Zone1 Justice vs Mercy

[Meriweather]

It is obvious to any non-religious person, that "God's mercy" is a purely made up issue (fantasy) by religious leaders to garner sheep, aka to invent a way for a believer to redeem his "soul". And it is therefore solely up to religious persons to believe in this.

What is obvious is the lack of Bible Study in the original language.

 

[Meriweather]

As such it doesn't matter, since secular justice will handle ALL judicial issues and crimes independently of whatever religious belief an e.g. Christian country or person beholds, aka Höss got rightfully executed.

Yes. We agree that secular justice will handle all secular judicial issues. Spiritual justice and mercy is a separate matter. However, for one to take an interest in spiritual justice requires the belief humans are made up of body, mind, and soul. Some do not hold that belief.

 

[skye]

Justice goes before mercy.


First Justice then....if it pertains to the case, mercy.


My personal opinion.

 

[Meriweather]

First Justice then....if it pertains to the case, mercy.


My personal opinion.

It does seem the people who have been harmed should be cared for first, restitution made.

 

[skye]

1) JUSTICE

2) mercy

 

[Clyde 154]

A recent homily was centered on The Justice We Deserve or The Mercy We Need.

Today the Catholic Church celebrates Divine Mercy. St. Maria Faustina noted God will not deny his mercy to anyone, and God's mercy will never be exhausted.

Rudolf Franz Ferdinand Höss was the commandant of the Auschwitz death camp, where over three million lost their lives. Höss was commented that he only killed about 2.5 million; the others died from sickness or starvation (under his watch).

Long story short: Before his death he had a change of heart about what he had done. He had been raised Catholic. He asked a Catholic priest to hear his confession and he was absolved of his sins. He received communion prior to his death. He had been sentenced to hang.

What say you in this case: Should justice outweigh mercy?

Show us the book, chapter and verse that declares that a priest can absolve sin through confession alone. Only God can absolve sin. (Mark 2:7, Luke 5:21). Jesus as the Son of God, being God incarnate on earth held the authority to forgive/absolve sin. (Luke 5:24) The steps to salvation are recorded in the Word of God. Faith (faith alone cannot save, it also takes works, "Faith without Works is dead." -- James 2:17. Repentance......and lastly Water Baptism. There is not one example of anyone gaining entrance into the kingdom of God...i.e, the church, void of water baptism. Peter used the Keys to the Kingdom given to him by the Christ (Matthew 16) to reveal the entrance into the kingdom, "Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sin" -- Acts 2:38.

Question, did the priest baptize (water) this sinner after confession?

A Catholic Priest holds no authority to absolve anyone of sin. This is a commandment of men.......not God. Obeying the correct Doctrine frees us from sin.....not some priests words of forgiveness. "But God be thanked that though you were slaves to sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered......" -- Romans 6:17-18

Teaching the wrong doctrine invalidates the Christ's Sacrifice.......He died in vain. "And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrine the commandments of men." -- Matt. 15:9

Obeying false doctrine.........commandments of men, departs from the faith delivered in the Word of God. "Now the Spirit (Holy Spirit) expressly says that in latter times, some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons." -- 1 Tim. 4:1

He who refuses to accept the doctrine of Christ, does not have God, "Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son." -- 2 John 9

Christians are "charged" with teaching no other doctrine. (1 Tim. 1:3)

 

[Kruska]

Yes. We agree that secular justice will handle all secular judicial issues. Spiritual justice and mercy is a separate matter. However, for one to take an interest in spiritual justice requires the belief humans are made up of body, mind, and soul. Some do not hold that belief.

That is what I had stated already - a religious belief onto "God's Mercy" has nothing to do with secular justice.
As for a "soul" there isn't any proof either - again a belief only valid for religious folks.

Your thread lacks any general meaning (aside from propagating Christianity) - since your "Justice/Mercy" issue, is solely confined to religious folks, who in general adhere and believe into this "soul redemption" issue.

And to them, one can therefore commit any abhorred crime - since they have been taught to "believe" in Gods Mercy.
Which perfectly explains the "deeds" of Christians like Hitler, Stalin, etc. etc. etc.

 

[onefour1]

After his resurrection, Jesus appeared to the Apostles, breathed upon them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained." (From the Gospel of John, chapter 20).

But setting aside our possible difference about apostleship/priesthood, thinking of Jesus' mercy extending beyond the murders of three million people leaves me speechless. On the other hand, before he died, Höss noted that at the time it never occurred to him to question the authority of those who gave him his orders. Before he died he wrote a letter to his eldest son pushing him to question the orders those in authority gave him. Höss did seem to have a legitimate change of heart. But three million people.... Jesus' mercy is that bountiful, and no one should doubt this.

John 20:19-23
19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
20 And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.
21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

You are right Meriweather, Jesus did delegate the authority to his disciples to forgive sin in his behalf. I will have to study this further to know if this key to the priesthood was ever to be delegated below the office of Apostle. In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints the Lord gave this power to the Prophet Joseph Smith:

Doctrine and Covenants 132:46
46 And verily, verily, I say unto you, that whatsoever you seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven; and whatsoever you bind on earth, in my name and by my word, saith the Lord, it shall be eternally bound in the heavens; and whosesoever sins you remit on earth shall be remitted eternally in the heavens; and whosesoever sins you retain on earth shall be retained in heaven.

In the church we are so often asked to pray to God for our forgiveness and it is seldom spoken of that forgiveness of sin can be obtained through other priesthood holders. I have read the scriptures many, many times but this must not have registered with me. Thank you for pointing this out. There is a doctrine of having ones calling and election made sure and this is done through the priesthood and I would guess by thinking about it that if one is to have their calling and election made sure, then they would need to have their sins remitted. Having ones calling and election made sure is the same as being sealed up to eternal life.

2 Peter 1:10-11
10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:
11 For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

 

[Meriweather]

Question, did the priest baptize (water) this sinner after confession?

He had been raised Catholic and was already baptized.

 

[Meriweather]

Your thread lacks any general meaning (aside from propagating Christianity) - since your "Justice/Mercy" issue, is solely confined to religious folks, who in general adhere and believe into this "soul redemption" issue.

This thread, being in the Religion Forum, is primarily directed towards people of faith, especially those of an Abrahamic faith, all of whom teach the mercy of God. However, people can (and have) also raised the topic of secular justice and mercy, which is fine as well.

And to them, one can therefore commit any abhorred crime - since they have been taught to "believe" in Gods Mercy.
Which perfectly explains the "deeds" of Christians like Hitler, Stalin, etc. etc. etc.

While Mr. Höss had been raised in a Catholic family, as an adult he was not a practicing Catholic and seemed to have lost all faith/belief in God. It follows that those who have no belief in God hold no belief in God's mercy. Like Höss, as an adult, Hitler had no belief in God. The reason for their actions was to purify the human race and decided certain people were inferior and had to be eliminated for the good of the human race. No mercy there.

For those who do believe in God: As a whole we accept the premise of the fallen condition of the human race when Adam and Eve chose disobedience over obedience, resulting in death. We also believe God never abandoned mankind due to this disobedience, but has continued to work with them, guiding mankind back to obedience. Our spirits are very willing, but the flesh retains its fallen condition that occurred because of that first act of disobedience. Just as the disobedience of one man had consequences for all, Christians believe that the obedience of one man reversed those consequences. We can choose obedience and life, and our human failings will be forgiven. That is our Covenant/Testament with God.

Deliberately choosing disobedience tosses us back to the condition we were in before Christ: That of death and separation from God. In the current era, one has to choose disobedience and accept this disobedience will separate him from God. He is in the position the Prodigal Son had been in, where the son deliberately (and with satisfaction) leaves his father. That son chose to return to his father and was joyfully welcomed back.

This is not a situation where a son calls to his father as he leaves for the evening, "Hey, Dad, I know you won't like it, but I'm on my way to rob a liquor store. I'll be back shortly after midnight, and I know you will welcome me and my sin because you love me." No, because of the crime, he will not be welcome back into his father's house. That crime separates them until justice plays out. It is when the son truly wants to renew the right relationship with his father that mercy becomes present.

 

[ninja007]

Show us the book, chapter and verse that declares that a priest can absolve sin through confession alone. Only God can absolve sin. (Mark 2:7, Luke 5:21). Jesus as the Son of God, being God incarnate on earth held the authority to forgive/absolve sin. (Luke 5:24) The steps to salvation are recorded in the Word of God. Faith (faith alone cannot save, it also takes works, "Faith without Works is dead." -- James 2:17. Repentance......and lastly Water Baptism. There is not one example of anyone gaining entrance into the kingdom of God...i.e, the church, void of water baptism. Peter used the Keys to the Kingdom given to him by the Christ (Matthew 16) to reveal the entrance into the kingdom, "Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sin" -- Acts 2:38.

Question, did the priest baptize (water) this sinner after confession?

A Catholic Priest holds no authority to absolve anyone of sin. This is a commandment of men.......not God. Obeying the correct Doctrine frees us from sin.....not some priests words of forgiveness. "But God be thanked that though you were slaves to sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered......" -- Romans 6:17-18

Teaching the wrong doctrine invalidates the Christ's Sacrifice.......He died in vain. "And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrine the commandments of men." -- Matt. 15:9

Obeying false doctrine.........commandments of men, departs from the faith delivered in the Word of God. "Now the Spirit (Holy Spirit) expressly says that in latter times, some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons." -- 1 Tim. 4:1

He who refuses to accept the doctrine of Christ, does not have God, "Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son." -- 2 John 9

Christians are "charged" with teaching no other doctrine. (1 Tim. 1:3)

shes hopeless tbh, ive known her for almost 20 years on another message religion board. shes a rc first- sad.

 

[ninja007]

Show us the book, chapter and verse that declares that a priest can absolve sin through confession alone. Only God can absolve sin. (Mark 2:7, Luke 5:21). Jesus as the Son of God, being God incarnate on earth held the authority to forgive/absolve sin. (Luke 5:24) The steps to salvation are recorded in the Word of God. Faith (faith alone cannot save, it also takes works, "Faith without Works is dead." -- James 2:17. Repentance......and lastly Water Baptism. There is not one example of anyone gaining entrance into the kingdom of God...i.e, the church, void of water baptism. Peter used the Keys to the Kingdom given to him by the Christ (Matthew 16) to reveal the entrance into the kingdom, "Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sin" -- Acts 2:38.

Question, did the priest baptize (water) this sinner after confession?

A Catholic Priest holds no authority to absolve anyone of sin. This is a commandment of men.......not God. Obeying the correct Doctrine frees us from sin.....not some priests words of forgiveness. "But God be thanked that though you were slaves to sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered......" -- Romans 6:17-18

Teaching the wrong doctrine invalidates the Christ's Sacrifice.......He died in vain. "And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrine the commandments of men." -- Matt. 15:9

Obeying false doctrine.........commandments of men, departs from the faith delivered in the Word of God. "Now the Spirit (Holy Spirit) expressly says that in latter times, some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons." -- 1 Tim. 4:1

He who refuses to accept the doctrine of Christ, does not have God, "Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son." -- 2 John 9

Christians are "charged" with teaching no other doctrine. (1 Tim. 1:3)

The concept of confession of sin to a priest is nowhere taught in Scripture. First, the New Testament does not teach that there are to be priests in the New Covenant. Instead, the New Testament teaches that all believers are priests. First Peter 2:5-9 describes believers as a “holy priesthood” and a “royal priesthood.” Revelation 1:6 and 5:10 both describe believers as “a kingdom of priests.” In the Old Covenant, the faithful had to approach God through the priests. The priests were mediators between the people and God. The priests offered sacrifices to God on behalf of the people. That is no longer necessary. Because of Jesus’ sacrifice, we can now approach God’s throne with boldness (Hebrews 4:16). The temple veil tearing in two at Jesus’ death was symbolic of the dividing wall between God and humanity being destroyed. We can approach God directly, ourselves, without the use of a human mediator. Why? Because Jesus Christ is our great High Priest (Hebrews 4:14-15; 10:21) and the only mediator between us and God (1 Timothy 2:5). The New Testament teaches that there are to be elders (1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:6-9), deacons (1 Timothy 3:8-13), and pastors (Ephesians 4:11) – but not priests.

When it comes to confession of sin, believers are told in 1 John 1:9 to confess their sins to God. God is faithful and just to forgive our sins as we confess them to Him. James 5:16 speaks of confessing our trespasses “to one another,” but this is not the same as confessing sins to a priest as the Roman Catholic Church teaches. Priests / church leaders are nowhere mentioned in the context of James 5:16. Further, James 5:16 does not link forgiveness of sins with the confession of sins “to one another.”

The Roman Catholic Church bases their practice of confession to a priest primarily on Catholic tradition. Catholics do point to John 20:23, “If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” From this verse, Catholics claim that God gave the apostles the authority to forgive sins and that authority was passed on to the successors of the apostles, i.e., the bishops and priests of the Roman Catholic Church. There are several problems with this interpretation. (1) John 20:23 nowhere mentions confession of sin. (2) John 20:23 nowhere promises or even hints that apostolic authority of any kind would be passed on to the successors of the apostles. (3) The apostles never once in the New Testament acted as if they had the authority to forgive a person’s sin. Similarly, Catholics point to Matthew 16:19 and 18:18 (binding and loosing) as evidence for the Catholic Church’s authority to forgive sins. The same three above points apply equally to these Scriptures.

The ability to forgive sins is God’s and His alone (Isaiah 43:25). The better understanding of John 20:23 is that the apostles were given the responsibility of declaring with utmost certainty the terms on which God would forgive sins. As the church was being founded, the apostles declared that those who believed the gospel were forgiven (Acts 16:31) and those who did not obey the gospel faced judgment (2 Thessalonians 1:8; 1 Peter 4:17). As the apostles proclaimed salvation in Christ (Acts 10:43) and exercised church discipline (1 Corinthians 5:4–5), they were wielding the authority Christ had given them.

Again, the concept of confession of sin to a priest is nowhere taught in Scripture. We are to confess our sins to God (1 John 1:9). As New Covenant believers, we do not need mediators between us and God. We can go to God directly because of Jesus’ sacrifice for us. First Timothy 2:5 says, “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” What does the Bible say about confession of sin to a priest? | GotQuestions.org

 

[ninja007]

Yes. We agree that secular justice will handle all secular judicial issues. Spiritual justice and mercy is a separate matter. However, for one to take an interest in spiritual justice requires the belief humans are made up of body, mind, and soul. Some do not hold that belief.

What does the Bible say about confession of sin to a priest? | GotQuestions.org

What does the Bible say about confession of sin to a priest? Do we have to confess our sins to a priest before God will forgive them?

www.gotquestions.org

The concept of confession of sin to a priest is nowhere taught in Scripture. First, the New Testament does not teach that there are to be priests in the New Covenant. Instead, the New Testament teaches that all believers are priests. First Peter 2:5-9 describes believers as a “holy priesthood” and a “royal priesthood.” Revelation 1:6 and 5:10 both describe believers as “a kingdom of priests.” In the Old Covenant, the faithful had to approach God through the priests. The priests were mediators between the people and God. The priests offered sacrifices to God on behalf of the people. That is no longer necessary. Because of Jesus’ sacrifice, we can now approach God’s throne with boldness (Hebrews 4:16). The temple veil tearing in two at Jesus’ death was symbolic of the dividing wall between God and humanity being destroyed. We can approach God directly, ourselves, without the use of a human mediator. Why? Because Jesus Christ is our great High Priest (Hebrews 4:14-15; 10:21) and the only mediator between us and God (1 Timothy 2:5). The New Testament teaches that there are to be elders (1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:6-9), deacons (1 Timothy 3:8-13), and pastors (Ephesians 4:11) – but not priests.

When it comes to confession of sin, believers are told in 1 John 1:9 to confess their sins to God. God is faithful and just to forgive our sins as we confess them to Him. James 5:16 speaks of confessing our trespasses “to one another,” but this is not the same as confessing sins to a priest as the Roman Catholic Church teaches. Priests / church leaders are nowhere mentioned in the context of James 5:16. Further, James 5:16 does not link forgiveness of sins with the confession of sins “to one another.”

The Roman Catholic Church bases their practice of confession to a priest primarily on Catholic tradition. Catholics do point to John 20:23, “If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” From this verse, Catholics claim that God gave the apostles the authority to forgive sins and that authority was passed on to the successors of the apostles, i.e., the bishops and priests of the Roman Catholic Church. There are several problems with this interpretation. (1) John 20:23 nowhere mentions confession of sin. (2) John 20:23 nowhere promises or even hints that apostolic authority of any kind would be passed on to the successors of the apostles. (3) The apostles never once in the New Testament acted as if they had the authority to forgive a person’s sin. Similarly, Catholics point to Matthew 16:19 and 18:18 (binding and loosing) as evidence for the Catholic Church’s authority to forgive sins. The same three above points apply equally to these Scriptures.

The ability to forgive sins is God’s and His alone (Isaiah 43:25). The better understanding of John 20:23 is that the apostles were given the responsibility of declaring with utmost certainty the terms on which God would forgive sins. As the church was being founded, the apostles declared that those who believed the gospel were forgiven (Acts 16:31) and those who did not obey the gospel faced judgment (2 Thessalonians 1:8; 1 Peter 4:17). As the apostles proclaimed salvation in Christ (Acts 10:43) and exercised church discipline (1 Corinthians 5:4–5), they were wielding the authority Christ had given them.

Again, the concept of confession of sin to a priest is nowhere taught in Scripture. We are to confess our sins to God (1 John 1:9). As New Covenant believers, we do not need mediators between us and God. We can go to God directly because of Jesus’ sacrifice for us. First Timothy 2:5 says, “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”

 

[ninja007]

John 20:19-23
19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
20 And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.
21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

You are right Meriweather, Jesus did delegate the authority to his disciples to forgive sin in his behalf. I will have to study this further to know if this key to the priesthood was ever to be delegated below the office of Apostle. In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints the Lord gave this power to the Prophet Joseph Smith:

Doctrine and Covenants 132:46
46 And verily, verily, I say unto you, that whatsoever you seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven; and whatsoever you bind on earth, in my name and by my word, saith the Lord, it shall be eternally bound in the heavens; and whosesoever sins you remit on earth shall be remitted eternally in the heavens; and whosesoever sins you retain on earth shall be retained in heaven.

In the church we are so often asked to pray to God for our forgiveness and it is seldom spoken of that forgiveness of sin can be obtained through other priesthood holders. I have read the scriptures many, many times but this must not have registered with me. Thank you for pointing this out. There is a doctrine of having ones calling and election made sure and this is done through the priesthood and I would guess by thinking about it that if one is to have their calling and election made sure, then they would need to have their sins remitted. Having ones calling and election made sure is the same as being sealed up to eternal life.

2 Peter 1:10-11
10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:
11 For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

the bible doesnt mention joe smith.

 

[ninja007]

Three Irrefutable Reasons Why Joseph Smith Was a Fraud​

Home > Articles > Three Irrefutable Reasons Why Joseph Smith Was a Fraud

Three Irrefutable Reasons​

Why Joseph Smith Was a Fraud​

By Nathan Jones

What is the goal of a Christian cult? Cults expert James Bjornstad identified the goal as: “The goal of religious counterfeits is deception, presenting a likeness to the original while at the same time maintaining differences.”1 He added that these religious counterfeiters claim to be genuine Christians while at the same time repurposing yet redefining biblical doctrines involving God, Jesus, and salvation. In doing so, they take “great pains to mimic every detail in copying… doing everything possible to reduce the chances of detection and increase the chances of acceptance.”2
One of the most notorious and successful of these religious counterfeiters was Joseph Smith Jr. (1805-1844), founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS), better known as the Mormons. With nearly eight million followers today, the LDS Church continues to grow at an exponential rate, even some 180 years after Smith’s death.
But, the cult of Mormonism stands precariously like a house of cards, easily collapsed by three simple arguments. These three arguments will be examined in the light of equipping Christians to help rescue the lost Mormon from their cultic beliefs and eventual eternal death in Hell.​

Reason 1: The Character of Joseph Smith​

The LDS Church made the following admission based on their founder’s own personal testimony of being a divinely appointed prophet of God:​

By nearly three million persons in many lands, Joseph Smith is today held in remembrance as a Prophet of God. The virtues and achievements of his followers stand as a monument to his divine calling. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has its foundation in the revelations he received, the sacred truths he taught, and the authority of the priesthood restored through him.3

Within this foundational LDS statement lies what cults expert Robert A. Morey calls Mormonism’s “Achilles’ heel,” stating that “the authority of the Mormon priesthood and the validity of their doctrines rest totally on Joseph Smith’s claim to be an inspired prophet of God.”4 It could then be argued that Mormonism either stands as a legitimate expression of Christianity or falls into being labeled as a cult based on Smith’s own claim of being a true prophet of God.
That means then that should Joseph Smith have ever pronounced any prophecy that turned out to be false or never having been fulfilled, he would end up violating Moses’ litmus test for determining whether a message had been truly spoken by the Lord or not. As the Scriptures reveal: “If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him” (Deuteronomy 18:21-22 NKJV).
Since the foundation of all LDS beliefs rests on the prophetic claims made by Mormonism’s founder, then Morey advises that Christians adopt the two-pronged apologetics strategy of listing Smith’s failed prophecies as well as highlighting his highly immoral character, and in doing so, will best sway those seduced by Mormonism into renouncing both Joseph Smith as a false prophet and Mormonism as a false expression of Christianity.5
In other words, remove Joseph Smith from the religious equation and what remains is a total reliance on Jesus Christ alone through faith alone. Mormonism’s own Articles of Faith admits to as much stating, “If his [Smith’s] claims to divine appointment be false, forming as they do the foundation of the Church… the superstructure cannot be stable.”6 The superstructure will now be shown to indeed be very unstable.​

Smith’s False Prophecies​

Cold Case Christianity author J. Warner Wallace provides just a few of the many failed prophecies made by Joseph Smith proving that he did indeed fail Moses’ test for discerning a true prophet of God.7
1. Joseph Smith made open-dated prophecies, such as when he predicted in 1835 that, “The coming of the Lord, which was nigh — even fifty-six years should wind up the scene” (History of the Church, Vol. 2, 182).
2. He made a number of self-fulfilling prophecies, such as when he claimed the Lord instructed him not to translate any more until he had arrived in Ohio. (D&C 37:1).
3. Smith made conditional prophecies, such as when he stated that if the people of Ohio repented they would not be severely judged by the Lord (D&C 40:16-18).
4. Smith even went as far as to make close-dated, unconditional prophecies, such as when in 1832 he prophesied that a LDS temple would be built in Independence, Missouri within his generation. Almost 200 years later and no Temple has ever been built, especially during Smith’s generation, forcing the LDS leadership to admit this prophecy has never come true. (D&C Section 84).
5. Smith also made a number of fanciful prophecies, such as when in 1837 he proclaimed that the Lord had told him that the moon was inhabited by men and women who looked like the people of earth and that they lived up to a 1,000 years old, stood nearly six feet tall, and dressed uniformly like Quakers.​

Smith’s Immoral Character​

The second of Morey’s two-pronged strategy for eroding the Mormon foundation rests on describing the many historically documented examples of Joseph Smith’s immoral character. His lifestyle of debauchery proves Smith was the polar opposite of a biblical man who lived in total faith in the Trinitarian God of the Bible and in holiness and obedience to sound biblical doctrine.
Joseph’s Smith’s own testimony demonstrates that the man was a serial liar. He claimed at the ripe age of 15 to have been visited by “two glorious personages surrounded with a brilliant light which eclipsed the sun at noonday,” whom he identified as “the Father and the Son,” and they supposedly taught him to despise Christian creeds and denominations as abominations and to teach that the Bible had been corrupted and in need of restoration.8
Smith some three years later next claimed that an angel named Moroni directed him to find golden plates hidden in a hill called Cumorah near the village of Manchester, New York, along with the Jewish high priest’s Urim and Thummin stones by which he could look through and so translate the plates from ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics into English.9 These plates, ironically enough, “happened” to reside right near his own home.
Once Smith had finished “translating” these golden plates, he then claimed that John the Baptist had appeared to him in order to ordain him into the Aaronic priesthood.10 In listening to and obeying the “serpent who deceived Eve” who was “masquerading as an angel of light,” Smith’s mind had been corrupted, and so he abandoned the simplicity that is in Christ, and having received a different spirit and Gospel, became a “false apostle and deceitful worker” (2 Corinthians 11:3-4,13-14 NKJV).
Once Joseph Smith officially founded Mormonism on April 6, 1830, and began amassing followers who had been disenfranchised with traditional Christianity, Smith as their leader began behaving more like a gang member than a man of God. When anyone spoke out against his false teachings, Smith would strike out with a vengeance. For example, in one historic account, Smith had hired two Mormons to kill a man who was outspoken against his teachings.11
In another historic account, Smith claimed he had a vision from God which told him that “the redemption of Zion must needs come by power,” and so formed an army of 200 men to march on Independence, Missouri, where he was summarily routed, and backtracking, then claimed that God had changed his mind about the attack.12 Smith’s army, called the Danites, was described as “a band of murderers whose vile misdeeds were later written in blood on the blackest pages of the history of Mormonism;” and because of their treasonous actions Missouri Governor Lilburn W. Boggs ordered a General Clark to treat the Mormons as enemies and that they “must be exterminated or driven from the state, if necessary, for the public good” for “their outrages are beyond description.”13 Porter Rockwell, chief of the Danites, was “a powerful man physically, with a mind of narrow perceptions, intense convictions, and utterly depraved motives,” known to “cut throats without compunction,” so much so that records from the time reveal that Rockwell was charged with close to one-hundred cold-blooded murders.14
Smith had also claimed “divine revelation” to justify his acts of polygamy. He amassed his own collection of some 33 known wives, maybe even more, with some as young as 14 years old.15 This lurid behavior led the town of Kirtland, Ohio to tar and feather Joseph Smith and his friend, Sidney Rigdon.16 Smith’s successor, Brigham Young, even went as far as blasphemously claiming, “Jesus Christ was a polygamist, Mary and Martha, the sisters of Lazarus, were his plural wives, and Mary Magdalene was another.”17 Polygamy and pedophilia defined Smith’s behavior towards women and his contempt for God’s moral law.
Wherever Smith and his followers went they sowed discord and violence, even among themselves, eventually being forced out of Ohio, then Missouri, and finally settling in Illinois. Once there, Smith ordered his followers to burn down the Nauvoo Expositor newspaper for publishing the horrors of Mormon rule and practice.18 This act of arson led to Joseph Smith’s arrest. An angry mob stormed the jail where he was being held and shot Smith and his brother Hyrum in a gunfight. For all his supposed divine appointment, Smith died like the criminal that he was on June 27, 1844. And, for all his proclamations of being a divinely appointed prophet of God, Joseph Smith proved to be a lying, thieving, violent, sexually immoral miscreant who clearly did not live a life as the Apostle Paul preached, “worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing Him, being fruitful in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God” (Colossians 1:10 NKJV).​

Reason 2: Witnesses for Joseph Smith​

While it is a simple task to prove that Joseph Smith was a false prophet who lacked any godly moral character, if Smith alone had been the only one to have laid eyes on the golden plates, then the combination of these two faults should dissuade any Mormon from continuing to remain in the cult. Alas, Smith proved to be a highly devious individual who was keen enough to claim that three witnesses — Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and David Whitmer — could testify that the plates had indeed existed while Smith kept them out of sight during translation.19 Nobody else could have viewed the plates, for Smith conveniently announced that the angel Moroni had returned to recover the plates and deliver them up to Heaven.
These witnesses own wretched moral character makes their testimony completely dismissible. Both Whitmer and Cowdery were later charged by their fellow Mormons as thieves and counterfeiters, and Harris eventually admitted that he never had really laid eyes on the plates but instead gazed upon them through his “eyes of faith.”20 Once the supposed plates were translated and became the Book of Mormon, later revisions went so far as to declare eight witnesses, even if Smith himself had only claimed three witnesses.​

Reason 3: Mormon Scriptures​

Joseph Smith claimed that the golden plates the angel Moroni had led him to discover, along with the Urim and Thummin stones used to translate the Egyptian hieroglyphics inscribed on the golden plates, were the very words written by a man named Mormon who was a descendent of a Jewish exilic pilgrim to the New World named Lehi. Mormon supposedly wrote:​

“I am Mormon and a pure descendant of Lehi… and behold I am called Mormon, being called after the land of Mormon… behold I am a disciple of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. I have been called of him to declare his word among his people, that they might have everlasting life.21

Smith and his “heavenly helper” Oliver Cowdery, a former school teacher, proceeded to “translate” the Book of Mormon and finally published it in March of 1830. Besides the fact that Smith’s origin story was outrageous in the extreme and the character named Lehi totally unsubstantiated by the Holy Bible, almost immediately after the Book of Mormon had been published charges of plagiarism had been leveled against Smith. He was accused of stealing his ideas from a novel written a few years earlier by a minister named Solomon Spaulding. Though the Spaulding manuscript was eventually recovered in the Library at Oberlin College in Oberlin, Ohio, and similarities found were insufficient to warrant the charge of plagiarism, cults expert James H. Snowdon studied both documents and notes that Joseph Smith had indeed taken large portions of Spaulding’s novel when concocting the Book of Mormon.22
Not only did Joseph Smith swipe Spaulding’s material in order to write his Book of Mormon, but he also copied verbatim portions of the Authorized Version of the Bible, known as the King James Version, literary style and all. One can find these entirely copied chapters taken from the King James: II Nephi 12 from Isaiah 2, II Nephi 13 from Isaiah 3, II Nephi 14 from Isaiah 4, II Nephi 16 from Isaiah 6, III Nephi 12-14 slightly altered from Matthew 5, and Moroni 10 from I Corinthians 12:1-11. Smith attempted to make his text to sound more biblical by imitating seventeenth-century King James English, even though Mormon supposedly left his message on golden plates hundreds of years before the King James translation had ever been commissioned.
Smith also added modern-day references to technologies that just did not exist in biblical times, such as the steel Laban used to make a sword (I Nephi 4:9) and a compass (Acts 28:13). Such a blatant forgery has led theologian Robert F. Boyd to conclude: “The Book of Mormon has utterly failed to make any valuable contribution to the cause of the true religion. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the book is a cunningly devised fable.”23
Smith’s assertion that he needed translation stones in order to translate the Book of Mormon proved a crafty cover for the fact that he possessed no knowledge of either the Hebrew or Egyptian languages, though that lack of knowledge never stopped him from claiming this or that word were Hebrew words, leading one cults expert to comment, “Prophet Smith seems to have had a fancy for inventing learned etymologies which were for the most part utterly fictitious.”24
For example, when the Mormons had to resettle yet again, this time in Illinois, Smith bought the little town of Commerce and renamed in Nauvoo, which he incorrectly indicated was the Hebrew word for “beautiful place.” Even the word “Mormon,” Smith asserted, derived from the Egyptian word “mon” for “good,” added to the English word “more,” together became “Mormon,” or “more good” (though in the Greek “Mormon” is actually the word for “baboon”!).25
Besides the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith would later go on to pen the books The Pearl of Great Price and Doctrines and Covenants (D&C), as well as releasing his own version of the Bible because as the Mormon “Articles of Faith” claims, “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly,” thereby supposedly restoring the “real gospel” of Jesus Christ. Smith also ran across an original Egyptian papyrus which he “translated” into the supposedly lost Book of Abraham. Reputable Egyptologists much later in 1967 properly translated the rediscovered papyrus and exposed both Smith’s translation as a fabrication and claim to be able to read ancient Egyptian as a total fraud.26
Long after Joseph Smith had died and others took up his leadership mantle, such as Brigham Young, the leading apostles of the LDS Church continued to claim new revelations and make over 3,000 revisions to Joseph Smith’s writings. This shady behavior led famed theologian Walter Martin to exclaim in exasperation:​

Present day Mormon doctrine, so complex and bizarre, evolved (or mutated) from basic Christian principles during its first fifty years because of the declarations of its “living prophets.” These declarations were at odds with each other with sufficient frequency to cause confusion among the church’s membership, but most Mormons’ faith remained intact nonetheless.27

Martin went on to describe what has been “woven into the crazy quilt of Mormon theology are distinctive doctrines which have been introduced, taught, and afterward discarded and denied.”28 Such discarded doctrinal teachings from LDS leaders include the Adam-God doctrine which teaches that Adam returned to the earth to become the literal father of Jesus, and the Blood Atonement doctrine which makes the heretical claim that Jesus Christ’s blood only atoned for some sins so that a person needed to literally be executed in order to atone for the remainder of their sins.
Even the doctrine of eternal punishment espoused in the Book of Mormon has over subsequent revelations endorsed what cult historians have described as “a theology of nearly universal salvation.”29 If Mormons see the need to continue to rewrite or discard revelations supposedly revealed by the very mouth-piece of God, then they would be engaging in actual heresy against their own Mormon religion, not just traditional Christianity.​

Conclusion​

It takes little effort to disprove Joseph Smith’s claim to being a divinely called prophet of God. First, Smith fails Moses’ test of a true prophet due to his many failed prophecies, and his own ungodly and immoral character would cause even the most ardent hedonist to blush.
Second, the three witnesses to the quintessential event underlying all of the LDS religion — the translation of the golden plates into the Book of Mormon — were even denounced by their own fellow Mormons.
And, third, the Mormon scriptures have long been proven to be plagiarized frauds.
By these three arguments alone, the Mormon believer should begin to express serious doubts as to the truth of their religion. Any of these arguments should, as Bjornstad advises, stop the lost Mormon “from walking blindly down the steps leading away from God.”30
Failing in this, though, Christians may proceed with a plethora of other topics available that fairly easily disprove Smith’s claims. These topics include challenging that all Christians churches are abominations to God, or the need for a restored Old Testament priesthood, or the unsubstantiated claim that God is merely an exalted man, or that Jesus was begotten as the spirit brother of Lucifer, or that humans preexisted and will one day attain godhood over their own planets, or the unbiblical requirements of a works-based salvation, or even Mormonism’s near-universalistic teaching of an afterlife made up of three kingdoms of glory (celestial, terrestrial, telestial). By using any of these arguments against the validity of Mormonism as an authentic expression of Christianity, the religious counterfeit who is Joseph Smith is unmasked as the fraud that he was.
Evangelical Christians must remember, though, to reach out to Smith’s followers in love and armed with the sword of the Word and these arguments against Mormonism being a valid expression of Christianity. For, if they do not, souls will be lost to eternal separation from God in a place of torment.​

 

[Clyde 154]

He had been raised Catholic and was already baptized.

"Because I have called and you refused to listen, I have stretched out My hand and no one has heeded, because you ignored all My counsel and would have none of My reproof, I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock you when terror strikes you.............when terror strikes like a storm and your calamity comes like a whirlwind, when distress and anguish come upon you. THEN THEY WILL CALL UPON ME, BUT I WILL NOT ANSWER; THEY WILL SEEK ME DILIGENTLY BUT WILL NOT FIND ME." -- Proverbs 1:24-28


Really? Being a Catholic........was He baptized or "sprinkled"? The scriptures state that water baptism is the LAST ACT of salvation as it represents the grave and rebirth .......baptism cannot precede faith and repentance. But that is not the question........the question that was asked, can anyone present the book, chapter and verse that authorizes a priest/minister/preacher to absolve/forgive sin? Death bed confessions omit one major requirement commanded by God. Good Works......can anyone spend their life time obeying evil and confess on their deathbed?

"Behold the Lord's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither is His ear heavy that it cannot hear. But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid His face from you, that He will not hear." -- Isa. 59:1-2




How does anyone confirm the promise of salvation offered through the grace of Jesus Christ? The scriptures answer.....there is only 1 correct answer and its found in the Word of God, "These things I have written (apostle of Christ) to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, THAT YOU MAY KNOW THAT YOU HAVE ETERNAL LIFE." -- 1 John 5:13

Repentance along does not make one a Christian (Acts 2:38) teaches that repentance and water baptism is required. (Mark 16:16) makes faith and baptism necessary. Good works complement and accompany faith. (Eph. 2:10-18)

 

[Meriweather]

Really? Being a Catholic........was He baptized or "sprinkled"?

Catholics don't "sprinkle". Never have.

 

[Clyde 154]

Catholics don't "sprinkle". Never have.

Quite a lie claiming that Catholics do not attempt to absolve innocent children by the sprinkling of water under the pretense of Original Sin (which is not found anywhere in the Holy Bible) and adults on their death bed who could not tolerate submersion. Again present the book, chapter and verse where sprinkling is authorized, someone other than God can absolve sin, Original Sin, the word POPE, praying to Mary as the mother of god..........etc., over half of the Roman Catholic Doctrine is based upon the TRADITIONS of men in place of the Holy Scriptures.

FACTS: In the 750s AD the Catholic Pope Stephen declared that alternate means of BAPTISM to be acceptable when submersion was not practical.

Baptism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Kruska]

This thread, being in the Religion Forum, is primarily directed towards people of faith, especially those of an Abrahamic faith, all of whom teach the mercy of God. However, people can (and have) also raised the topic of secular justice and mercy, which is fine as well.

Your thread is meaningless - aside from you propagating Christianity, as I had already given you the answer:

Your thread lacks any general meaning (aside from propagating Christianity) - since your "Justice/Mercy" issue, is solely confined to religious folks, who in general adhere and believe into this "soul redemption" issue.

And to them, one can therefore commit any abhorred crime - since they have been taught to "believe" in Gods Mercy.
Which perfectly explains the "deeds" of Christians like Hitler, Stalin, etc. etc. etc.

While Mr. Höss had been raised in a Catholic family, as an adult he was not a practicing Catholic and seemed to have lost all faith/belief in God. It follows that those who have no belief in God hold no belief in God's mercy. Like Höss, as an adult, Hitler had no belief in God. The reason for their actions was to purify the human race and decided certain people were inferior and had to be eliminated for the good of the human race.

So what? all these people had been baptized and raised in the Catholic or resp. Christian belief. E.g. Stalin had even attended a priesthood seminar. And there is no proof at all that e.g. Hitler "had no belief in God". - that is solely YOUR personal false propaganda. Why would (supposed atheist) Hitler, have allowed for the Wehrmacht Buckle to state: "Gott mit Uns" (God is with us). Furthermore Hitler is best known for his resolute BELIEVE in Divine Providence.

No mercy there.

Say's who? God, the Pope or just You?

For those who do believe in God: As a whole we accept the premise of the fallen condition of the human race when Adam and Eve chose disobedience over obedience, resulting in death. We also believe God never abandoned mankind due to this disobedience, but has continued to work with them, guiding mankind back to obedience. Our spirits are very willing, but the flesh retains its fallen condition that occurred because of that first act of disobedience. Just as the disobedience of one man had consequences for all, Christians believe that the obedience of one man reversed those consequences. We can choose obedience and life, and our human failings will be forgiven. That is our Covenant/Testament with God.

As stated before - you simply open up a thread to propagate Christianity and it's belief.

Deliberately choosing disobedience tosses us back to the condition we were in before Christ: That of death and separation from God. In the current era, one has to choose disobedience and accept this disobedience will separate him from God. He is in the position the Prodigal Son had been in, where the son deliberately (and with satisfaction) leaves his father. That son chose to return to his father and was joyfully welcomed back.

This is not a situation where a son calls to his father as he leaves for the evening, "Hey, Dad, I know you won't like it, but I'm on my way to rob a liquor store. I'll be back shortly after midnight, and I know you will welcome me and my sin because you love me." No, because of the crime, he will not be welcome back into his father's house. That crime separates them until justice plays out. It is when the son truly wants to renew the right relationship with his father that mercy becomes present.

As stated before - you simply open up a thread to propagate Christianity and it's belief.

BTW, the Catholic Church has even self-empowered their Pope, to absolve (aka granting absolution) for MURDER. And e.g. an excommunication (e.g. due to an abortion) can be absolved by a Bishop.

https://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/01/15/sins-so-heinous-that-only-the

Details of some high-level Catholic tribunal and how it handles the most grievous sins have been revealed. In a very strange overview, we learn that murder and genocide, while truly horrible crimes, can be handled by lower members of the hierarchy. There are a few that only this tribunal and the Pope are qualified to cope with. They are briefly listed: trying to assassinate the Pope, a priest spilling the beans about what is said in the confessional, priests having sex, and abortionists becoming priest.

CNN — Pope Francis has extended indefinitely the power of Catholic priests to forgive abortions, making the announcement in an apostolic letter released Monday.

As such YOUR propagated Christianity is a work of total alteration and manipulation, conducted by all three desert religions - to justify their respective "worldly" objectives - whilst trying to keep their respective religion "attractive" to whatever Believers.

After all who would be interested in a religion that propagates e.g. the 10 Commandments (which basically no one adheres to) and thus having to face the consequences of purgatory and condemnation. Therefore ALL three desert religions opened/invented their respective Back-doors - aka God's Mercy right down to a Pope's, Bishops and Priests having been allocated the power of "Mercy".

ALL three desert religions have called and are still calling upon their believers to commit murder in the name of their respective God. And ALL three found ways to absolve their respective followers.

It's always the same with your kind of people - logically you folks are totally unable to defend your belief, (since it is a pure human invention) and thus constantly and stoically reciting your self-written Books contents. Just like a kid arguing in favor of his belief towards Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, and showing depictions and texts in Kiddo books as being proof.

If you are a religious believer (aka belief in a God as such) is one issue - up to everyone himself
To defend religious indoctrination and manipulation by the respective religious institutions is a whole different story.

Over and out.

 

[Meriweather]

Over and out.

Absolutely. Next time, try discussing the topic--i.e. leave out all "you's and yours" to keep the topic on justice and mercy instead of on the person starting the thread. Thanks in advance.