Post Reply
Switch to Forum Live View Mormonism 101: Do Latter-day Saints believe in modern-day prophets?
3 years ago  ::  Mar 24, 2012 - 4:42PM #1
Theo
Posts: 4,691

Do Latter-day Saints believe in modern-day prophets?


The Mormon Church says, Yes. The Church is governed today by apostles, reflecting the way Jesus organized His Church in biblical times. Three apostles constitute the First Presidency (consisting of the president or prophet of the Church and his two counselors), and, together with the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, they have responsibility for leading the Church worldwide and serving as special witnesses of the Lord Jesus Christ. Each is accepted by Church members in a prophetic role corresponding to the apostles in the Bible.


1) Mormon apostles and prophets reflect the structure of American Corporations far better than they reflect how Jesus organized His Church in Biblical times. The original apostles had the Church appoint deacons so they could be free from the mundane to serve God better - Acts 6: 2-4. "Then the twelve summoned the multitude of the disciples and said, "It is not desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables. Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business; but we will give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word."


2) The LDS Prophet is the head of the LDS Church and CEO of numerous corporate holding; and the Mormon quorum of apostles are his board of directors. Together they manage a huge financial empire, indirectly supported by the Mormon rank and file, who faithfully give of their tithes and offerings to the Church. The Mormon Church boasts about having no paid clergy, and yet their apostles and prophets are compensated handsomely with corporate stocks. Jesus taught His disciples, "you cannot serve both God and mammon," but LDS.INC. is out to prove Him wrong. The original apostles gave themselves to prayer and the ministry of the word - Mormon apostles have better things to do apparently.


3) The Apostolic Church was not led by a Prophet, it was led by Jesus Christ from heaven, who is the head of His Body, which is the Church. The 12 apostles served Christ directly, not under a Prophet, they did not have a "first presidency consisting of two apostles and a prophet." They preached the Gospel to the Church and the world at large, they were not businessmen. They oversaw the Church and managed the presbytery... i.e. the bishops and elders of the Church. And they organized the Church wherever they went preaching the Gospel, selecting bishops and elders to govern the Church from among those who believed the Gospel. They worked together under Christ with others who had various gift ministries, including prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers.


When the original apostles died or were martyred, the Church suffered a great loss, even so, they were not necessarily replaced by other men appointed as replacement... Judas was replaced by Matthias in the beginning because he killed himself, and Christ taught that the apostles would someday sit on 12 thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel, so it was understood that they needed 12 to begin their ministry. And while it is true there were other apostles besides the 12, nothing in Scripture says the Church replaced the original apostles when they died, or that they needed a quorum of 12 apostles in order for the Church to continue to function properly. The 12 apostles were overseers, (bishops) and eyewitnesses of Christ, and when they died, their function as eyewitnesses of Christ was lost to the Church, however, their position as overseers (i.e. bishops) was not. Their thrones, as it were, remained occupied by bishops.


Of all the apostles, only St. Paul was not an eyewitness, but in his case, Jesus appeared to him in a vision and appointed him as His witness and apostle to the gentiles... moreover, the original apostles accepted him as an apostle. Mormons claim that their apostles have also seen Jesus - like St. Paul, but unlike St. Paul, they have no original apostles to bear witnesses and validate their claims.


After the death of the apostles, the next generation of bishops continued to oversee the work of the Church and managed the presbytery. However, they did not consider themselves equal to the apostles, unless they came together in Church council. It may interest some to know that the Pope is actually the bishop of the Church of Rome. All the ancient Churches in Christendom are led by men, heir to the throne of an original bishop and the founding apostle(s).


Most Evangelical Churches do not have bishops. They are mostly organized democratically according to state laws, with a government consisting of a Church board (or eldership) with either a presiding pastor, or a minister employed by the Church. Church governments can be diverse from one independent Church to another, and then different Evangelical denominations have their own respective systems in place for managing their Churches. Even so, the Mormon Church has to organize under State Law too - only thing is, in Utah they pretty much are the State.


Mormons claim to be the restored Church of Jesus Christ because that is their name and they alone have a Prophet and 12 apostles leading the Church. Evangelicals believe it is far more important to believe and practice what Christ and His apostles taught, rather than appoint 12 men and a false prophet, who are actually businessmen, to lead the Church. That is not what Christ taught, nor what Christian history shows the Apostolic Church did.   


Do Latter-day Saints believe that the apostles receive revelations from God?


The Mormon Church says, Yes. When Latter-day Saints speak to God, they call it prayer. When God responds through the influence of the Holy Spirit, members refer to this as revelation. Revelation, in its broad meaning, is divine guidance or inspiration; it is the communication of truth and knowledge from God to His children on earth, suited to their language and understanding. It simply means to uncover something not yet known. The Bible illustrates different types of revelation, ranging from dramatic visions to gentle feelings — from the “burning bush” to the “still, small voice.” Mormons generally believe that divine guidance comes quietly, taking the form of impressions, thoughts and feelings carried by the Spirit of God.


The First Presidency (consisting of the president or prophet of the Church and his two counselors) and members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles receive inspiration to guide the Church as a whole. Individuals are also inspired with revelation regarding how to conduct their lives and help serve others.


1) When Christians speak to God, we call it prayer too. When God speaks to us, we call it revelation too. We believe the Holy Spirit speaks to our hearts and guides us, by bringing Scripture to our remembrance and by enlightening our minds to understand the Word. We believe God speaks to our hearts and minds, but not so much with audible words, or in visions, pillars of fire, or ecstatic experiences, but through the Word of God, by the promptings from the Holy Spirit, and through our fellow Christians.


2) When it comes to our Church leaders, we pray that God leads them and gives them His wisdom to share with the Church through the Holy Spirit and the Holy Bible. Christian leaders have often been outspoken when it comes to the issues of the day, guiding and informing the Churches under their charge, but not to the point that we do cannot go to God directly, and do not think for ourselves as individual Christians.


3) The Council of Bishops in the 4th century settled on a list of books (the Canon of Scripture) that they accepted as written by the apostles or their associates, that Standard remains to this day. The Canon of books they validated was identical to those commonly used in the Apostolic Churches (holy sees) and quoted by the early fathers and apologists. Obviously, they had a duty to safeguard the fountain head of Christianity, and this they did, validating the list of 27 books and letters comprising the "New Testament," without denying their right to govern the Church as Christ guided them. Thus they distinguished between Apostolic Tradition and Church Tradition.


So when it comes to the revelation of Scripture, Christians believe that God spoke, at various times and in various ways, to the fathers by the prophets, but has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things... Heb 1:1-2. Therefore, we accept the revelations of God, as made known to the Church through Jesus Christ and His Apostles in Holy Scripture. We do not, however, accept any other books, revelations, pronouncements, or "inspired documents" as Scripture. Had the Church accepted other writings as the word of God, it would have ceased being Christianity a thousand years ago, just as the Mormon Church diverged from Christianity by accepting the revelations and claims of Joseph Smith.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 24, 2012 - 6:57PM #2
Ironhold
Posts: 11,664

Mar 24, 2012 -- 4:42PM, Theo wrote:


The original apostles had the Church appoint deacons so they could be free from the mundane to serve God better



news flash: so do we.


2) The LDS Prophet is the head of the LDS Church and CEO of numerous corporate holding; and the Mormon quorum of apostles are his board of directors.



Most of the corporations were actually created in order to directly meet the needs of the church membership itself.


ZCMI? The members needed a common marketplace. In fact, the name stands for "Zion Cooperative Mercantile".


Deseret Book? The church needed a reliable printing house for the scriptures and the official publications.


Bonneville Communications? The church needed a reliable broadcaster to help it broadcast official statements.


Zion Bancorp? The membership needed a banking instution that wasn't afriad to do business with Mormons.


Most of these companies actually operate in the same way the US government operates the Post Office: although fully-owned, they are responsible for maintaining their own bottom line and as such do a lot of secular business as well. For example, last I looked, two of Bonneville Communication's radio stations were actually devoted to non-LDS Christian programming: an "urban gospel" station in Washington D.C. and a station in the Southwest that broadcasts syndicated Catholic programming in Spanish.


What's more, the church isn't afraid to let them go. ZCMI, for example, no longer exists; it was sold to Macy's in 2000 and has since been re-branded. Likewise, Zion Bancorp was spun off and now exists all on its own.


In other words, the church did nothing more than what other Christian denominations would do if faced with the same degree of privation and persecution.


3) The Apostolic Church was not led by a Prophet, it was led by Jesus Christ from heaven, who is the head of His Body, which is the Church.



Then why was Peter calling the shots once Jesus was out of the picture? Why is he regarded by some Catholics as the Bishop of Rome and the founder of the Catholic faith?


And while it is true there were other apostles besides the 12, nothing in Scripture says the Church replaced the original apostles when they died, or that they needed a quorum of 12 apostles in order for the Church to continue to function properly. The 12 apostles were overseers, (bishops) and eyewitnesses of Christ, and when they died, their function as eyewitnesses of Christ was lost to the Church, however, their position as overseers (i.e. bishops) was not. Their thrones, as it were, remained occupied by bishops.



In other words, you're admitting that the authority and offices were lost.


Thank you.


It may interest some to know that the Pope is actually the bishop of the Church of Rome.



...if only because it has some rather disturbing implications if one thinks too hard about the matter.


Most Evangelical Churches do not have bishops. They are mostly organized democratically according to state laws, with a government consisting of a Church board (or eldership) with either a presiding pastor, or a minister employed by the Church.



...in other words, like a business.

only thing is, in Utah they pretty much are the State.



I dare you to tell that to Rocky Anderson. 


1) When Christians speak to God, we call it prayer too. When God speaks to us, we call it revelation too. We believe the Holy Spirit speaks to our hearts and guides us, by bringing Scripture to our remembrance and by enlightening our minds to understand the Word. We believe God speaks to our hearts and minds, but not so much with audible words, or in visions, pillars of fire, or ecstatic experiences, but through the Word of God, by the promptings from the Holy Spirit, and through our fellow Christians.



You don't get out much, do you?


There are Christian groups who do believe that revelation comes via ecstatic experiences or other such things you just got through condeming.


Christian leaders have often been outspoken when it comes to the issues of the day, guiding and informing the Churches under their charge, but not to the point that we do cannot go to God directly, and do not think for ourselves as individual Christians.



Do I really need to remind you of the Mosser-Owen Report?


3) The Council of Bishops in the 4th century settled on a list of books (the Canon of Scripture) that they accepted as written by the apostles or their associates, that Standard remains to this day.



...except for those denominations that use the Apocrypha or another additional body of canon.


We do not, however, accept any other books, revelations, pronouncements, or "inspired documents" as Scripture. Had the Church accepted other writings as the word of God, it would have ceased being Christianity a thousand years ago,



Actually, a person could turn right around and declare this to be proof that God no longer speaks to you guys.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 25, 2012 - 11:45AM #3
mecdukebec
Posts: 14,904

The prophets/profits are paid in common stock and thus are shareholders in the LDS, Inc., church.  What in the world this has to do with NT Christianity, of course, is the open question. 

*******

"Wesley told the early Methodists to gain all they could and save all they could so that they could give all they could. It means that I consider my money to belong to God and I see myself as one of the hungry people who needs to get fed with God’s money. If I really have put all my trust in Jesus Christ as savior and Lord, then nothing I have is really my own anymore."
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 25, 2012 - 3:55PM #4
Theo
Posts: 4,691

Iron:

In other words, the church did nothing more than what other Christian denominations would do if faced with the same degree of privation and persecution.


I am not so sure of that, certainly some Churches go overboard, so its not like you can't find small scale examples... but I think for the most part Evangelicals try to avoid worldly entanglements, and that is certainly what I teach.


Then why was Peter calling the shots once Jesus was out of the picture? Why is he regarded by some Catholics as the Bishop of Rome and the founder of the Catholic faith?


Jesus was never out of the picture, still isn't - He's what its all about. As far as Peter being 1/3rd of the First Presidency - I like to keep my beliefs Biblical - a reference in Scripture to Peter James and John does not a First Presidency make - unless you're a Mormon looking desperately for any kind of validation from the Bible.


 


As for Peter being the head of the Church - hardly, not until after St. James was martyred by the Jews of Jerusalem, and even thereafter it's hard to see, given that the preponderance of Scripture features the exploits of St. Paul. The Roman Church needed some angle for promoting their pre-eminence, once Constantine moved the Capitol of the Empire from Rome to Constantinople, and so they used St. Peter, pulling a rabbit out of their hat, to claim that their bishop was heir to Peter's Throne. The fact is, Peter presided over the Church an Antioch years longer than he did the Church of Rome, and he ordained the Bishop of Antioch - where as in Rome there was not much chance for that, in as much as Peter was captured and crucified upside down within months after he came to Rome. Nothing in Scripture give the Roman Church the right to claim St. Peter's Throne, the idea that since he died in Rome means that Rome gets his throne is ridiculous.


 


So if Peter was the head of the apostles, it is hard to see that outside of Matthew, and it's very clear it did not last for long. St. James died in 64 AD and St. Peter died n 68 AD, according to my studies. So unlike the Catholic Church, I do not believe in apostolic succession, or in the mystical power of the holy orders... I believe godliness and truth are the strength of a Christian Bishop, priest or minister, not their pedigree or line of succession. As you can see Iron - I am not much of a Catholic.


 


In other words, you're admitting that the authority and offices were lost.


Admitting to Mormon propaganda...? not at all. I do not believe Peter's office or authority were lost, I believe his office was passed to those he ordained and commissioned as bishops. As for his authority - I think he still has it. I believe in the Communion of Saints, which means that the Body of Christ is one - both in heaven and on the earth. The only thing the Church on earth lost with his passing was his eyewitness testimony, and that is not something that can be passed down to an heir. Even so, we do have Peter's testimony in Scripture - which I dearly believe.


I said... "Most Evangelical Churches do not have bishops. They are mostly organized democratically according to State laws, with a government consisting of a Church board (or eldership) with either a presiding pastor, or a minister employed by the Church."

...in other words, like a business.


No. like a non-profit religious organization. Its either that or go underground, meet in homes and refuse to acknowledge the State.


iron:

You don't get out much, do you? There are Christian groups who do believe that revelation comes via ecstatic experiences or other such things you just got through condeming.


Sorry, but I was not condemning anything... I said... "We believe God speaks to our hearts and minds, but not so much with audible words, or in visions, pillars of fire, or ecstatic experiences, but through the Word of God, by the promptings from the Holy Spirit, and through our fellow Christians." You should understand that I am not one who believes God no longer uses extraordinary means to speak to Christians today, it's just that I do not believe such things are always needed or commonplace.


Do I really need to remind you of the Mosser-Owen Report?


Apparently so - what is that?


I said... "The Council of Bishops in the 4th century settled on a list of books (the Canon of Scripture) that they accepted as written by the apostles or their associates, that Standard remains to this day."

...except for those denominations that use the Apocrypha or another additional body of canon.


I was speaking about the NT, all Christian Churches use the same Canon for the NT. Personally I use the Orthodox Study Bible, so I have all those additional books you are referring to in my Bible... but they are all Old Testament.


~ Theophilus

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 25, 2012 - 7:27PM #5
Ironhold
Posts: 11,664

*making this one quick because I don't have a lot of time left in the evening*


Mar 25, 2012 -- 3:55PM, Theo wrote:


I believe godliness and truth are the strength of a Christian Bishop, priest or minister, not their pedigree or line of succession. As you can see Iron - I am not much of a Catholic.



Known and/or dealt with too many mainline ministers who used the cloth to try and hide the fact that they were scumbags; "being a minister" no longer washes with me as far as automatically giving a person the benefit of the doubt.


Apparently so - what is that?



This.


In 1996/7, two Evangelical grad students - Carl Mosser and Paul Owens - chose to do their thesis on anti-Mormon evangelical authors and how their writings compared to Mormon apologetic works.


Their findings:


1. Mormon apologists have slowly been growing more sophisticated in their presentation of the facts, especially as the overall level of education in the church - particularly in the relevant areas - begins to grow.


2. Evangelicals involved in counter-cult and anti-cult operations all too frequently rely on the writings of other evangelicals. Most evangelicals take what they read or are told at face value, and few bother attempting to determine whether or not the old arguments are still valid. The end result is that arguments which are years or even decades out of date are still in active circulation.


3. The combined effect of 1 and 2 is that the counter-cult and anti-cult authors are rapidly losing ground in the theological battle against the church. If the present situation is not corrected, then we Mormons will eventually outpace and overcome the evangelical opposition in regards to literature and scholarship.


Although most Mormons could have told them what they'd find well ahead of time, the pair were rather shocked by their results and openly publicized their findings.


Ironically, the pair earned a more welcome reception among Mormons than non-Mormons; we Mormons celebrated them for being honest enough to admit that their fellows were wrong on a lot of things, while the non-Mormon reaction was divided as to whether or not their findings should be accepted or rejected.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 26, 2012 - 12:33AM #6
Theo
Posts: 4,691

Okay, I remember the report, was not that impressed by their positions. Felt like they pretty much undermined the good work along with the bad. Decided they basically wanted the spotlight for themselves at the expense of those who labored in apologetics for decades before they stumbled upon the stage. I am talking about the book - How wide the Divide, I think. Even so, I did not read the book - my approach to the Christian Vs Mormon debate was distinctly different from that of most apologists. I could careless about becoming an expert on Mormonism - I am more interested in being an expert on what the Bible says. Sadly, Biblical discussions on Bnet forums have suffered from the influx of lots of Church critiques who do not care what the Bible says, they disagree with the Mormon Church for entirely different reasons - thus my participation on this forum has waned.


~ Theophilus


Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 26, 2012 - 11:40AM #7
Ironhold
Posts: 11,664

Mar 26, 2012 -- 12:33AM, Theo wrote:


I could careless about becoming an expert on Mormonism




And that, Theo, is why you will continue to fail in your efforts. 


The less you know about the church, the easier it is for people like me to knock your stuff flat.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 26, 2012 - 11:52AM #8
mecdukebec
Posts: 14,904

Mar 25, 2012 -- 7:27PM, Ironhold wrote:


*making this one quick because I don't have a lot of time left in the evening*


Mar 25, 2012 -- 3:55PM, Theo wrote:


I believe godliness and truth are the strength of a Christian Bishop, priest or minister, not their pedigree or line of succession. As you can see Iron - I am not much of a Catholic.



Known and/or dealt with too many mainline ministers who used the cloth to try and hide the fact that they were scumbags; "being a minister" no longer washes with me as far as automatically giving a person the benefit of the doubt.


Apparently so - what is that?



This.


In 1996/7, two Evangelical grad students - Carl Mosser and Paul Owens - chose to do their thesis on anti-Mormon evangelical authors and how their writings compared to Mormon apologetic works.


Their findings:


1. Mormon apologists have slowly been growing more sophisticated in their presentation of the facts, especially as the overall level of education in the church - particularly in the relevant areas - begins to grow.


2. Evangelicals involved in counter-cult and anti-cult operations all too frequently rely on the writings of other evangelicals. Most evangelicals take what they read or are told at face value, and few bother attempting to determine whether or not the old arguments are still valid. The end result is that arguments which are years or even decades out of date are still in active circulation.


3. The combined effect of 1 and 2 is that the counter-cult and anti-cult authors are rapidly losing ground in the theological battle against the church. If the present situation is not corrected, then we Mormons will eventually outpace and overcome the evangelical opposition in regards to literature and scholarship.


Although most Mormons could have told them what they'd find well ahead of time, the pair were rather shocked by their results and openly publicized their findings.


Ironically, the pair earned a more welcome reception among Mormons than non-Mormons; we Mormons celebrated them for being honest enough to admit that their fellows were wrong on a lot of things, while the non-Mormon reaction was divided as to whether or not their findings should be accepted or rejected.





This is one of the oddest, and most OT, posts I have ever read.  How, in particular, does a self-congratulatory non-answer address the fact that the LDS prophets/profits have no NT authorization, i.e. can anyone make the claim that the NT church was hierachically organised with a gerontocracy and a solo oldster at the top?

*******

"Wesley told the early Methodists to gain all they could and save all they could so that they could give all they could. It means that I consider my money to belong to God and I see myself as one of the hungry people who needs to get fed with God’s money. If I really have put all my trust in Jesus Christ as savior and Lord, then nothing I have is really my own anymore."
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 26, 2012 - 5:02PM #9
Esdraelon
Posts: 5,236

Mar 26, 2012 -- 11:40AM, Ironhold wrote:


Mar 26, 2012 -- 12:33AM, Theo wrote:


I could careless about becoming an expert on Mormonism




And that, Theo, is why you will continue to fail in your efforts. 


The less you know about the church, the easier it is for people like me to knock your stuff flat.




 Seriously, Iron, you need to dispense with the self-congratulating, and keep in mind that there are 'visitors' out there whom are also listening. The smugness you project when you claim to have 'knocked someone’s argument flat', unfortunately is only in your own mind.

Why should anyone have to become an 'expert' on your church in order to understand its doctrine? Why would anyone want to? It is beyond me that what your church has written and exemplified actually, as it appears from your responses, is not what they really mean, but only by getting into the matter ‘very deeply’ will it become clear. Duh? In the real world we communicate through the written word and the purpose of putting into words is so there can be  no mistaking as to what is written. Quite frankly, I believe it is disingenuous to take the written word and claim it to mean something it obviously does not mean. If it means what the spin on it claims, then why wasn’t it written as the spin proports originally?

Another thing you need to get into your mind is that, as I have told you before, No One is trying to ‘show you up’. Quite honestly, no one needs to, for your church has basically indicted itself. I haven’t seen anyone here posting ‘fiction’, though your favorite claim their posting is 'not  authentic’....and has been altered....such rationalization is getting a little anemic, but it is a favorite with your apologists, for in making the brush-over, you can conveniently ignore the entire response and avoid ever addressing the actual question of the matter.

You need to stop demonizing the Tanners, as well as others who are no longer members of your church. This is unseemly, and is a further indictment as your church appears more focused on demonization than actually addressing matters of doctrine or history put on the web by those no longer with your church. This demonization is, in reality, HATE. So there is some explanation needed there as it does appear that the Tanners have no monetary interest in posting the truth. Why? I have in my lifetime, attended Methodist, Baptist, Catholic, and other churches, actually to the point of one time scheduling instruction in the Catholic faith, though further study, caused me to remain my in Baptist upbringing. I don’t go out and vilify any of these churches,
 even though I don’t agree with their doctrine, though in their case, it is extremely close to my own. Yours is so far out in space (no pun intended) that it does not even begin to compare with the Christian religion even in passing, thus in your case, I agree , you church is certainly ‘one-of-a-kind’.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 26, 2012 - 6:00PM #10
Ironhold
Posts: 11,664

Mar 26, 2012 -- 5:02PM, Esdraelon wrote:


Why should anyone have to become an 'expert' on your church in order to understand its doctrine? Why would anyone want to?



As Paul noted, "I can speak the absolute truth, but if I don't speak it in love then my words are background noise."


You see, by not bothering to learn what we actually believe before attempting to tear it down, you give the impression that you don't actually care for us and that you're doing your ministries for all the wrong reasons.


Mormon lore tells of a rather famous debate between a Rev. Weatherbee and J. Golden Kimball, who later became a Seventy. Weatherbee literally spent two hours declaring, as loudly as possible, that Kimball was going to Hell simply for being Mormon.


Kimball replied by noting "I'd rather be a Mormon and go to hell than not be a Mormon and not know where the hell I'm going".


He won the debate by a landslide.


You see, in that one statement, Kimball declared that what he had found within the church was so valuable to him that he was willing to stake eternity on it. In contrast, Weatherbee was so busy trying to tear down the church that he gave no reason to justify anyone following his personal belief system.


Thus, Weatherbee got skunked and Kimball created a popular sound bite.


You need to stop demonizing the Tanners, as well as others who are no longer members of your church.



The reason I go after the Tanners is because they've been legitimately caught doctoring citations and pulling items out of context, a major academic no-no. This alone is enough to discredit their body of work.


For example, consider their treatment of Alma 18. The Tanners argue that since God is referred to in this chapter as the "Great Spirit" it must mean that the BoM teaches that God is a spirit. In reality, anyone who actually reads the chapter will realize that "Great Spirit" is merely the term a group of people used to describe him; a missionary is among them, and so the term is being utilized in their discussion. In that sense, the Tanners are lying to their audience.


Add to it the fact that they're flagrant intellectual property law violators, and they're a lot less Christian than they want people to believe.


Or did you not know about that?


So there is some explanation needed there as it does appear that the Tanners have no monetary interest in posting the truth.



If they have no monetary interest, then why is their ministry their day job?

Quick Reply
Cancel
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook