We will play a critical role in saving the Republic in the future.
Scripture says when romes mark of authority is enforced, then the final plagues of God fall and the world is left in ruin. That is when Christ returns.
Scripture speaks of no group "saving the republic".
On the contrary, it speaks of the nations of the world falling into destruction.
This is a typical closed-minded approach. The Bible never claims to be a closed canon of scripture. The typical response is to point to the last verses of John’s Revelation and say that “adding to” the book will bring condemnation. However, most scholars will tell you that Revelation was written around 95 AD and that the Gospel of John was written afterwards. Therefore John “added to” scripture. When you come to realize that the Bible is the CAUSE of Christian disunity, then you come to realize the need for additional scripture as well as living apostles.
Christ told us to use the scriptures. He specifically had John write the Revelation so that His people would know future events.
Revelation speaks of a "beast of many waters" (which is the papacy) having a mark of authority at the end. That any who do not take it, will not be able to buy or sell, and will eventually be killed.
It then speaks of a "beast rising out of the earth" (which is the united states) that will form an image (copy) of the papacy. A church/state copy.
And this 2nd beast will enforce the mark of the first. It will be its military/legislative power.
Scripture, which Jesus had John write, tells us the united states will join with the antichrist power of rome to bring on the 7 last plagues.
The united states will not be saved. Restored. Protected, or any thing else.
It will be destroyed. As will every nation.
If Joe Smiths book speaks against any of that, it is error.
The scriptures testify of Jesus. And Revelation is a direct revealing of the future from Jesus himself.
Sorry you are having trouble with the analogy. If Jesus told people to search the scriptures, and his disciples said that the scriptures were good for instruction, reproof, doctrine, etc.--to what scriptures was he referring?
Obviously, he is referring to what we call the Old Testament today.
Thus I will clarify for you. If the Old Testament was sufficient for instruction, doctrine, reproof, etc., and if the Old Testament testified of Christ, why then did the disciples write a New Testament that ADDED TO the existing scripture.
My point is that living prophets and apostles add to existing scripture.
Latter-day saint prophets represent a new dispensation; therefore, as was the pattern in the past, they received and revealed new scripture.
See the pattern? The Bible was never intended to be the end of scripture.
Protestants and Catholics closed the canon without authorization from God.
why then did the disciples write a New Testament that ADDED TO the existing scripture.
Because the priesthood had changed. Messiah had come, fulfilled the prophecies of Daniel, Isaiah and other prophets. No longer the levitcal priesthood was the path to salvation. Now we were to come boldly before the thrown of grace. To the Son of God himself who is out mediator between God and man.
Noone said there cannot be more scripture or inspired writing then what the old testament was.
What was said was, if a writing comes along that contradicts the writings of Christs apostles, who He appointed to share the gospel with the world, then it is error.
If Mr Smith teaches the United States will be some great leader nation, some pure anointed of God nation that will usher in some great utopia, yet the very Revelation that Jesus gave to His apostle John on the island of patmos teaches the exact opposite, then one of those is error.
Either the direct Revelation Jesus Himself gave to John the apostle, or the revelation Mr Smith claims he was given.
They speak direct opposite things.
Not sure if mormons study Daniel, Revelation etc, but if so, you can see the absolute 100% contradiction in them.
You seem to be obsessing over one single point--America's role in the latter-days. You don't know enough about latter-day saint doctrines and teachings to make an informed judgment. I don't really want to argue with you, but I will simply sign off, encouraging you to study it out more. If you want to know our beliefs, we believe the Holy Bible as written, without the interpolations of Catholics and Protestants. We believe the Bible far more literally than most other Christians. That said, we have additional revelation that does not contradict the Bible, only man's uninspired interpretations of it. Please research more. www.lds.org gives you access to our scriptures, Bible dictionary, and other study tools, all of which are searchable. A good resource. Farewell.
view the rest of the comments →
70times7 ago
Surprising number of mormons on voat.
And they get really mad when you call them out.
ldsanon ago
No, we don’t get mad. Being a Mormon is like being a Q follower. Here’s what I mean.
We know something the rest of the world doesn’t believe.
We have proofs that the world dismisses.
The MSM lies about us.
People make false accusations based on prejudice, ignorance, and hubris.
We know something of events to come that nobody else can understand.
False religions, like the Vatican, have attacked us since the beginning.
We have been warning about the Cabal for two centuries.
We will play a critical role in saving the Republic in the future.
But we are human and Satan attacks anyone who seeks to live righteously and follow Christ.
It is not surprising that we face opposition.
We hold the keys of the kingdom.
It’s like football. Everyone wants to tackle the guy with the ball.
Meanwhile, we quietly keep moving toward the goal.
70times7 ago
Scripture says when romes mark of authority is enforced, then the final plagues of God fall and the world is left in ruin. That is when Christ returns.
Scripture speaks of no group "saving the republic".
On the contrary, it speaks of the nations of the world falling into destruction.
ldsanon ago
This is a typical closed-minded approach. The Bible never claims to be a closed canon of scripture. The typical response is to point to the last verses of John’s Revelation and say that “adding to” the book will bring condemnation. However, most scholars will tell you that Revelation was written around 95 AD and that the Gospel of John was written afterwards. Therefore John “added to” scripture. When you come to realize that the Bible is the CAUSE of Christian disunity, then you come to realize the need for additional scripture as well as living apostles.
70times7 ago
Christ told us to use the scriptures. He specifically had John write the Revelation so that His people would know future events.
Revelation speaks of a "beast of many waters" (which is the papacy) having a mark of authority at the end. That any who do not take it, will not be able to buy or sell, and will eventually be killed.
It then speaks of a "beast rising out of the earth" (which is the united states) that will form an image (copy) of the papacy. A church/state copy.
And this 2nd beast will enforce the mark of the first. It will be its military/legislative power.
Scripture, which Jesus had John write, tells us the united states will join with the antichrist power of rome to bring on the 7 last plagues.
The united states will not be saved. Restored. Protected, or any thing else.
It will be destroyed. As will every nation.
If Joe Smiths book speaks against any of that, it is error.
The scriptures testify of Jesus. And Revelation is a direct revealing of the future from Jesus himself.
If your book contradicts it, your book is error.
ldsanon ago
Foolish to argue, but I will simply ask you this:
To what scriptures did Jesus refer?
Did the New Testament exist?
When was the New Testament written?
Did anyone in the Bible ever own a Bible?
Did the apostles therefore “add to” the scripture to which Jesus referred?
Your premise would eliminate the New Testament.
Nobody in the Bible ever had a Bible.
The Church was not built upon a book. It was built on the foundation of living apostles and prophets, with Jesus as the chief cornerstone.
70times7 ago
Jesus referred to the "Law and the Prophets". Told us to search them. They testified of Him.
Almost sounds like you are calling the New Testament written by His apostles a fraud.
But you wouldnt say that, so maybe the wording was a bit off.
Jesus gave us the "Revelation" so that, to quote it... "to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass".
In it, He tells us what the events surrounding the end of this probation will be.
Either Jesus was lying in what he told us, or someone else was.
You arent calling Jesus a liar of course. So by default..
ldsanon ago
Sorry you are having trouble with the analogy. If Jesus told people to search the scriptures, and his disciples said that the scriptures were good for instruction, reproof, doctrine, etc.--to what scriptures was he referring?
Obviously, he is referring to what we call the Old Testament today.
Thus I will clarify for you. If the Old Testament was sufficient for instruction, doctrine, reproof, etc., and if the Old Testament testified of Christ, why then did the disciples write a New Testament that ADDED TO the existing scripture.
My point is that living prophets and apostles add to existing scripture.
Latter-day saint prophets represent a new dispensation; therefore, as was the pattern in the past, they received and revealed new scripture.
See the pattern? The Bible was never intended to be the end of scripture.
Protestants and Catholics closed the canon without authorization from God.
Amos 3:7 -- read it.
70times7 ago
Because the priesthood had changed. Messiah had come, fulfilled the prophecies of Daniel, Isaiah and other prophets. No longer the levitcal priesthood was the path to salvation. Now we were to come boldly before the thrown of grace. To the Son of God himself who is out mediator between God and man.
Noone said there cannot be more scripture or inspired writing then what the old testament was.
What was said was, if a writing comes along that contradicts the writings of Christs apostles, who He appointed to share the gospel with the world, then it is error.
If Mr Smith teaches the United States will be some great leader nation, some pure anointed of God nation that will usher in some great utopia, yet the very Revelation that Jesus gave to His apostle John on the island of patmos teaches the exact opposite, then one of those is error.
Either the direct Revelation Jesus Himself gave to John the apostle, or the revelation Mr Smith claims he was given.
They speak direct opposite things.
Not sure if mormons study Daniel, Revelation etc, but if so, you can see the absolute 100% contradiction in them.
100% contradiction.
ldsanon ago
You seem to be obsessing over one single point--America's role in the latter-days. You don't know enough about latter-day saint doctrines and teachings to make an informed judgment. I don't really want to argue with you, but I will simply sign off, encouraging you to study it out more. If you want to know our beliefs, we believe the Holy Bible as written, without the interpolations of Catholics and Protestants. We believe the Bible far more literally than most other Christians. That said, we have additional revelation that does not contradict the Bible, only man's uninspired interpretations of it. Please research more. www.lds.org gives you access to our scriptures, Bible dictionary, and other study tools, all of which are searchable. A good resource. Farewell.
70times7 ago
I have a physical copy of your book actually mate.
Im not arguing to argue. Dont run off.
Im just telling you, the bible says the united states will help the papacy enforce its mark of authority.
The papacy (beasts) mark is what scripture says brings on the 7 last plagues of God.
Christ returning during the 7th plague for His church.
America is the enemy in scripture. Not the hero.
Ive seen the replica oval office you guys have at the top of that building in utah. Im not 100% ignorant of your teachings.
I get you guys believe that because Joe said it. But its contradictory to the bible.