​

Religion is not evidence-based. It is faith-based.

​

Science is evidence-based.

---

Their is some scientific evidence for bibilical claims, but yeah it is mostly theoretical as that is were the faith comes in(i.e. confusion also).

quote:

---

No, it is quite well-supported and it is simply YOU who cannot accept it.

​

What makes you, who above shows a painful ignorance of even the bare basics of genetics and evolution, think you know so much better than the hundreds of thousands of professional scientists who have studied these things in great detail for 150 years?

---

You're right, I dont have much knowledge in genes. But evolution I understand preatty well for that does not take much to understand. The point I am trying to get across is: The reason why the TOE is called the TOE is because it is a theory(i.e. theory of evolution). Sure evolution is factual but the TOE is not. That's were the faith plays a role in evolution(i.e. the toe). The bible being supported in religon world? Sure alot of people support the bible in religon and alot of people support the TOE in science, they are both theoretical, and as such they require faith. You can come up with all kinds of explanations with evidence or without as to why a certain scripture means something, that is why their is so much confusion in Christianity because nobody really knows what exactly Christ tought. The same for science, no body really knows factually what happend, and as such we cannot just come up with ideas because something points(i.e. evidence) in that direction, that is were false prophets come into play, people who see certain things and think this is what happened or is going to happen, same idea. The point is, TOE is theoretical and as such it requires faith. Sure you have some facts supporting that faith, but so do Christians.Quiz

quote:

---

Do you think that accepting the evidence that germs cause disease is the same as having faith in God, or that accepting that the Sun is the center of our solar system and all the planets orbit around it is based in the same kind of faith that allows people to belive in Allah?

---

I dont think that eather are relevent when trying to support or deny the God of the Bible.

quote:

---

If credible, falsifiable, well-tested evidence came forth which disproved some or all of the Theory of Evolution, I would definitely accept it. How is this the same as having faith in God?

---

Maybe we need to create a post about "facts of the bible that disprove or approve it"Quiz[This message has been edited by Quiz, 11-18-2003]