Come home, Mormon man...
>>18118237lol, lmfao even
>>18118237This looks like those mexican churches of that one particular restorationist protestant group
>>18118258La Luz del Mundo. Not going to lie, it looks pretty, eye catching.
>>18118237Credodemons.
*blocks your path*
>>18118237They used to be a 2 temple church, but, now they are a 1 temple church, which is a total loss of 50%.
>>18118237>>18118261>>18118525>>18118541Why the fuck do you Baptize the dead but not infants you fucking monsters?!?
>>18118577Here we go with this retard again
>>18118584Don't be rude or you'll go to hell
>>18118237That church looks like a La Luz del Mundo Church without the charming aspects of thirdie pseudo-modernism kitsch. They should stick to the classic white marble temple/ward designs.
>>18118584The fact the Joe Smith didn't include infant Baptism shows how retarded mormonism is, as it is specifically supposed to replace circumcision on a theological basis, but smith as a scammer knew that rebaptism of adults is key to promoting his cult, as it is a blasphemous performative act that can be done in public to separate out the cult members.
>>18118643>it is specifically supposed to replace circumcision on a theological basisBut there is no point in putting water on a baby's head unlike circumcision which has a point
>>18118650I assume in a Mormon context Church fathers have no role correct?
>>18118670We have all the Church fathers who by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost wrote the New Testament
>>18118681How does Mormonism explain the selection of the 27 books?
>>18118687Well, they actually have a 28th book, called the Book of Mormon, which is obscure kinda like the Revelation of John.
>>18118694I understand that, but I was curious what reason you guys have for the specific selection of the specific 27 books and I suppose also the 39 books of the OT?
>>1811870438
>>18118704The Bible is the stick of Judah, and the Book of Mormon is the stick of Joseph
>>18118706Which book in the Protestant OT do you guys not accept and why?
>>18118713The Song of Songs is considered "not inspired" according to Joseph Smith while he was working on the Inspired version
>>18118717So did Smith determine the books? Also fair, as it makes no sense for his theology.
>>18118717>gigacoomer can't relate to a man in love with his wifeactivates some almonds.
>>18118720>>18118722Alot of people try to forcibly interpret that Jewish love song to be akshually about Jesus loving them, which is quite odd
>>18118722Well also they have no bride for Christ, as they actively reject the OHCA Church.
>>18118728But that's my key question, as the books fixed by Smith through his role prophet? So like a Quran situation?
>>18118730>So did Smith determine the books?He confirmed them, but they were true before him, yes.
>>18118734And like he set the exact English translation to be used along with his Book of Mormon and defined these texts as inerrant and infallible?
>>18118751Yea but that doesn't delegitimize the LDS currently using the old version
My brothers in Smith (pbuh) we did not need to create another Mormon thread right now.
>>18118754Oh I was more just walking through how it's set up. Like I obviously don't believe Smith was a prophet, but if someone believed he was that would be a perfectly logical set up, unlike Sola Scriptura Christianity, as you have the specific inspired moment and prophet that explains how the Bible exists independent of the historical Church.
>>18118756Well, there was a mainline LDS thread, now there's a Community of Christ thread, technically speaking there should also be a Bickertonite thread, a Cutlerite thread, a Temple Lot thread, a Strangite thread, and even a Fundamentalist one.
>>18118767Great apostasy does not equal total apostasy, rather, a declension away from spiritual truth even if the letter is preserved.
>>18118756>>18118767Really there should be a /mormon/ board
>>18118764All Christians believe that apostles and prophets can write scripture and add to the canon through revelation, but most Christians do not believe we have apostles and prophets on the earth today - but Mormons do. Therefore there is no need to add older known apocryphal or pseudographical works to the canon (gnostic gospels, apocalypse of Adam, books of Enoch, etc.) since the modern prophets can use their authority to just create new scripture through revelation - and Mormons do.
>>18118819>All Christians believe that apostles and prophets can write scripture and add to the canon through revelationWell no. Sola Protestants specifically reject that.
>>18118832They believe that the Bible was written by Moses, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Matthew, Luke, Peter, James, Paul, etc. Who were all prophets and apostles, or their scribes, as inspired by the holy ghost.
>>18118930Yeah but they have no explanation of why the specific books. As the 39 OT books weren't fixed until the around the 2nd century AD, and the 27 NT books had 10 varying books until the 5th century. The Catholic/Lutheran/Orthodox/Anglican position is that the councils, following the creation if the Nicene Creed had the right to fix the canon, but certain groups, mostly Baptists and Missouri/Wisconsin Lutherans, don't like this position. But they don't have an alternative explanation except KJV only Baptists who say the KJV translators were inspired.
>>18118261>>18118237>>18118525Fucking hideous, reminds me of the dead space cult
>>18119586Oh, yes, this is true. Most protestants, other than high-church mainline prots perhaps, do not have a justification for following the creeds at all - and especially not for why they accept the creeds but not the explicitly catholic doctrines in the canons of the councils
>>18119729The council creeds only require a desire to eventually form one unified Church, which is described in the Bible. It's mostly just a knee jerk reaction to the word "Catholic" and a weird and unexplained hyperfixation on the KJV coupled with the desire to not be "KJV only" which is unironically a more sane position.
>>18119966When I say>explicitly catholic doctrinesYou can use the word "catholic" in either sense and it still makes sense. The doctrines in the council canons are about a public, visible, apostolic, catholic (universal) church established by Christ - AND the doctrines are explicitly supported by the RCC (and the Orthodox) while rejected by most protestants even though protestants accept the council creeds attached to the canons.Protestants pick and choose which councils and which particular parts of the councils are infallible and binding - if it's not arbitrary, then it's merely post-hoc theological rationalization.
Only place where they use the Inspired version atleast
>>18118237Yo your wife pick up the new sluttier sacred garments yet?
>>18122497>porn shoulders>shoulderseugh
>>181224971st time I could ever say "that looks nice" about Mormon garments
>>18118261Looks like Minas Tirith.
Has anyone actually read this book >>18122869
>>18122891I have and it's terrible. Joseph's other works like the Book of Abraham are better written because he actually sat down to write them, rather than having to dictate it on the spot with run-on sentences and redundant statements.
>>18122891If I am not familiar with mormonism, would it be better to start with that or the book of Mormon?
>>18118237The shias of mormonism.
>>18122967The Book of Mormon is a bunch outlandish claims made by an angel in the form of a vision to Joseph, its texts are secondary at best, and designed to confound you from the real truth unless you are wise enough to be able to handle it. And it is revelation, explicitly to be as such as it is.The Revelations of Joseph Smith are the opposite of how >>18122965 describe them and are the most concise form of all the teachings Joseph Smith brought in his own ministry. The Book of Mormon is a miracle; each and every revelation in the D&C is as well, and there are some real highlights stuffed in there that make the whole book worth scraping like the NT when first learning; it is the single solitary book most like the NT of any that were written, in terms of expounding gospel details. Absolutely a treasure and a gem hidden behind the mass of criticism of some interpretations of the Book of Mormon. Not even most LDS members get at the benefits of D&C, like how most "Christians" miss the finer points of the Gospel in their lives.
>>18122980Uh based?!?
>>18122967>>18122986If you read it in Brigham Young's order it is from earliest to latest, which has a few interesting points early on, but takes a while to get going. As the ministry of Joseph continued, he was able to expand his teachings towards greater heights, and it gets exponentially better as you approach the end. The first half is as good as the third quarter is as good as the seventh eigth is as good as the 15th 16th. Read it backwards for a faster approach and a smoother comprehension.
>>18122986The Book of Mormon works as a novel-like vision, and is technically infallible if taken even absolutely literally, though it is a pointed revelation designed to expand the Wisdom of the reader, and bridge the gap from creature to God.
>>18123002If you hold it like that, it's OK, but I'd rather believe the truth claims, than add to the word of god.
>>18123002>it's fake
>>18123021see>>18122947
>>18122986Chris is that you?
>>18122967It's the American Qur'an, it's golden.
>>18118258Looks like a drill bit to me
