Another question.  Last fall there were 2 female missionaries in my neighborhood.  I am assuming they were on their 2 year mission in my city.  Would they be working in my area for 2 years? Or just the city as a whole? They were on bikes so I am assuming they were staying close. But I haven't seen them in months. Do they move to a different house in a different part of the city periodically? Or are they in the same place the whole time and dropped off with their bikes each day? Or are there shorter than 2 year missions?

Female missionaries (or "sisters" as they are called while serving) usually are out for 18 months vs 24 for the males.    Most of the time,  an individual missionary will stay in one area for anywhere from 3-6 months,  then will get transferred to a different area.  Usually there will still be a set of missionaries in the area at all times, living in the same place,  they just rotate individual missionaries in and out.  Sometimes depending on the number of missionaries in the mission (it fluctuates depending on the number coming in and going home),  a set of missionaries may be pulled out of an area for awhile.  Or a set of sisters may be replaced with a set of "elders" (male missionary title) or vise versa.   It is possible they may also be driving a car at times, so you may not notice them as much.

Jesus and Smith were referring to the *same* generation. Jesus was speaking of events leading-up to the second-coming. Same “generation as Smith.

D+C 84:2-3
2 Yea, the word of the Lord concerning his church, established in the last days for the restoration of his people, as he has spoken by the mouth of his prophets, and for the gathering of his saints to stand upon Mount Zion, which shall be the city of New Jerusalem.
3 Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jun., and others with whom the Lord was well pleased.

Smith is *clearly* referring to the “temple lot.” He *dedicated* the “temple lot”…



JOD is not a *primary* source.

Pratt never questioned Smith. He stayed in full faith and fellowship in The Church until his death. He understood, and testified that Smith was a prophet of God. You claim that Smith is not a prophet, then quote from Pratt, who says that Smith *is* a prophet.

Pratt may very-well of been of the opinion that the Temple would be built in his lifetime. His *opinion* (which you quote from a *secondary* source) was just that… His non-scriptural, non-doctrinal opinion…

When the scriptures use words such as "this generation," "a little season," "nigh," "soon to come," "quickly," and "in due time," it can mean several years, or even centuries.



Matthew 24:34 quotes Christ as saying, "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." Luke 21:32 repeats this prophecy.

What are "all these things," and have they come to pass?

1.Many shall come in Christ's name, deceiving many (Matthew 24:5, Luke 21:8)
2.Wars and rumours of wars (Matthew 24:6, Luke 21:9-10)
3.Famines (Matthew 24:7, Luke 21:11)
4.Pestilences (Mathew 24:7, Luke 21:11)
5.Earthquakes (Matthew 24:7, Luke 21:11)
6.Apostles killed (Matthew 24:9, Luke 21:16)
7.Many shall be offended (Matthew 24:10)
8.Many shall be betrayed (Matthew 24:10)
9.Men will hate one another (Matthew 24:10)
10.False prophets will deceive many (Matthew 24:11)
11.Iniquity shall abound (Matthew 24:12)
12.Love of many shall wax cold (Matthew 24:12)
13.Gospel shall be preached in all the world (Matthew 24:14)
14.Distress of nations (Luke 21:25)
15.Men's hearts will fail them because of fear (Luke 21:11)
16.Sun shall be darkened (Matthew 24:29, Luke 21:25)
17.Moon shall not give her light (Matthew 24:29, Luke 21:25)
18.Stars shall fall from heaven (Matthew 24:29, Luke 21:25)
19.Sign of the Son of man shall appear (Matthew 24:30, Luke 21:27)



The definition for “generation?”

The four hundred years of Israel's Egyptian captivity was a "little season" to the Lord. All the scriptural terms of time (nigh, shortly come to pass, at the doors, about to be, soon to be, in due time, not many days, a little season, near, close at hand, time will come, not many years, and generation) are not specific in numbers of years.

To say that "next generation" as used in the Bible can mean potentially thousands of years, and turn around and say these very same words mean only a few years when used in the Doctrine and Covenants is hypocritical.



The BOM and Smith do not contradict the Bible.

The early Christian writers claimed that there were changes in the early writings of the Bible…

Justin Martyr, stated that Jews had altered scripture:
And I wish you to observe, that they (Jews) have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the translations....
- Justin Martyr, "Dialogue with Trypho," in Chapter 71 Ante-Nicene Fathers, edited by Philip Schaff (Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886)1:234.

Origen, stated that there may be errors:
The differences among the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please.
- Origen, Commentary on Matthew 15.14

Corinthian bishop Dionysius complained in the second century:
When my fellow-Christians invited me to write letters to them I did so. These the devil's apostles have filled with tares, taking away some things and adding others. For them the woe is reserved. Small wonder then if some have dared to tamper even with the word of the Lord himself, when they have conspired to mutilate my own humble efforts
- Cited in Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (HarperSanFrancisco, [2005] 2007), 53. ISBN 0060859512. ISBN 0060738170.

There is absolutely no way that Smith knew what the early Christians believed. No way.

Those are *your* words. Not mine.

I believe the Bible is the word of God. I think it is a miracle… Considering the words some of the earliest Christians that we have the Bible in the first place. A flat-out miracle.



We believe the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price are sacred scripture.

You will find all of them used to preach and teach.

We do not discount the Bible, even if there might be different versions and translations.



This is a strawman. We do not have the *original* writings from the Biblical prophets. The DSS gets us *closer* but no cigar. Smith did not claim to “translate” the Bible, an the JST is not considered scripture by the LDS Church. I have only known one who had it as a “reference.”





Smith’s “translation” is not considered scripture, it left control of The Church for a period, and has never been considered anything more than a reference book.

The early Christians Martyr, Origen, and Corinthian bishop Dionysius all stated that early texts had been altered. There is no way Smith would have known that.



There is no way that Smith knew what Martyr, Origen, and Dionysius wrote. No way.

In the introduction to the New Living Translation of the Bible reads,
The translators have made a conscious effort to provide a text that can be easily understood by the average reader of modern English. To this end, we have used the vocabulary and language structures commonly used by the average person. The result is a translation of the Scriptures written generally at the reading level of a junior high school student.

Note: Their emphasis is on making the Bible easier-to-read, which is a totally-noble purpose. But what about communicating *exactly* what was meant  to be communicated. The emphasis is on vocabulary and language for the common person. Not *exactly* what is in the language exactly as it is in the oldest text…

Smith was a prophet. He did Gods will.

Smith write the JST? It was written by Smith, left the possession of The Church for a time, and is not considered scripture.

We read from the KJV.



I do not claim that Smith wrote false scripture. We consider the Bible, Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenants to be scripture. Beyond that, there are reference materials.

There is only a relatively small portion of the JST that is included in the LDS scriptures. They are included in the references section in some cases. Those are considered “scripture.”

The JST as a “whole” is not considered scripture. How “inspired” it was to begin with, or if it was meant originally to be a reference is debated. We do not consider it canon.




The JST is not considered scripture.

It left the possession of The Church for a time period. The Reorganized Church owned the copyright, and the original documents after The Church went West.

Whether Smith wrote it or not is not the question. He wrote it. What changes were made after-the-fact is an honest question. And the finality of it is that it is not considered scripture.



Martyr, Origen, and Dionysius in the first, second, and third centuries all claim that there were changes.

We do not hold the Bible to a different standard that we hold the Book of Mormon.

We just do not possess the *original* writings of Biblical prophets or scribes.

We believe, not because of evidence. The weak call for “signs,” “works,” “evidence,” and “science.”



We believe the Bible is the word of God.

We consider it to be sacred scripture.

Martyr, Origen, and Dionysius in the first, second, and third centuries claim that there were changes and deletions. Deletions would be the hardest to prove, once it is removed.

We have the *original* Book of Mormon as it was written. Any errors that are found can be referenced to the original writings.

Many of the pages were on display for *everyone* to see a few years back at the Museum in Salt Lake across the street from the Temple…

The 1835 edition did not contain *any* punctuation, and grammar and spelling that can be attributed to the printer. That was how the frontier printing-press did it back then… But the *original* transcription is in the possession of The Church… Most of the changes are grammar, spelling and punctuation…

There are many more “changes” per-word in the New Testament, when you count the many different versions that exist… I have seen “changes” in text between versions of the Bible… Does that make the Bible incorrect?

The first edition contained no punctuation, and errors by the printer. Smith was still alive to make the appropriate changes.



The same claim could be made to you as you seek to castigate LDS faithful and their fait

You have outright lied  about LDS faithful and their beliefs.

You have zero credibility.

You cut and paste from anti-Mormon sources, which has led you to posting from at least two atheists, and at least one *active* homosexual...

You presented it as something that it wasn't. You flat-out lied.

Again.

You wrote, "watch a Christian and Mormon discuss the Bible vs. the Mormon scriptures."

That was not what it was. I trusted you against my better judgment.

It was an anti-Mormon presentation by an anti-Mormon "ministry." It was a straw-man argument set-up against an LDS guy who was absolutely not prepared.

The LDS faithful was no expert, and appeared that it was the first-time that he had heard the antagonisms... And he had no reference materials, and all the "experts" (used by the anti-Mormon) supported the anti-Mormon. It was a one-sided straw-man... Those are typical of anti-Mormons. They are scared of fair-and-square answers. They thrive on the hit-and-run, and the straw-man.

You were -again- *purposefully* disingenuous...

I'm only on page 7 of this shit show but I gotta ask a favor...

If you're a Mormon, can you warn the rest of us before you post your weird mormon Alien snake monster shit? Try to avoid busting in the anti-Christian thread rambling on and on like any non-mormon understands that mess.

It's hard enough trying to understand King James bible verses I've never heard. Now I wasted 3 minutes googling to see if Indians were rolling around Utah with gold "Star of David" necklaces pre-Columbus.

ETA: Oh fuck, I skipped ahead. I didn't know their was a Mormon/Christain battle raging for the last 20 pages.

Getting desperate here.

 

Sooo desperate.

 
 
 

He fairly and accurately listed the historical and prophetic claims of the BoM and why they are false. Don't complain because they didn't go in your favor.

 








 

Justin the Martyr

Origen

And bishop Dionysius

Atheists?

In the first, second, and third centuries, the earliest Christian writers worried about textual changes to the earliest Christian writings... There is absolutely no way Smith knew that.

Smith never said the Bible was not Gods word. Neither did the earliest Christians Martyr, Origen, and Dionysius.



You have not proved a thing about Smith's prophesies...

And... He was "sealed" to many women. There is no first-hand-source that any inappropriate relationships existed at all...

Polygamy was practiced in the Bible.

You really just toe the LDS line. You will literally say anything to excuse your false prophet.

 

Pratt maintained that Smith was a prophet of God until the day he died. Maybe you are the one who does not understand context. Pratt could guess wrong on the timeframe (as quoted in a secondary source) and still be an Apostle. The ultimate test to me is that he sustained Smith. The JOD was written by others claiming to remember or write what the early leaders said or did. It is not scripture. It is a secondary-source. The ultimate test here is that Pratt maintained Smith was a prophet his entire life.

Smith is clearly speaking about dedicating the Temple lot in the second and third verses.

The scriptural meaning of “this generation” is not specific, it goes back to the Bible, and Smith did not list any specific years.

Pratt may have thought it was sooner rather than later. It did not bother him, why should It bother you.

“this generation” –in the scriptures-- is not specific to a time frame. I can accept that.



It is interesting that you write that the meaning is (your words) "quite clear in English." A dictionary from the 1800’s generally backs-up Smith…

In Easton’s Bible Dictionary of 1897, the English word “generation” is variably defined with reference to the KJV text:

Gen. 2:4, "These are the generations," means the "history." 5:1, "The book of the generations," means a family register, or history of Adam. 37:2, "The generations of Jacob" = the history of Jacob and his descendants. 7:1, "In this generation" = in this age. Ps. 49:19, "The generation of his fathers" = the dwelling of his fathers, i.e., the grave. Ps. 73:15, "The generation of thy children" = the contemporary race. Isa. 53:8, "Who shall declare his generation?" = His manner of life who shall declare? or rather = His race, posterity, shall be so numerous that no one shall be able to declare it. In Matt. 1:17, the word means a succession or series of persons from the same stock. Matt. 3:7, "Generation of vipers" = brood of vipers. 24:34, "This generation" = the persons then living contemporary with Christ. 1 Pet. 2:9, "A chosen generation" = a chosen people. The Hebrews seem to have reckoned time by the generation. In the time of Abraham a generation was an hundred years, thus: Gen. 15:16, "In the fourth generation" = in four hundred years (comp. verse 13 and Ex. 12:40). In Deut. 1:35 and 2:14 a generation is a period of thirty-eight years.

Back in the 1800’s a scriptural definition of  “generation” could be anything from a few years to four hundred years…



They both have everything to do with events that need to take place before the Lords Second-Coming.



An agnostic is by definition, one who *can* believe in God. He has not denied God.

You are *aware* of what an *agnostic* is? Yes?

His source is accurate. Some Early Christians worried about Gods word.

Agnostic ? Atheist.

There is a significant and important difference.

Faithful Christians Martyr, Origen, and Dionysius worried about the influence of those who might seek to corrupt Gods word. They made a record of it.

We have the original 1835 edition. The majority of changes are textual, including punctuation.

But you can look at the original. The most-recent changes changed textual errors that went-back to printing errors, and The Church has the originals and has shown them to the public...



He is has never denied God. He *correctly* quoted from the bishop Dionysius who questioned (in the second century) that there might have been sacred things lost.

Do you understand that an agnostic ? atheist?-?

An agnostic has not denied God. Your sources have denied *your* God. My source has not. At lest one of your sources was to an *active* homosexual.

You really are just a caricature at this point.

 

Your initial claim was, "... spend an hour to watch a Christian and Mormon discuss the Bible vs. the Mormon scriptures..."

You were being *purposefully* disingenuous when you wrote that. It was an anti-Mormon "ministry" straw-man job. Nothing more. Nothing less. And you knew that when you wrote that, "a Christian and a Mormon discuss the Bible..."

It is just another example of you being *purposefully* disingenuous.

With logic like this, no wonder people are running away from the LDS church.

 

Pot, meet kettle.

 


BTW: Nearly 100 submit resignation letters to LDS church

 

Daaaaang.

Did you *seriously* just write that Polygamy wasn't (your words) "endorsed" in the Bible?

Did you just leave the reservation?

7 ¶ And Nathan said to David...Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;

8 And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.

10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. (2 Samuel 12:7-10)

Nathan was a prophet of God.

"I gave the thy master's house, and they master's wives..."

David was condemned for his sin with Bathsehba and Uriah. Not for polygamy.

Many of Gods anointed practiced polygamy in the Bible.

Deuteronomy 21:15 provides rules governing Israelites who have plural wives. Further instructions are also given in Exodus 21:10.



Smith said the "sealings" were not "marraiges" in the Biblical sense. He said it was not a "formal" relationship.

Don't let the definitions confuse you.

He felt that it was his job to "seal" the *entire* Church. It wasn't sexual, as antagonists imply.

Did Smith formally practice "polygamy" in the Biblical sense? Antagonists will say he did. Smith, and the women say it was a "sealing" not a "marriage."



Are you bothered by that?

Are you bothered that I check my sources, and defend the latter-Day Church of Jesus Christ.

I have cited all my sources. I have verified all my claims.



Amos 3:7

God will *always* work through prophets.

I believe in God through faith. I believe in the Bible and Book of Mormon through faith.

I am not making excuses. You are the one twisting things...

While I don't agree with LDS theology, I will stand beside them for standing up for the sanctity of  marriage.  These people it looks like left because the LDS church wasn't going Gay Happy.

2 Nephi 25 v 23 says we are saved by grace after all that we can do.
Moroni 10 v 32 says if we deny ourselves of all ungodliness then His grace is sufficient.

Those are my paraphrases.  I as the same thing that I ask my Catholic friends...how do you KNOW you have done all that you can do? Or that you have denied ALL ungodliness?  What if you see a hot girl and accidentally lust just a little? Then you have not denied yourself. And it says ALL ungodliness..not 99%.  
Now Catholics don't use these verses but the concept is the same.  

How do you KNOW you are saved?

"This generation" in the scriptures can mean anywhere from 30 years to thousands.

When the scriptures use words such as "this generation," "a little season," "nigh," "soon to come," "quickly," and "in due time," it can mean several years, or even centuries.

Pratt maintained that Smith was a prophet his entire life.

You quoted from Pratt from something someone else said Pratt said. You quoted from a *secondary* source. JOD is not considered scripture by LDS faithful. It was originally compiled *outside* the LDS Church, and later found to have errors. It is a good resource. But you quoted from it as, "Pratt said..." Not, "It is claimed that Pratt said..."




*You* claimed that children were whipped on the Mormon Trail for being cold. Lie.

*You* claimed that "leaders" told people to throw out blankets on the Mormon trail. Lie.

*You* claimed that LDS "leaders" taught and instructed LDS faithful to lie. Lie.

*You* demanded "works," "evidence," "science."

*You* implied that Martyr, Origen, and Dionysius were not faithful early-Christians.

How do you look at yourself in the mirror.

Your questions have all been asked-and-answered.

Your problems with the LDS Church have been spelled-out and defined. And answered to the best of my ability.

In a question about faith... And in questions about faith... Atheism and homosexuality show a bias. A bias you refuse to acknowledge.

An agnostic ? atheist.



You need to pull-out a calculator. There were six people when the latter-day Church of Jesus Christ formed. There are millions of active members around the world, and over 50,000 missionaries...

There were those who turned their back on Christ Himself...

That is nothing new, and there is a (tragically) *national* trend of lacking Church attendance. I believe it is a sign of the times... Wheat and tares... *All* "Christian" Churches have seen a significant decline. Tragically.

We have a large number of missionaries, I invite everyone I can to come to church, and we actively seek to invite all to come worship with us...

Edited: I am going to leave his link to the pro-homosexual article *active.*




There have been *significant* numbers of homosexuals who have left The Church over the LDS stance against gay marriage.

What is your point?

We invite *all* to come worship with us. But we teach that marriage is between a man and a woman.

That is what the scriptures teach. Do you disagree?

Do you support homosexuality? Your link gives the impression you are *against* the LDS Church stance here...

Boom.

Absolutely.

I *cannot* believe he posted that link. Absolutely unfathomable from a so-called "Christian."

We might have to agree to disagree on some things. But defending families is something that has *always* brought us together.

I cannot, absolutely *cannot* wrap my head around his post. Unbelievable. Flat-out unbelievable.

Defending traditional families is something that has always *immediately* brought fundamentalist "Christians" and LDS faithful together...

I was absolutely floored by his support for the gays *against* The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints...

 
Here's the problem with the LDS: you can't save them from their homosexuality. The gospel preached by the LDS doesn't save, it doesn't sanctify. It's a fraud. So no wonder that these people think their gay isn't a problem that God can solve. They buy into the world's lie after they discover Smith's lie. So in fact, this article does witness to the LDS lie.

 

And there you have it folks, a christian using the example of lds members leaving because they are against the churches biblical stance that homosexuality is a sin and goes against gods template of a family (who more than likely believes the exact same thing).  Who then tries to defend his using of the above claim!

Here's the "headshot" here. What does the 1 Nephi 'prophecy' say:




 

So you don't think God can save people from their sin? Because if so, why can't the LDS?  

 

While I say that leaving because they disagree with the male female definition of marriage does not prove the LDS teachings are wrong..I question the person saying they hope they find support.  What does that mean? I, as a Christian, hope they don't find support.  And instead find the error of their ways and repent and find Christ.

There will. always be some that leave due to them disagreeing with the LDS Church.  People are expecting the church to bend to meet the social norm.  Something they won't do.

According to several sources the LDS church is one of, if not the fastest growing religions in the US.  So yes, it is sad to see some leave due to their agency,  but many more then leave are finding the joy, the LDS church teaches of.


Study Shows that Mormons Are the Fastest-Growing Religious Group in the U.S.



Mormons Are Fastest Growing Religion

CBN.com - Mormonism is the fastest growing faith group in American history according to "U.S. News & World Report," which reports that if present trends continue there could be 265 million members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS) worldwide by 2080.


http://cnsmaryland.org/2013/12/13/mormon-population-increases-in-maryland-thanks-to-missionary-system-and-recruiting/

Mormonism is the fastest-growing religion in the nation. In Maryland, the population has risen by two-thirds since 2000 to more than 42,000, according to the U.S. Religion Census, an independent study sponsored by the Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies.


http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2012-05-02/religion-census-mromon/54701198/1

The 2012 Religious Congregations and Membership Study, released here Tuesday, shows that the mainline Protestants and Catholics who dominated the 20th century are literally losing ground to the rapid rise of Mormons and, increasingly, Muslims

Mormons were the fastest-growing group in 26 states, expanding beyond their historic home in Utah to the heart of the Bible Belt and as far away as Maine.



Looking at the numbers of congregations,  From 2014-2015 the LDS church increased by 368 congregations, and 64 new stakes, with 413,000 new members baptized.

There will be some of those that don't stay with the church, as with any religion,  but the sky is not falling as church critics want to make people believe.  I think the key indicator is the number of new congregations.   If people were leaving faster then they were baptized as some critics claim,  the church would not need to create 368 new congregations.

Good thing that revelation about blacks came just in time, y'know with the whole black civil rights thing.

Oh the hypocrisy......

 

I read recently that while increasing LDS growth is down to 2% from 4%.  And that the JW are actually in the lead as far as growth.  I'll have to search for where I saw that.

Nothing hypocritical there.  Did you even read your own post?

"After a frank discussion with local Church leaders, Mayne committed to adhere to the same standards of sexual morality expected of heterosexual members of the LDS Church, and he agreed to serve."


The church has nothing against Gay people,  just the sinful act.    He agreed he would not be involved in any homo-sexual behaviour, and was allowed to serve.  If he goes contrary to his agreement,  he likely will not be serving for long.  Just as a hetero-sexual member who violates church policies in relation to morality would not be allowed to serve.

Someone who identifies as gay, who lives the standards of Morality the church has set forth would even be allowed to go to the temple.

There is no double standard.  Anyone who is wiling to live the Lord's standards he has set forth, can partake of any blessing the gospel offers.

I have seen a few different studies.  I think I may have seen the one you mention, but can't remember where.    Almost all of them agree,  Mormons and JW and Muslims are all the fastest growing religions,  while most other mainstream Christian sects are in decline.

Of the major subgroups within American Christianity, mainline Protestantism – a tradition that includes the United Methodist Church, the American Baptist Churches USA, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and the Episcopal Church, among others – appears to have experienced the greatest drop in absolute numbers. In 2007, there were an estimated 41 million mainline Protestant adults in the United States. As of 2014, there are roughly 36 million, a decline of 5 million – although, taking into account the surveys’ combined margins of error, the number of mainline Protestants may have fallen by as few as 3 million or as many as 7.3 million between 2007 and 2014.9





The new survey indicates that churches in the evangelical Protestant tradition – including the Southern Baptist Convention, the Assemblies of God, Churches of Christ, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, the Presbyterian Church in America, other evangelical denominations and many nondenominational congregations – now have a total of about 62 million adult adherents. That is an increase of roughly 2 million since 2007, though once the margins of error are taken into account, it is possible that the number of evangelicals may have risen by as many as 5 million or remained essentially unchanged.10


This is from a PEW research article.  I think the main reason evangelical  churches are in decline is that this includes liberal churches like the PCUSA, United Methodist, and episcopal.  People are leaving there in Droves because of how far they have strayed from the Bible.  Conservative denominations like the SBC and PCA  are growing.  Also many are choosing to go to non denominational churches.  I think also with the mega feel good churches like Olestien or warren, it is emotion driven and after tremendous growth, when people realize the emotional high is gone, they leave in droves, never having really found Christianity, just a feeling.

The double standard here is how your buddy tries to poison the well in regards to the lifestyles of those who proclaim the falsehoods of the LDS, but then the LDS church itself supports those lifestyles when it benefits them. In effect, you guys are willing to say anything to keep anyone from lifting the curtain.  

 

Funny how it seems whites and church critics, are the main ones that have a problem with that and bring it up.

My brother-in-law is black.  There are several black members in my congregation, and many many more in my stake.  One of the congregations is led by a black bishop.  Never once in all my associations, have I heard them express concerns about the history of blacks and the LDS church.  They are grateful for the joy they have in their lives as they see how the Lord has blessed them.  

Interesting reply, but it doesn't address my questions at all.  Care to try again?

The LDS church is not supporting his lifestyle.

Did you not notice how they made him agree not to live his "lifestyle" if he wanted to serve, and he agreed?  The LDS church has always accepted those who proclaim themselves as gay, as long as they live the same standards as all other members.  

A person who proclaims them self as Gay could serve in any church calling, and go to the temple, just like any other member,  as long as they are willing to live the same gospel standards as all the other members.   When they are not willing to live the standards by their actions, is when they exclude themselves.  The same applies to heterosexual members.  If they don't live the standards,  they exclude themselves.


If this individual had said,  he was not willing to abstain from his homosexual lifestyle,  I can guarantee you he would not be serving in that church position,  just as a heterosexual person not living church standards would not be allowed to serve.


From the church website:
"No one fully knows the root causes of same-sex attraction. Each experience is different. Latter-day Saints recognize the enormous complexity of this matter. We simply don’t have all the answers. Attraction to those of the same sex, however, should not be viewed as a disease or illness. We must not judge anyone for the feelings they experience. Members of the Church who have same-sex attractions, but don’t act on them, can continue to enjoy full fellowship in the church, which includes holding the priesthood, carrying out callings, and attending the temple. Unlike in times past, the Church does not necessarily advise those with same-sex attraction to
marry those of the opposite sex. Same-sex attraction itself is not a sin, but yielding to it is. However, through repentance Jesus Christ will offer forgiveness."

That's nice and all, but the fact is that you guys are judging detractors by one standard and not the LDS church by the same standard. I guess all that matters is what toes the LDS's line the most.


 

You are purposefully being disingenuous. You do not come-across as someone who wants Gods truth. You have *zero* credibility.

The homosexual community hates *all* churches who take a stance for the traditional family.

The LDS Church has taken a stance *against* gay marriage.

The article was pro-gay anti-Mormon propaganda... Nothing more. Nothing less.

I have said that Smith was a prophet. I have said that many of his "prophecies" have until the second-coming.

I have said the polygamy was practiced by Gods-anointed in the Bible, and that a "sealing" to Smth ? Biblical "marriage."

We read from the KJV of the Bible, and the JST is not, and has not ever been considered scripture in its entirety. It is merely considered a "reference," and I have never actually *seen* one at church...

When we have the *original* words of the prophets and apostles of the Bible, we will know what has been added to, and taken-from.

Until then, we have the word of the earliest Christian writers Origen, Martyr, and Bishop Dionysius that they felt things were awry in the first, second, and third centuries...



Church attendance is dropping in almost every church was my point. That is not a good thing. The numbers of LDS are growing,  comparatively, when you add-in the global numbers...

North American church attendance is declining in almost every "Christian" Church, and that is not good news for anyone who claims to love God...Even for "evangelical Christians"...




God cannot be bought. He cannot be mocked, either.

We do not think we are working our way to share His throne...

Romans 8:17

17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Revelation 3:21

21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

It is tragic to see the cognitive and ethical gymnastics that folks engage in to attack the traditional family.

Flat-out tragic.

Just found it funny that you think the church (as well as many others; see Southern Baptists, etc.) doesn't bend to social norms when they blatantly do.



http://signaturebookslibrary.org/neither-white-nor-black-03/



http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/JournalOfDiscourses3/id/4266

The black civil rights movement gets started, they start facing some criticism and ..... oh wait .... we're getting a message from God that blacks are now cool.