As a practicing Latter-day Saint, or Mormon as we are colloquially called, there is perhaps no challenge to my faith that irks me more than the accusation that it is a cult. The term "cult," is used so often nowadays that word itself has lost any semblance of meaning.
But of course, if one is going to rely on such a word to define a system of belief, there must be some meaning behind the word, or else the label becomes utterly useless. It leaves me wondering how those who believe Mormonism is a cult define this word, under what definition would Mormonism fit. It's my experience that when those attempt to put forth a definition, they inadvertently condemn nearly every single religion in existence, including mainstream Christianity. Take, for example, the definition put forth by Dictionary.com:
noun
1.
a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2.
an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3.
the object of such devotion.
4.
a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5.
Sociology . a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
Now I would hardly argue that Mormonism would be rightly classified as a cult using such a definition. But I think that nearly every adherent of any religion would have to admit that they, too fit the dictionary definition of cult. Most religions do have a person or thing that they venerate, or a set of ideals that a group of followers each subscribe to. One can conclude, then, that the above definition can't possibly be what Mormon detractors are referring to, since all of Christianity fits this definition.
The World English Dictionary has a similar definition of cult, adding one more, which is,
. a quasi-religious organization using devious psychological techniques to gain and control adherents
This definition would be one applied to dangerous cults, defined by the field of sociology. And though many disagree with Mormon teachings, it would be pretty hard to argue that it is a religious organization that uses 'devious psychological techniques to gain and control adherents.'
There have been some (like Pastor Robert Jeffress during the 2012 election cycle) who attempted to label Mormonism as a "Theological Cult," and gave as his reasoning that Mormonism came out 2000 years after Christianity, who has their own leader (Joseph Smith) and their own book of scripture (the Book of Mormon). Setting aside the completely arbitrary nature of this definition, it fails on another level, in that one could then label Christianity itself as a "theological cult" of Judaism, i.e. a religion that came out thousands of years after Judaism, with their own leader (Jesus Christs) and their own Scriptures (the New Testament).
All of this leaves me wondering, in all honesty, what does "Cult" mean? And how does Mormonism fit the moniker of cult? Is there some definition that would encompass only Mormonism while leaving unscathed any other mainstream religion? I'm not really interested in getting into a lengthy debate on the subject, but I ask simply out of curiosity, to see what sort of rationale is used.
To me a cult is a secretive sect, with secretive following. But the sacred is also secretive and worthy to be guarded. Marriage is honourable and the bed undefiled.
What Is a Religious Cult?
WHAT IS A CULT?- Introduction
With such an overwhelming number of religious groups around these days, it is necessary to understand the difference between a legitimate religious group and a cult. What exactly is a cult?
WHAT IS A CULT- Definitions
There are two ways to define a cult. The first way to describe a cult is popular in the secular media. From this perspective, a cult is a religious or semi-religious sect whose members are controlled almost entirely by a single individual or by an organization.
This kind of cult is usually manipulative, demanding total commitment and loyalty from its followers. Converts are usually cut off from all former associations, including their own families. The Hare Krishnas, the Family of Love led by Moses David Berg, and Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church are some examples of this kind of a cult.
The second way to define a cult is popular in evangelical Christian circles. From this perspective, a cult is any group that deviates from the orthodox teachings of the historic Christian faith being derived from the Bible and confirmed through the ancient ecumenical creeds.
WHAT IS A CULT- Psuedo-Christian Cults
These groups deny or distort fundamental Christian doctrines such as the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and salvation by grace through faith alone. Some cults that would fall into this category are the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, The Way International, and the Unity School of Christianity.
Most of these cults claim to be Christian, and even consider the Bible to be authoritative. But they manipulate the Scriptures to fit their own beliefs. Although they may claim to serve Jesus Christ, and may even use the same terminology orthodox Christians use, their definitions are vastly different.
WHAT IS A CULT- The Dangers of False Teachings
These groups do not lead to the Christ of the Bible, but to another Jesus and another gospel (2 Cor. 11:1-4; Gal. 1:8,9). We must therefore reject these false teachings, and "earnestly contend for the faith which was once and for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). And, of course, remember the Bible also goes on to admonish us that we must do this with gentleness, and with respect. Remember, you must present the message, but you need to recognize that it is only the Holy Spirit that changes the heart.
http://www.equip.org/perspectives/what-is-a-religious-cult/ (http://www.equip.org/perspectives/what-is-a-religious-cult/)
These groups deny or distort fundamental Christian doctrines such as the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and salvation by grace through faith alone. Some cults that would fall into this category are the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, The Way International, and the Unity School of Christianity.
Most of these cults claim to be Christian, and even consider the Bible to be authoritative. But they manipulate the Scriptures to fit their own beliefs. Although they may claim to serve Jesus Christ, and may even use the same terminology orthodox Christians use, their definitions are vastly different.
Ah, I see. The only way the term 'cult' applies is if you make up a definition that fits religions you don't like. Who came up with that completely arbitrary definition. And further, who gets to say how far someone can be wrong without being labelled a cult?
As Mormons don't distort these teachings, (and are in fact much more in line with mainstream thinking than many realize) we are not a cult.
: the_last_gunslinger Mon Mar 04, 2013 - 15:49:28
These groups deny or distort fundamental Christian doctrines such as the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and salvation by grace through faith alone. Some cults that would fall into this category are the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, The Way International, and the Unity School of Christianity.
Most of these cults claim to be Christian, and even consider the Bible to be authoritative. But they manipulate the Scriptures to fit their own beliefs. Although they may claim to serve Jesus Christ, and may even use the same terminology orthodox Christians use, their definitions are vastly different.
Ah, I see. The only way the term 'cult' applies is if you make up a definition that fits religions you don't like.
As Mormons don't distort these teachings, we are not a cult.
As mentioned so many times before, the Mormons redefine and distort who Jesus is and who the Father is. Therefore the religion is based on quicksand and will not hold up in the Day of Judgment.
Mormonism is a false religion. They believe it is possible for them to become gods.
Mormons are a false religion. They believe it is possible for them to become gods.
The Bible teaches this too, and it was the orthodox Christian position during the first two centuries of Christianity.
As mentioned so many times before, the Mormons redefine and distort who Jesus is and who the Father is. Therefore the religion is based on quicksand and will not hold up in the Day of Judgment.
No, we don't redefine or distort anything. I've shown numerous times biblical evidence for my position, and you choose to ignore it. All that you have shown is that you don't actually believe in salvation through grace and that you think you can judge the merits of my salvation. It is you who redefined Jesus and God, using as a benchmark the words of a non-biblical creed that came out centuries after Christ. You claim that the Trinity is found in the Bible, but have as yet been unable to produce a single verse that fully supports this doctrine. Nor have you shown me any biblical evidence that God would condemn me for these beliefs. Do you think that is the case? Do you really think that God will condemn to hell those who accepted Christ as their savior and took upon them his name, but didn't fully understand his essence?
: the_last_gunslinger Mon Mar 04, 2013 - 17:50:56
As mentioned so many times before, the Mormons redefine and distort who Jesus is and who the Father is. Therefore the religion is based on quicksand and will not hold up in the Day of Judgment.
No, we don't redefine or distort anything. I've shown numerous times biblical evidence for my position, and you choose to ignore it. All that you have shown is that you don't actually believe in salvation through grace and that you think you can judge the merits of my salvation. It is you who redefined Jesus and God, using as a benchmark the words of a non-biblical creed that came out centuries after Christ. You claim that the Trinity is found in the Bible, but have as yet been unable to produce a single verse that fully supports this doctrine. Nor have you shown me any biblical evidence that God would condemn me for these beliefs. Do you think that is the case? Do you really think that God will condemn to hell those who accepted Christ as their savior and took upon them his name, but didn't fully understand his essence?
It sounds like you agree that mormons don't fully understand his essence. Mormonism is based on a false religion formed by a pervert, who wanted to have a bunch of sex. He was so perverted that he envisioned sex with multiple women after his death.
It sounds like you agree that mormons don't fully understand his essence. Mormonism is based on a false religion formed by a pervert, who wanted to have a bunch of sex. He was so perverted that he envisioned sex with multiple women after his death.
Mormons understand his essence just fine. I'm making a hypothetical point, however, that even if Mormons are wrong, how can salvation be withheld if one accepts (as Lively Stone does) that salvation is a free gift contingent only upon accepting Christ as our eternal savior. Mormons comply with that statement, so even if we are wrong on an issue like the Trinity, it is not detrimental to our salvation.
Joseph Smith was a pervert? Really. Any proof of this or are you intentionally trying to slander his name? Was Abraham a pervert, or David? Solomon? They all practiced polygamy and were all called as prophets of God. Polygamy in and of itself does not rob one of his prophetic calling. There is amble biblical support for this.
Since you asked and I was once in a cult many many years ago, I will amusingly reply with this prophetic verse with credit to The Kinks.
Girls will be boys, and boys will be girls
It's a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world
Except for Lola, la la la la Lola
You can pull out of a cult. And when you do, just bring Jesus along and throw the rest of what you learned into the trash.
Peace.
John
: the_last_gunslinger Mon Mar 04, 2013 - 18:19:06
It sounds like you agree that mormons don't fully understand his essence. Mormonism is based on a false religion formed by a pervert, who wanted to have a bunch of sex. He was so perverted that he envisioned sex with multiple women after his death.
Mormons understand his essence just fine. I'm making a hypothetical point, however, that even if Mormons are wrong, how can salvation be withheld if one accepts (as Lively Stone does) that salvation is a free gift contingent only upon accepting Christ as our eternal savior. Mormons comply with that statement, so even if we are wrong on an issue like the Trinity, it is not detrimental to our salvation.
Joseph Smith was a pervert? Really. Any proof of this or are you intentionally trying to slander his name? Was Abraham a pervert, or David? Solomon? They all practiced polygamy and were all called as prophets of God. Polygamy in and of itself does not rob one of his prophetic calling. There is amble biblical support for this.
Neither David, Solomon or Abraham believed they would have multiple wives after they died. They also did not believe they could become gods. They did not believe that the god we earth dwellers worship also has a God. They don't believe that satan and jesus are or were siblings.
If you want to be saved you must believe that there is one God which is made up of father, son and holy spirit. Then you must accept Jesus as your savior.
: the_last_gunslinger Mon Mar 04, 2013 - 17:48:39
Mormons are a false religion. They believe it is possible for them to become gods.
The Bible teaches this too, and it was the orthodox Christian position during the first two centuries of Christianity.
Maybe YOUR 'bible' teaches this but God's holy word does not.
Neither David, Solomon or Abraham believed they would have multiple wives after they died. They also did not believe they could become gods. They did not believe that the god we earth dwellers worship also has a God. They don't believe that satan and jesus are or were siblings.
Ah, setting aside for the moment the fact that Joseph Smith never taught anything about having sex in heaven, I am to understand then that polygamy's okay in your eyes, just as long as you don't think it exists in heaven.
Again, becoming Gods is biblical. What do you think it means to be a son of God...an heir of God and joint-heir with Christ? What is an heir? Someone who inherits something. It stands to reason that an heir of God would inherit what he has. Couple this with the fact that we have been given the promise that we will be made ruler over many things if we are faithful over a few...it sounds a lot like godhood.
And for the record, Mormons don't accept that God has a god as an officially binding doctrine.
If you want to be saved you must believe that there is one God which is made up of father, son and holy spirit. Then you must accept Jesus as your savior.
And Mormons do this....so that means we in fact ARE Christians who will be saved, right?
: the_last_gunslinger Mon Mar 04, 2013 - 17:50:56
As mentioned so many times before, the Mormons redefine and distort who Jesus is and who the Father is. Therefore the religion is based on quicksand and will not hold up in the Day of Judgment.
No, we don't redefine or distort anything. I've shown numerous times biblical evidence for my position, and you choose to ignore it.
I don't ignore truth.
All that you have shown is that you don't actually believe in salvation through grace and that you think you can judge the merits of my salvation.
Salvation is God's great gift to us through His WONDERFUL grace, so there is no mistake in that. Only God can judge whether you are saved or not, but it would behoove you to know who the Father and Son really are.
It is you who redefined Jesus and God, using as a benchmark the words of a non-biblical creed that came out centuries after Christ. You claim that the Trinity is found in the Bible, but have as yet been unable to produce a single verse that fully supports this doctrine. Nor have you shown me any biblical evidence that God would condemn me for these beliefs. Do you think that is the case? Do you really think that God will condemn to hell those who accepted Christ as their savior and took upon them his name, but didn't fully understand his essence?
How does one who holds the word of God as our authority redefine something that has been known since the beginning? It is Mormonism that is the NEW KID ON THE BLOCK, here. This is not a debate about the trinity.
As for your question, if you have the truth offered to you as freely as you have had here, yet still reject it in favour of error, then yes, God will hold people responsible for being stiff-necked. As for condemnation---that is His call, for only He knows those who are His sheep. His kids should be open to correction and to learning more and more of His truth and receive it with gladness of heart. Those who are fettered by false religions have a way about them that completely opposes the truth of the word, standing toe-to-toe against it---unbending. That is sufficient for us to know what is false.
I don't ignore truth.
I would disagree...but that's to be expected, different faith traditions and all...
Salvation is God's great gift to us through His WONDERFUL grace, so there is no mistake in that. Only God can judge whether you are saved or not, but it would behoove you to know who the Father and Son really are.
Salvation is a great gift, completely agree. But during our discourses it seems as though God's grace has limitations, that accepting Christ as Savior is not sufficient, that some disagreements on doctrine are grounds for exclusion from the Christian community and possibly from salvation. If you believe in grace, you believe in conditional grace, whereby certain requirements must be met before this gift is offered to someone.
How does one who holds the word of God as our authority redefine something that has been known since the beginning? It is Mormonism that is the NEW KID ON THE BLOCK, here. This is not a debate about the trinity.
On the contrary, the Trinity doctrine is NOT what was originally held by the early church. I challenge you to find anything in the Bible that defines the Trinity as understood by modern Christians i.e. three personages in one Being, co-eternal, co-equal and co-substantial. This is not in there, and is in fact, the result of an extra biblical creed hammered out during a heated council in an attempt to understand the nature of God. Do some research into the first two centuries of Christianity; you'll find that the LDS view of God was the prevailing idea at the time, particularly the idea of subordinationism, that the Son and Holy Ghost were subordinate to the Father. .Irenaeus and Tertullian, for example, held to this belief, and in fact believed that at some point God the Father brought 'put forth' a Son that was separate and distinct from him. Justin Martyr thought likewise and Eusebias was called a blatant subordinationist. Yet all of these individuals were considered orthodox in their days. By the fourth century, what was the orthodox position became heretical as the doctrine of the Trinity was produced.
So no, the Trinity idea was not original, nor is it defined as such in the Holy Bible. As far as I can tell, the only church that holds to a biblical understanding of God is the LDS church, namely, three distinct personages who are One God, not in substance, but in power, glory and purpose.
As for your question, if you have the truth offered to you as freely as you have had here, yet still reject it in favour of error, then yes, God will hold people responsible for being stiff-necked. As for condemnation---that is His call, for only He knows those who are His sheep. His kids should be open to correction and to learning more and more of His truth and receive it with gladness of heart. Those who are fettered by false religions have a way about them that completely opposes the truth of the word, standing toe-to-toe against it---unbending. That is sufficient for us to know what is false.
I know truth when I see it, and as honest or well-meaning as you may be, I simply cannot accept the ideas that you put forth, or the condemnation you level at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Not only do I not see the Biblical or historical evidence, I cannot and will not deny my own personal witness of these truths to which I hold. To turn my back on what God has revealed to me would be a most grievous sin on my part.
: the_last_gunslinger Tue Mar 05, 2013 - 10:09:19
I don't ignore truth.
I would disagree...but that's to be expected, different faith traditions and all...
Following Jesus Christ and His word is not a tradition.
Salvation is God's great gift to us through His WONDERFUL grace, so there is no mistake in that. Only God can judge whether you are saved or not, but it would behoove you to know who the Father and Son really are.
Salvation is a great gift, completely agree. But during our discourses it seems as though God's grace has limitations, that accepting Christ as Savior is not sufficient, that some disagreements on doctrine are grounds for exclusion from the Christian community and possibly from salvation. If you believe in grace, you believe in conditional grace, whereby certain requirements must be met before this gift is offered to someone.
There is no limit to God's grace. It is Jesus that is your limitation---you do not know the same Jesus of the bible. Mormons have morphed Him into some other being you worship, bearing the same name. Who Jesus is is not a doctrine. Unless you know the same Jesus I know, we aren't related.
How does one who holds the word of God as our authority redefine something that has been known since the beginning? It is Mormonism that is the NEW KID ON THE BLOCK, here. This is not a debate about the trinity.
On the contrary, the Trinity doctrine is NOT what was originally held by the early church. I challenge you to find anything in the Bible that defines the Trinity as understood by modern Christians i.e. three personages in one Being, co-eternal, co-equal and co-substantial. This is not in there, and is in fact, the result of an extra biblical creed hammered out during a heated council in an attempt to understand the nature of God. Do some research into the first two centuries of Christianity; you'll find that the LDS view of God was the prevailing idea at the time, particularly the idea of subordinationism, that the Son and Holy Ghost were subordinate to the Father. .Irenaeus and Tertullian, for example, held to this belief, and in fact believed that at some point God the Father brought 'put forth' a Son that was separate and distinct from him. Justin Martyr thought likewise and Eusebias was called a blatant subordinationist. Yet all of these individuals were considered orthodox in their days. By the fourth century, what was the orthodox position became heretical as the doctrine of the Trinity was produced.
So no, the Trinity idea was not original, nor is it defined as such in the Holy Bible. As far as I can tell, the only church that holds to a biblical understanding of God is the LDS church, namely, three distinct personages who are One God, not in substance, but in power, glory and purpose.
Father, Son, Holy Spirit are One. They were together in one place at Jesus' baptism.
God as three Persons is our authority:
Matthew 28:19Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
As for your question, if you have the truth offered to you as freely as you have had here, yet still reject it in favour of error, then yes, God will hold people responsible for being stiff-necked. As for condemnation---that is His call, for only He knows those who are His sheep. His kids should be open to correction and to learning more and more of His truth and receive it with gladness of heart. Those who are fettered by false religions have a way about them that completely opposes the truth of the word, standing toe-to-toe against it---unbending. That is sufficient for us to know what is false.
I know truth when I see it, and as honest or well-meaning as you may be, I simply cannot accept the ideas that you put forth, or the condemnation you level at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Not only do I not see the Biblical or historical evidence, I cannot and will not deny my own personal witness of these truths to which I hold. To turn my back on what God has revealed to me would be a most grievous sin on my part.
Remaining in darkness is a decision you make consciously, having been given the truth. There is such a thing as false revelation.
2 Corinthians 11:14But I am not surprised! Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
: the_last_gunslinger Mon Mar 04, 2013 - 18:33:59
Neither David, Solomon or Abraham believed they would have multiple wives after they died. They also did not believe they could become gods. They did not believe that the god we earth dwellers worship also has a God. They don't believe that satan and jesus are or were siblings.
Ah, setting aside for the moment the fact that Joseph Smith never taught anything about having sex in heaven, I am to understand then that polygamy's okay in your eyes, just as long as you don't think it exists in heaven.
Again, becoming Gods is biblical. What do you think it means to be a son of God...an heir of God and joint-heir with Christ? What is an heir? Someone who inherits something. It stands to reason that an heir of God would inherit what he has. Couple this with the fact that we have been given the promise that we will be made ruler over many things if we are faithful over a few...it sounds a lot like godhood.
And for the record, Mormons don't accept that God has a god as an officially binding doctrine.
If you want to be saved you must believe that there is one God which is made up of father, son and holy spirit. Then you must accept Jesus as your savior.
And Mormons do this....so that means we in fact ARE Christians who will be saved, right?
Mormons don't believe there is ONE GOD. You just said it yourself. [deleted]
Mormons don't believe there is ONE GOD. You just said it yourself. [deleted]
Yes, Mormons do believe there is one God. From the Book of Mormon, Alma 11:44 "Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of
Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil.
Notice the bolded part.
Also from the Book of Mormon, 2nd Nephi 31:21 "this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,
which is one God, without end."
And "the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost,
which are one God," (Moroni 7:7)
And from another LDS scripture, the Doctrine and Covenants, "Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are
one God, infinite and eternal, without end," (D&C 20:26)
These are all from official LDS scriptures, each one affirming that we do indeed believe there to be One God. We merely understand their oneness differently and reject the extra biblical definition put forth by the Nicene Creed.
So, given that I have shown that Latter-day Saints actually do believe in One God, and given that we do accept Christ as our savior, by your very definition, we are Christian and will be saved. If you say no, then you are changing your parameters and an honest discourse would be impossible.
: the_last_gunslinger Tue Mar 05, 2013 - 12:01:40
Mormons don't believe there is ONE GOD. You just said it yourself. [deleted]
Yes, Mormons do believe there is one God. From the Book of Mormon, Alma 11:44 "Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil.
Notice the bolded part.
Also from the Book of Mormon, 2nd Nephi 31:21 "this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end."
And "the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God," (Moroni 7:7)
And from another LDS scripture, the Doctrine and Covenants, "Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end," (D&C 20:26)
These are all from official LDS scriptures, each one affirming that we do indeed believe there to be One God. We merely understand their oneness differently and reject the extra biblical definition put forth by the Nicene Creed.
So, given that I have shown that Latter-day Saints actually do believe in One God, and given that we do accept Christ as our savior, by your very definition, we are Christian and will be saved. If you say no, then you are changing your parameters and an honest discourse would be impossible.
"...the Godhead. Not one person in three, nor three persons in one; but the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one in essence, as the hearts of three men who are united in all things."
-Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol.6, pg95-96, 11/29/1857
"He is our Father--the Father of our spirits, and was once a man in mortal flesh as we are, and is now an exalted Being."
-Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol.7, pg331, 10/8/1859
"When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days, about whom holy men have written and spoken--He is our father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do."
-Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol 1, p50, 4/9/1852
"...the Godhead. Not one person in three, nor three persons in one; but the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one in essence, as the hearts of three men who are united in all things."
-Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol.6, pg95-96, 11/29/1857
A couple things. First, the quote by Brigham Young doesn't even seem to contradict the Trinity. Even Trinitarians admit that there are three separate personages.
And two, the Journal of Discourses is not an official source of LDS doctrine, but is instead a collection of sermons given by many early church leaders. What I have quoted comes straight from out scriptures, and as such, represent our official position.
So in light of that, it is evident that Mormons are still eligible for salvation. Did you not say that one must believe in One God and accept Christ as your savior? If those two things are the only requirements, I believe I have adequately shown that Mormons qualify. If you disagree, on what grounds?
"He is our Father--the Father of our spirits, and was once a man in mortal flesh as we are, and is now an exalted Being."
-Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol.7, pg331, 10/8/1859
All Christians believe that God is the father or our spirits and all accept that God once dwelt in mortal flesh. Do you not consider Jesus God, and was he not once a Man?
"When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days, about whom holy men have written and spoken--He is our father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do."
The Adam God doctrine is not the official position of the church, and was in fact disavowed by the church. If you read the Doctrine and Covenants, you will find that we believe Adam was Michael the Archangel, not God. Brigham Young was either wrong or his sermon was not recorded properly.
Again, the Journal of Discourses is not accepted as official doctrine.
[deleted]
I am going to hell? With all due respect, I believe God is the only one who can determine my salvation. It seems to me like you are just irritated to find out that Mormons aren't quite as different from the rest of Christianity as you originally thought. It's almost as if you're
looking for an excuse to preclude me from Christianity...and from salvation.
Mormonism is anything but ungodly. Of this I am certain.
[deleted]
.
Explain to me how we are members of the church of Satan. What criteria are you now using to discredit the church? Earlier, you gave your personal criteria needed for salvation, namely, believing in One God and accepting Jesus Christ as Savior. I have shown that unequivocally, Mormons do both of these. By your own standards, we are saved.
Was your original statement incorrect? Is there additional requirements now? If so, what are they?
[deleted] I could spend hours debating you and you will never once admit that Mormonism is ungodly. It would be a waste of your time and mine.
[deleted]
In other words, you don't know what to say.
I'm not asking for a long, drawn out debate; I'm merely asking you to explain your position, which you seem unwilling to. I'd really like to know how Mormons cannot be saved if we fit into your predetermined criteria for salvation. If you cannot explain this, then I can suppose my original assumption was correct; you are concerned only with excluding Mormons for the sake of exclusion, rather than learning what they actually believe.
I'd also be careful with your condemnation of others to hell. That is a role reserved solely for God. You are in absolutely no position to judge the merits of someone else's salvation.
I find it amusing that you assume to know my COMPLETE criteria for salvation, based on a few things I have said. You made the conclusion that I have completely stated my position.
Hey, I'm merely going off what you stated. If there are additional requirements you think someone needs to meet, then I'd like to hear them. All I know is that you stated two criteria for salvation, and I pointed out that Mormons adhere to both, so there is no problem there. I then asked what else one must do and you remained silent. Since the discussion was on salvation requirements and that's all you'd give, I came to this conclusion.
I am a child of God and I absolutely am in the position to JUDGE the merits of a person's salvation. Who else other than the children of God on this earth are able to lead people to the ONE path of salvation?
Leading people to the path of salvation is one thing, but then determining that another follower of Christ is going to hell is something else. You do not know the contents of my heart, nor do you the nature of my relationship with Christ. So no, you are NOT eligible to determine whether or not I am going to hell.
If you were honest and if you were seeking the truth, you would openly turn away from Mormonism upon hearing the truth of God.
I try to be as honest as possible, and have presented myself openly and without deceit here. I am no longer seeking the truth because I have already found it. I know with 100 percent certainty that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God's Kingdom on earth. I'm not going to listen to some anonymous poster on a message board over what God has made known to me.
Today is the acceptable day of salvation. Do you right now deny Mormonisn? [deleted]
Do I deny Mormonism? Absolutely not. That is paramount to denying God himself, to call him a liar. It would be an ultimate act of betrayal against God. And for this stance, I will not go to hell.
: the_last_gunslinger Tue Mar 05, 2013 - 15:31:32
I find it amusing that you assume to know my COMPLETE criteria for salvation, based on a few things I have said. You made the conclusion that I have completely stated my position.
Hey, I'm merely going off what you stated. If there are additional requirements you think someone needs to meet, then I'd like to hear them. All I know is that you stated two criteria for salvation, and I pointed out that Mormons adhere to both, so there is no problem there. I then asked what else one must do and you remained silent. Since the discussion was on salvation requirements and that's all you'd give, I came to this conclusion.
I am a child of God and I absolutely am in the position to JUDGE the merits of a person's salvation. Who else other than the children of God on this earth are able to lead people to the ONE path of salvation?
Leading people to the path of salvation is one thing, but then determining that another follower of Christ is going to hell is something else. You do not know the contents of my heart, nor do you the nature of my relationship with Christ. So no, you are NOT eligible to determine whether or not I am going to hell.
If you were honest and if you were seeking the truth, you would openly turn away from Mormonism upon hearing the truth of God.
I try to be as honest as possible, and have presented myself openly and without deceit here. I am no longer seeking the truth because I have already found it. I know with 100 percent certainty that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God's Kingdom on earth. I'm not going to listen to some anonymous poster on a message board over what God has made known to me.
Today is the acceptable day of salvation. Do you right now deny Mormonisn? [deleted]
Do I deny Mormonism? Absolutely not. That is paramount to denying God himself, to call him a liar. It would be an ultimate act of betrayal against God. And for this stance, I will not go to hell.
If the statements you have made are a true reflection of your heart then I do know that your heart is ungodly.
Gun slinger you said the following:
All Christians believe that God is the father or our spirits and all accept that God once dwelt in mortal flesh. Do you not consider Jesus God, and was he not once a Man?
Are you saying that God the father once dwelt in mortal flesh?
: the_last_gunslinger Tue Mar 05, 2013 - 13:26:34
"He is our Father--the Father of our spirits, and was once a man in mortal flesh as we are, and is now an exalted Being."
-Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol.7, pg331, 10/8/1859
All Christians believe that God is the father or our spirits and all accept that God once dwelt in mortal flesh. Do you not consider Jesus God, and was he not once a Man?
The Father is the Father. He is spirit. He was never flesh. Jesus, the Word of God, became flesh. God became flesh and dwelt among men. The Father is always the Father.
"When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days, about whom holy men have written and spoken--He is our father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do."
The Adam God doctrine is not the official position of the church, and was in fact disavowed by the church. If you read the Doctrine and Covenants, you will find that we believe Adam was Michael the Archangel, not God. Brigham Young was either wrong or his sermon was not recorded properly.
Now Adam, created as mankind, is now another created being called Michael the archangel? Where in scripture is that taught??
The truth is, God is God, Adam is man and Michael is a high-ranking angelic being.
Brigham Young is not to be believed.
What about the secret handshake?
Isn't that the key to mormon salvation?
If the statements you have made are a true reflection of your heart then I do know that your heart is ungodly.
Okay...whatever makes you feel better. The good things is I don't need to justify myself to you or anyone else. I know where I stand with God and what He thinks of me. That's good enough for me.
Gun slinger you said the following:
All Christians believe that God is the father or our spirits and all accept that God once dwelt in mortal flesh. Do you not consider Jesus God, and was he not once a Man?
Are you saying that God the father once dwelt in mortal flesh?
Never said that. I was speaking on the quote that God once was a man, and making the observation that since all Christians believe Jesus is God, and Jesus was once a man, that there is no real conflict...Jesus is God and Jesus was a Man, therefore, from a certain point of view, God was once a man. This is a near universal Christian ideal, I've been told.
The Father is the Father. He is spirit. He was never flesh. Jesus, the Word of God, became flesh. God became flesh and dwelt among men. The Father is always the Father.
The Bible never says that the Father has no physical body so your assuming he does not is just that, an assumption. Jesus is the Word of God and became flesh; I agree, and the Father is always the Father. We see eye to eye on that point.
Now Adam, created as mankind, is now another created being called Michael the archangel? Where in scripture is that taught??
Doctrine and Covenants 107: 54, "And the Lord appeared unto them, and they rose up and blessed Adam, and called him Michael, the prince, the archangel."
The truth is, God is God, Adam is man and Michael is a high-ranking angelic being.."
I agree with all of these statements.
Brigham Young is not to be believed.
Brigham Young is one of the greatest spiritual giants to ever walk the earth, and I am eternally grateful that God chose him as His prophet to ensure that the Lord's church could survive.
What about the secret handshake?
Isn't that the key to mormon salvation?
The fact that you would so openly display ordinances Mormons consider to be most sacred shows a complete lack of respect and decorum on your part. Stooping to mocking the most sacred beliefs of others is utterly despicable.
I will not address the video because I will choose not to watch it, so I cannot even speak to whether or not what is being presented is even accurate.
As for your question, no. Nothing in the temple, not the annointings, not the sealings or the endowment. Are the key to our salvation. Nor is baptism, confirmation or the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. The key to our salvation is the atonement wrought by Jesus Christ on the cross. Without Christ's sacrifice, nothing would matter. These ordinances we perform, both in and out of the temple are symbolic gestures that we have been commanded to partake of, that point us along the way of salvation. Baptism, for example, is symbolic of burying the old and arising as a new person in Christ. And even though we believe baptism to be a necessary ordinance, we don't hold that the water is magical and that the baptism itself saves us. Likewise, what we do in the temple are symbolic, to help us understand the plan of salvation more fully and to bring us closer to Christ.
We can only warn those in groups like yourself that they are wrong, and that you need to come out of them and repent. The stark errors are evident but I guess that if you have been bought up believing in something its not easy to get out especially if your family are involved. However your very salvation is at stake here.
Just as muslims do when they find Jesus, you need to do as well, even if does mean they/you loose their families and their lives are never the same. They will find a new family in Him, and Jesus makes it clear that He will restore all that we loose for His sake.
We can only warn those in groups like yourself that they are wrong, and that you need to come out of them and repent. The stark errors are evident but I guess that if you have been bought up believing in something its not easy to get out especially if your family are involved. However your very salvation is at stake here.
Just as muslims do when they find Jesus, you need to do as well, even if does mean they/you loose their families and their lives are never the same. They will find a new family in Him, and Jesus makes it clear that He will restore all that we loose for His sake.
I can see the truly honest intent you have regarding these issues and especially pertaining to my salvation. I get the sense that you speak genuinely out of a sense of caring for your fellow Man. The trouble I have with the statement you made, though, is that no one can as yet show how my salvation is at stake. Whenever I press someone on the requirement for salvation, I typically get similar answers, generally involving accepting Christ as my savior, or something similar. And I've shown that Mormons typically do fit into these pre-set parameters, so we ought to have our salvation secured. But apparently not, according to other posters here. I get the impression that most feel simply holding doctrines that they don't find biblical disqualifies us from heaven. That begs the question, then, how wrong can someone be to still be saved? And who gets to decide which errors are worse than others? You look at the various Christian sects and you'll see a wide expanse of different doctrines and competing theories, yet you never see a pre-trib rapture believer's salvation called into question, or someone who holds a different view on the necessity of baptism.
You say that the stark errors are evident, but no one has yet shown me this. It has nothing to do with family. My entire family was converts. My Dad was a staunch atheist who not only accepted Christ as his savior thanks to LDS missionaries, but has improved his life monumentally, and my parent's conversion saved their marriage. And that's not all. I don't believe in the church because my parents do. I believe because I studied the doctrines, I looked at what others were teaching and I took my concerns to God in earnest prayer and He has confirmed my faith in my current religion. There was a time when I felt my testimony was on the verge of being extinguished and I was miserable during this period. But God saw fit to intervene and through various spiritual experiences and encounters too sacred to recount here, my faith was renewed and I was assured of my stance. I find it amazing, though, how quickly people assume that Mormons simply jump into the religion either because they have not studied it, or because of external peer pressure. Neither was the case for me. My decision to be a Mormon is rooted in personal revelation from God.
: the_last_gunslinger Wed Mar 06, 2013 - 08:33:56
What about the secret handshake?
Isn't that the key to mormon salvation?
The fact that you would so openly display ordinances Mormons consider to be most sacred shows a complete lack of respect and decorum on your part. Stooping to mocking the most sacred beliefs of others is utterly despicable.
A handshake is a sacred ordinance? Now that is cultish.
Where is that a biblical matter?
These ordinances we perform, both in and out of the temple are symbolic gestures that we have been commanded to partake of, that point us along the way of salvation.
Where in scripture is a secret handshake commanded? What does it symbolize?
: the_last_gunslinger Wed Mar 06, 2013 - 11:13:40
The trouble I have with the statement you made, though, is that no one can as yet show how my salvation is at stake. Whenever I press someone on the requirement for salvation, I typically get similar answers, generally involving accepting Christ as my savior, or something similar. And I've shown that Mormons typically do fit into these pre-set parameters, so we ought to have our salvation secured. But apparently not, according to other posters here. I get the impression that most feel simply holding doctrines that they don't find biblical disqualifies us from heaven. That begs the question, then, how wrong can someone be to still be saved? And who gets to decide which errors are worse than others? You look at the various Christian sects and you'll see a wide expanse of different doctrines and competing theories, yet you never see a pre-trib rapture believer's salvation called into question, or someone who holds a different view on the necessity of baptism.
Mormons do not grasp who God is and who Jesus is, claiming that God was once human or fleshly, and had a wife, and that Jesus and Lucifer or Satan are brothers. This alone disqualifies a person's faith, for the person doesn't join with the family of God about who the Father and Son really are. The enemy has reached in to delude people based on this very starting point.
You say that the stark errors are evident, but no one has yet shown me this.
Yes we have, over and over again.
It has nothing to do with family. My entire family was converts. My Dad was a staunch atheist who not only accepted Christ as his savior thanks to LDS missionaries, but has improved his life monumentally,
That's nice that your dad has improved his life, but that is no testament to the power of God. It is Jesus Christ in us who changes our lives.
My decision to be a Mormon is rooted in personal revelation from God.
God does not reveal anything concerning Mormonism to people, except for its error and His revelation is that it is not from Him, and to stay away from it.
: the_last_gunslinger Wed Mar 06, 2013 - 08:09:01
If the statements you have made are a true reflection of your heart then I do know that your heart is ungodly.
Okay...whatever makes you feel better. The good things is I don't need to justify myself to you or anyone else. I know where I stand with God and what He thinks of me. That's good enough for me.
Gun slinger you said the following:
All Christians believe that God is the father or our spirits and all accept that God once dwelt in mortal flesh. Do you not consider Jesus God, and was he not once a Man?
Are you saying that God the father once dwelt in mortal flesh?
Never said that. I was speaking on the quote that God once was a man, and making the observation that since all Christians believe Jesus is God, and Jesus was once a man, that there is no real conflict...Jesus is God and Jesus was a Man, therefore, from a certain point of view, God was once a man. This is a near universal Christian ideal, I've been told.
I see that you are side stepping my question, again.
Let me ask you a new question then.
Was God the father ever a human?
A handshake is a sacred ordinance? Now that is cultish.
And what definition of cult does this fall under? Would you consider it cultish when Catholics make the sign of the cross, or when Protestant denominations take to washing each other's feet? There's very little difference. You are condemning these symbols only because you are not accustomed to them. From an outsider's perspective, baptism seems like a cultish ritual, so does the laying on of hands or waving your arms around when praying.
Where is that a biblical matter?
I never said it was a biblical matter.
Where in scripture is a secret handshake commanded? What does it symbolize?
First off, I'd hardly call it a secret "handshake," like it's the gateway into a secret club. They are signs and tokens that resonate with us on a deep, spiritual level. I will not discuss the symbolism because of the very sacred nature of temple ordinances. I personally feel that this particular discussion is already stressing the limits of acceptable discussion regarding this issue.
I also never said anything about Scriptures commanding the use of a secret handshake.
Mormons do not grasp who God is and who Jesus is, claiming that God was once human or fleshly, and had a wife, and that Jesus and Lucifer or Satan are brothers. This alone disqualifies a person's faith, for the person doesn't join with the family of God about who the Father and Son really are. The enemy has reached in to delude people based on this very starting point.
You expect me to prove everything I say using the Bible, so I will expect the same from you. Where does the Bible say that believing these things disqualifies my faith? I read only that we are to accept Jesus Christ as our savior and take upon us his name, to live righteously, to love God and to love our fellow Man. Where does the Bible put any disclaimer on salvation based on the criteria you have just listed?
What you fail to grasp is that it is actually you who believes in a God and Jesus not found in the Bible. The LDS position does not contradict the Bible in any way regarding who the Father and Son is. The Bible says that Jesus is the Son of God and is our redeemer. We believe this. The Bible says that the Father and Son are One. We also believe this. The Bible says that the Word was with God, was God and was made flesh. We also believe this.
You also believe this, but since you have decided to accept the Nicean conception of the Holy Trinity, in essence, accepting extra biblical sources to define God, you also believe that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are also on in substance. And that cannot be found anywhere in the Bible. The Trinity doctrine as currently accepted is nowhere to be found and is the result of extra-biblcal councils.
As I've stated prior, you also believe God was once human. If Jesus = God and if Jesus was once human, then God = Once Human. If you are referring to God the Father, that is not taught as official or authoritative and our scriptures are silent on the matter. The only thing that matters to us is that God is our Eternal Father and we are to worship him with all our strength, heart and mind.
That's nice that your dad has improved his life, but that is no testament to the power of God. It is Jesus Christ in us who changes our lives.
I can't convince you that this change was caused by God, but I can bear witness of this fact. Whether or not you accept my testimony is up to you, and it's perfectly within your right to not believe me. But I know why we were converted and I know that God had a hand in it. If you saw the things that transpired to make this happen, you'd have absolutely no doubt as well.
God does not reveal anything concerning Mormonism to people, except for its error and His revelation is that it is not from Him, and to stay away from it.
Not true. I know what God has made known to me. Again, you are absolutely free to reject what I say, and even call me a liar if you wish. But it doesn't change what I personally know to be true.
I see that you are side stepping my question, again.
Let me ask you a new question then.
Was God the father ever a human?
I didn't mean to sidestep your question. I simply stated that the doctrine "God was once Man," is believed by most Christians if you believe Jesus is God.
As to whether or not God the Father was ever human...though I actually like it from a doctrinal standpoint, I'd say no, I personally don't believe it. I just don't see the evidence. But here's the thing, believing that God the Father was once a man is not a requirement for being a Mormon because it is not actually a canonized doctrine, nor is it taught in any of our official sources. Joseph Smith seemed to allude to this idea in his King Follett discourse, but it was never presented as a binding revelation and as far as we know may have been his own personal philosophy, based on his own opinions. When it's all said and done, Latter-day Saints don't concern themselves with this issue because it doesn't really matter. We are concerned only with the fact that he is our Heavenly Father who loved us enough to provide a savior to atone for our sins. Whether he has always been God or if he ascended to that position is irrelevant.
: the_last_gunslinger Wed Mar 06, 2013 - 16:56:26
I see that you are side stepping my question, again.
Let me ask you a new question then.
Was God the father ever a human?
I didn't mean to sidestep your question. I simply stated that the doctrine "God was once Man," is believed by most Christians if you believe Jesus is God.
As to whether or not God the Father was ever human...though I actually like it from a doctrinal standpoint, I'd say no, I personally don't believe it. I just don't see the evidence. But here's the thing, believing that God the Father was once a man is not a requirement for being a Mormon because it is not actually a canonized doctrine, nor is it taught in any of our official sources. Joseph Smith seemed to allude to this idea in his King Follett discourse, but it was never presented as a binding revelation and as far as we know may have been his own personal philosophy, based on his own opinions. When it's all said and done, Latter-day Saints don't concern themselves with this issue because it doesn't really matter. We are concerned only with the fact that he is our Heavenly Father who loved us enough to provide a savior to atone for our sins. Whether he has always been God or if he ascended to that position is irrelevant.
Is God the father of this earth, under another God? Are there other Gods that are just as powerful or more powerful than the God the father of this earth?
Is God the father of this earth, under another God? Are there other Gods that are just as powerful or more powerful than the God the father of this earth?
The only true doctrinal statement here is that God is the Father of this earth.
: the_last_gunslinger Wed Mar 06, 2013 - 16:45:15
A handshake is a sacred ordinance? Now that is cultish.
And what definition of cult does this fall under? Would you consider it cultish when Catholics make the sign of the cross,
Yes.
or when Protestant denominations take to washing each other's feet?
No, we do this because Jesus did it.
There's very little difference. You are condemning these symbols only because you are not accustomed to them.
No, these handshakes are unfruitful works.
Ephesians 5:11And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.
From an outsider's perspective, baptism seems like a cultish ritual, so does the laying on of hands or waving your arms around when praying.
These things the Mormons do have nothing in common with baptism, the laying on of hands, or in lifting one's arms in worship and praise to the Father. These things are commanded.
Where is that a biblical matter?
I never said it was a biblical matter.
Precisely my point. It is extra-biblical and not sacred, and worthy of setting aside.
Where in scripture is a secret handshake commanded? What does it symbolize?
First off, I'd hardly call it a secret "handshake," like it's the gateway into a secret club. They are signs and tokens that resonate with us on a deep, spiritual level. I will not discuss the symbolism because of the very sacred nature of temple ordinances. I personally feel that this particular discussion is already stressing the limits of acceptable discussion regarding this issue.
I also never said anything about Scriptures commanding the use of a secret handshake.
If you hold these tokens as such sacred gestures that discussing them is stretching the limits, then that is cultish thinking right there.
Mormons do not grasp who God is and who Jesus is, claiming that God was once human or fleshly, and had a wife, and that Jesus and Lucifer or Satan are brothers. This alone disqualifies a person's faith, for the person doesn't join with the family of God about who the Father and Son really are. The enemy has reached in to delude people based on this very starting point.
You expect me to prove everything I say using the Bible, so I will expect the same from you. Where does the Bible say that believing these things disqualifies my faith? I read only that we are to accept Jesus Christ as our savior and take upon us his name, to live righteously, to love God and to love our fellow Man. Where does the Bible put any disclaimer on salvation based on the criteria you have just listed?
If your religion doesn't teach you who the Father is and who the Son really is, then you have fallen victim to a false belief, a false religion. It is right that Jesus Christ is our Saviour, but who is Jesus Christ to you? Is He an angelic creature like Satan? Is He Satan's brother? Was God flesh and bone? Did He have a wife? What about this planet Kolob?
Who taught you these beliefs? Certainly not God's holy word, but rather a Johnny-come-lately man-written text that was supposedly dictated by an angel.
2 Corinthians 11:13-15These people are false apostles. They are deceitful workers who disguise themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 But I am not surprised! Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15 So it is no wonder that his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. In the end they will get the punishment their wicked deeds deserve.
What you fail to grasp is that it is actually you who believes in a God and Jesus not found in the Bible.
Not true.
The LDS position does not contradict the Bible in any way regarding who the Father and Son is. The Bible says that Jesus is the Son of God and is our redeemer. We believe this. The Bible says that the Father and Son are One. We also believe this. The Bible says that the Word was with God, was God and was made flesh. We also believe this.
Just by accepting another so-called revelation given by another spirit, not Holy Spirit, is all the proof anyone needs to recognize that there is something fishy there. I firmly believe that the LDS church does not inform its laity of all the particulars that the upper echelons believe.
You also believe this, but since you have decided to accept the Nicean conception of the Holy Trinity, in essence, accepting extra biblical sources to define God, you also believe that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are also on in substance. And that cannot be found anywhere in the Bible. The Trinity doctrine as currently accepted is nowhere to be found and is the result of extra-biblcal councils.
I need no creed to dictate what Holy Spirit has opened to my spirit about Himself.
As I've stated prior, you also believe God was once human. If Jesus = God and if Jesus was once human, then God = Once Human.
That is absolutely false.
That's nice that your dad has improved his life, but that is no testament to the power of God. It is Jesus Christ in us who changes our lives.
I can't convince you that this change was caused by God, but I can bear witness of this fact. Whether or not you accept my testimony is up to you, and it's perfectly within your right to not believe me. But I know why we were converted and I know that God had a hand in it. If you saw the things that transpired to make this happen, you'd have absolutely no doubt as well.
Your language reflected that the changes were by the man's effort, and did not attest to Holy Spirit. In Christ, behold, all things become new!
God does not reveal anything concerning Mormonism to people, except for its error and His revelation is that it is not from Him, and to stay away from it.
Not true. I know what God has made known to me. Again, you are absolutely free to reject what I say, and even call me a liar if you wish. But it doesn't change what I personally know to be true.
Yes, only Holy Spirit can reveal the error you embrace. I will be praying that He will do that for you and your family, because He loves you all with a great passion and wants you to know Him as He is, not as He is revealed by a religious sect.
Do you ever read the Bible? I pray that you will develop a strong thirst for truth and will read the Bible for yourself so God will give you a true revelation of Himself there.
: the_last_gunslinger Wed Mar 06, 2013 - 18:30:15
Is God the father of this earth, under another God? Are there other Gods that are just as powerful or more powerful than the God the father of this earth?
The only true doctrinal statement here is that God is the Father of this earth.
Try answering the questions instead of just making a statement, side stepping the issues again.
Mormons also believe that Jesus was a god, but not God Himself.
Mormons also believe- God is merely an exalted man who earned his position by good works.
Mormons also believe that Jesus was a person like us even before he was born,
Try answering the questions instead of just making a statement, side stepping the issues again.
I didn't side step the issue. You put forth several claims and I said the only one which is doctrine is that God is the Father of this earth, meaning the other ones aren't doctrine. Please explain how I sidestepped the question.
Mormons also believe that Jesus was a god, but not God Himself.
I already explained the LDS position on the Trinity. Jesus Christ is the second member of the Godhead, and the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are One God. Our position is biblical.
Mormons also believe- God is merely an exalted man who earned his position by good works.
Not true.
Mormons also believe that Jesus was a person like us even before he was born,
No we don't. He was greater than we were. That's why he's God and that's why he was foreordained to be the savior.
Yes.
So Catholics are a cult too? Did you make up an arbitrary definition of cult to suit your own ideas again?
No, we do this because Jesus did it.
You are missing the point. It doesn't matter whether or not it's in the Bible. An outsider looking in would see feetwashing as cult-like as well.
And I'm not certain on this, but I don't believe Christ ever commanded his disciples to wash each other's feet as part of their worship services.
No, these handshakes are unfruitful works.
Ephesians 5:11
And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.
I agree with Ephesians here. I don't agree with your definition of unfruitful works. Simply claiming our ordinances are unfruitful doesn't make it so.
Precisely my point. It is extra-biblical and not sacred, and worthy of setting aside
The Trinity's also not in the Bible, yet you don't consider that 'not sacred.' Besides, the Bible never states that every sacred act is recorded therein, in fact, it says just the opposite.
If you hold these tokens as such sacred gestures that discussing them is stretching the limits, then that is cultish thinking right there.
No it's not, its taking the advice offered by Christ himself. He told his disciples to not put sacred things before dogs, or to cast our pearls before swine, so that they would not openly mock and belittle these sacred things. If you think that refusing to talk about the most sacred part of our worship to a public who neither understand or appreciate their significance is cult like, then you apparently think Christ was advocating cult-like activity.
If your religion doesn't teach you who the Father is and who the Son really is, then you have fallen victim to a false belief, a false religion. It is right that Jesus Christ is our Saviour, but who is Jesus Christ to you? Is He an angelic creature like Satan? Is He Satan's brother? Was God flesh and bone? Did He have a wife? What about this planet Kolob?
But our religion DOES teach us who the Father and Son really is, so your criticism is already flawed from the get-go. Jesus Christ is our savior, and our God. He is not an angelic creature like Satan and they are 'spiritual brother,' only in that we consider them both to be sons of God the Father. God is flesh and bone, yes, and we are made in his image. The Bible never says that he's not flesh and bone. Does he have a wife? Probably. How can he be our father if there is not a mother? Father means nothing without a contrasting ideal (mother) on which to base it. This also does not conflict the Bible. What about Kolob? What significance does that have? The fact that you inquired about it like it was some kind of smoking gun illustrates that you don't get the significance of Kolob.
Not true.
So you believe your version of God and Jesus IS found in the Bible? Alright. Show me. Where in the Bible does it define a triune God that is co-eternal, co-equal and co-substantial? That is the definition of the Trinity as understood today. But it is not in the Scriptures, nor did the first century saints believe this.
Just by accepting another so-called revelation given by another spirit, not Holy Spirit, is all the proof anyone needs to recognize that there is something fishy there. I firmly believe that the LDS church does not inform its laity of all the particulars that the upper echelons believe.
And you can believe this if you want, but it would be incorrect. Our Sunday services are three hours long, our high school students participate in years of seminary instruction. We have extensive manuals available both online and in print that detail the most complex doctrines. And above all else, the Holy Scriptures are available to everyone. Even the Temple, where the most sacred ordinances are performed is open to anyone who has been in the church for a year. These supposed 'secret' teachings regarding the nature of God, Kolob, etc. I learned while still a teenager during Sunday School. Anyone who desires to learn what we really believe have all the means in the world to do so.
I need no creed to dictate what Holy Spirit has opened to my spirit about Himself.
You most certainly are relying on a creed. Your understanding of the Trinity was born out of an ecumenical council that produced said creed. The Trinity as understood by today's Christians is NOT in the Bible.
That is absolutely false.
What's false about this? I thought you believed Jesus is God. If Jesus is God, and if Jesus was once a man (a point I'm sure we agree on) then God was once a man.
Your language reflected that the changes were by the man's effort, and did not attest to Holy Spirit. In Christ, behold, all things become new!
And how does my language reflect that the changes were "by man's efforts?" It an untrue statement anyways, as the many spiritual experiences that led us into the church can attest to, my point remains the same. God led us into the church. I know this and God knows this. You were not there and have no idea what transpired to convert us to the gospel.
Yes, only Holy Spirit can reveal the error you embrace. I will be praying that He will do that for you and your family, because He loves you all with a great passion and wants you to know Him as He is, not as He is revealed by a religious sect.
Strange, because the Holy Spirit has borne witness of the truthfulness of the LDS religion. I appreciate your prayers, really, but they will go unanswered. God will not pull us out of the church He founded.
Do you ever read the Bible? I pray that you will develop a strong thirst for truth and will read the Bible for yourself so God will give you a true revelation of Himself there.
I read the Bible every night. It's a daily ritual I look forward to always.
: the_last_gunslinger Fri Mar 08, 2013 - 15:45:29
Mormons also believe that Jesus was a god, but not God Himself.
I already explained the LDS position on the Trinity. Jesus Christ is the second member of the Godhead, and the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are One God. Our position is biblical.
Mormons also believe- God is merely an exalted man who earned his position by good works.
Not true.
Mormons also believe that Jesus was a person like us even before he was born,
No we don't. He was greater than we were. That's why he's God and that's why he was foreordained to be the savior.
There you go side stepping again. You are saying that Jesus was created by God, that Jesus was not always God.
Last Gunslinger- Are there any God's that are equal to or greater than God the father, God the son or God the holy spirit?
Was God the father ever a human? Did God the father ever have sex?
Last Gunslinger- Are there any God's that are equal to or greater than God the father, God the son or God the holy spirit?
Well, we believe that there is no end to God's power or glory, so by definition, it would be impossible to be greater than He. And though we typically acknowledge the existence of multiple 'gods,' with a lower case 'g' there is but One God to us, and speculation about how many other gods there are or if there are any or how powerful they are is just that, speculation.
It's also important to note that Jesus Christ is considered subordinate to God the Father, as the Bible illustrates. I don't know if that's pertinent to your question or not.
Was God the father ever a human? Did God the father ever have sex?
Was God the Father ever Human? Latter-day Saints are divided on that and there is no "official" position. The idea that he may have been human, as I've stated elsewhere, is primarily derived from the King Follett discourses by Joseph Smith--a non-doctrinal sermon that implied Smith's belief that God was once as we are now, a human and he is now an exalted being who sits "enthroned in yonder heaven." Some wholeheartedly believe this, and maintain that it does not conflict with the Bible's claim that God is eternal, as we hold that Jesus Christ was God before becoming Mortal. So too is it possible that God lived a comparable life to Jesus Christ and played a similar role, while still maintaining his position as "God." They might cite John 5:19 where Jesus says to his disciples that he can do nothing of himself, only those things which he saw the Father do, for whatever the Father does, so too does the Son do it.
The other alternative is that the idea of God once being a man is referencing specifically Jesus Christ who is God, but who experienced a mortal life. Still others pass off the sermon as one man's opinion. When all is said and done, we have no revealed scripture regarding God's origin, only one or two sermons by Joseph Smith, given a couple months before he was murdered, teaching doctrines he never had time to elaborate on and which were not given as the revealed word of God. Any discussion about this is purely theological speculation. Interesting, but not terribly important as far as Latter-day Saints are concerned.
As far as God ever having sex, it's doubtful. I've discussed in your other thread the means by which God created our spirits, stating that we have always been, that we've always existed in some form and that God organized "Intelligences," into spirits. This implies heavily that we were not born through sexual relations between God and a Goddess wife.
: the_last_gunslinger Fri Mar 08, 2013 - 16:09:31
: Lively StoneYes.
So Catholics are a cult too? Did you make up an arbitrary definition of cult to suit your own ideas again?
There are many cultish things about their doctrines.
No, we do this because Jesus did it.
You are missing the point. It doesn't matter whether or not it's in the Bible. An outsider looking in would see feetwashing as cult-like as well.
No, they would be shown how it is perfectly fine to do it because
IT IS BIBLICAL.And I'm not certain on this, but I don't believe Christ ever commanded his disciples to wash each other's feet as part of their worship services.
John 13:14And since I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you ought to wash each other's feet.
No, these handshakes are unfruitful works.
Ephesians 5:11
And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.
I agree with Ephesians here. I don't agree with your definition of unfruitful works. Simply claiming our ordinances are unfruitful doesn't make it so.
Add-ons are generally religious affectations.
The Trinity's also not in the Bible, yet you don't consider that 'not sacred.' Besides, the Bible never states that every sacred act is recorded therein, in fact, it says just the opposite.
If they call the Godhead the Royal Family, I would be using that terminology. It matters not the nomenclature. What matters is that we understand who the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit are.
If you hold these tokens as such sacred gestures that discussing them is stretching the limits, then that is cultish thinking right there.
No it's not, its taking the advice offered by Christ himself. He told his disciples to not put sacred things before dogs, or to cast our pearls before swine, so that they would not openly mock and belittle these sacred things. If you think that refusing to talk about the most sacred part of our worship to a public who neither understand or appreciate their significance is cult like, then you apparently think Christ was advocating cult-like activity.
What has happened here is that Mormonism has devised new sacred things, which are worthy of being mocked and cast down from their false perch.
Ephesians 6:12 For we are not wrestling with flesh and blood [contending only with physical opponents], but against the despotisms, against the powers, against [the master spirits who are] the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spirit forces of wickedness in the heavenly (supernatural) sphere.
If your religion doesn't teach you who the Father is and who the Son really is, then you have fallen victim to a false belief, a false religion. It is right that Jesus Christ is our Saviour, but who is Jesus Christ to you? Is He an angelic creature like Satan? Is He Satan's brother? Was God flesh and bone? Did He have a wife? What about this planet Kolob?
But our religion DOES teach us who the Father and Son really is, so your criticism is already flawed from the get-go. Jesus Christ is our savior, and our God. He is not an angelic creature like Satan and they are 'spiritual brother,' only in that we consider them both to be sons of God the Father. God is flesh and bone, yes, and we are made in his image. The Bible never says that he's not flesh and bone. Does he have a wife? Probably. How can he be our father if there is not a mother? Father means nothing without a contrasting ideal (mother) on which to base it. This also does not conflict the Bible. What about Kolob? What significance does that have? The fact that you inquired about it like it was some kind of smoking gun illustrates that you don't get the significance of Kolob.
The LDS does not teach its people the truth.
Jesus and Satan are no more like brothers than dogs and cats. God is not flesh and bone! He is Spirit!
John 4:24God is a Spirit (a spiritual Being) and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth (reality).
Not true.
So you believe your version of God and Jesus IS found in the Bible? Alright. Show me. Where in the Bible does it define a triune God that is co-eternal, co-equal and co-substantial? That is the definition of the Trinity as understood today. But it is not in the Scriptures, nor did the first century saints believe this.
Yes, the first century Church believed this and passed it down.
We baptize in the authority of the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit---as equals.
Matthew 28:19Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Colossians 2:10And you are in Him, made full and having come to fullness of life [in Christ you too are filled with the Godhead—Father, Son and Holy Spirit—and reach full spiritual stature]. And He is the Head of all rule and authority [of every angelic principality and power].
Galatians 4:6To show that you are his children, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who cries out, "Father, my Father."
Just by accepting another so-called revelation given by another spirit, not Holy Spirit, is all the proof anyone needs to recognize that there is something fishy there. I firmly believe that the LDS church does not inform its laity of all the particulars that the upper echelons believe.
And you can believe this if you want, but it would be incorrect. Our Sunday services are three hours long, our high school students participate in years of seminary instruction. We have extensive manuals available both online and in print that detail the most complex doctrines. And above all else, the Holy Scriptures are available to everyone. Even the Temple, where the most sacred ordinances are performed is open to anyone who has been in the church for a year. These supposed 'secret' teachings regarding the nature of God, Kolob, etc. I learned while still a teenager during Sunday School. Anyone who desires to learn what we really believe have all the means in the world to do so.
Sounds like brainwashing to me. The doctrines are extra-biblical and not worthy of learning. ::frown::
: Lively StoneI need no creed to dictate what Holy Spirit has opened to my spirit about Himself.
You most certainly are relying on a creed. Your understanding of the Trinity was born out of an ecumenical council that produced said creed. The Trinity as understood by today's Christians is NOT in the Bible.
No I am not. I rely on what Holy Spirit has revealed to me as truth. He uses His word and His people, anointed to teach to make sure His people are steeped in His truth and are enabled to recognize spiritual falsehood and distortion at the drop of a hat. I am ever so thankful to my Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ for that, and have never been so thankful of that very thing until I came to this board.
That is absolutely false.
What's false about this? I thought you believed Jesus is God. If Jesus is God, and if Jesus was once a man (a point I'm sure we agree on) then God was once a man.
Jesus is God, and He is God in the flesh (not "once a man"), but God the Father is not a man, nor was He ever. Jesus has always been the Son.
Genesis 1:26God said, Let Us [Father, Son, and Holy Spirit] make mankind in Our image, after Our likeness, and let them have complete authority over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the [tame] beasts, and over all of the earth, and over everything that creeps upon the earth.
Your language reflected that the changes were by the man's effort, and did not attest to Holy Spirit. In Christ, behold, all things become new!
And how does my language reflect that the changes were "by man's efforts?"
Take a second or third look at what you wrote.
It an untrue statement anyways, as the many spiritual experiences that led us into the church can attest to, my point remains the same. God led us into the church. I know this and God knows this. You were not there and have no idea what transpired to convert us to the gospel.
God would never lead someone down a wrong road.
2 Corinthians 11:14And no wonder, even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
Luke 21:8Jesus: 8 Be careful. It's easy to be deceived. Many people will come claiming to have My authority. They'll shout, "I'm the One!" or "The time is now!" Don't take a step in their direction.
Yes, only Holy Spirit can reveal the error you embrace. I will be praying that He will do that for you and your family, because He loves you all with a great passion and wants you to know Him as He is, not as He is revealed by a religious sect.
Strange, because the Holy Spirit has borne witness of the truthfulness of the LDS religion. I appreciate your prayers, really, but they will go unanswered. God will not pull us out of the church He founded.
No, He will answer, because you need them. God has not founded the LDS church!
Jude 1:23Rescue others by snatching them from the flames of judgment. Show mercy to still others, but do so with great caution, hating the sins that contaminate their lives.
Do you ever read the Bible? I pray that you will develop a strong thirst for truth and will read the Bible for yourself so God will give you a true revelation of Himself there.
I read the Bible every night. It's a daily ritual I look forward to always.
I pray Holy Spirit will cause the scales to fall from your eyes and that He will open your eyes to
HIS truth.
: the_last_gunslinger Fri Mar 08, 2013 - 19:45:02
Last Gunslinger- Are there any God's that are equal to or greater than God the father, God the son or God the holy spirit?
Well, we believe that there is no end to God's power or glory, so by definition, it would be impossible to be greater than He. And though we typically acknowledge the existence of multiple 'gods,' with a lower case 'g' there is but One God to us, and speculation about how many other gods there are or if there are any or how powerful they are is just that, speculation.
It's also important to note that Jesus Christ is considered subordinate to God the Father, as the Bible illustrates. I don't know if that's pertinent to your question or not.
Was God the father ever a human? Did God the father ever have sex?
Was God the Father ever Human? Latter-day Saints are divided on that and there is no "official" position. The idea that he may have been human, as I've stated elsewhere, is primarily derived from the King Follett discourses by Joseph Smith--a non-doctrinal sermon that implied Smith's belief that God was once as we are now, a human and he is now an exalted being who sits "enthroned in yonder heaven." Some wholeheartedly believe this, and maintain that it does not conflict with the Bible's claim that God is eternal, as we hold that Jesus Christ was God before becoming Mortal. So too is it possible that God lived a comparable life to Jesus Christ and played a similar role, while still maintaining his position as "God." They might cite John 5:19 where Jesus says to his disciples that he can do nothing of himself, only those things which he saw the Father do, for whatever the Father does, so too does the Son do it.
The other alternative is that the idea of God once being a man is referencing specifically Jesus Christ who is God, but who experienced a mortal life. Still others pass off the sermon as one man's opinion. When all is said and done, we have no revealed scripture regarding God's origin, only one or two sermons by Joseph Smith, given a couple months before he was murdered, teaching doctrines he never had time to elaborate on and which were not given as the revealed word of God. Any discussion about this is purely theological speculation. Interesting, but not terribly important as far as Latter-day Saints are concerned.
As far as God ever having sex, it's doubtful. I've discussed in your other thread the means by which God created our spirits, stating that we have always been, that we've always existed in some form and that God organized "Intelligences," into spirits. This implies heavily that we were not born through sexual relations between God and a Goddess wife.
You said there is only one GOD to us. Are you saying that there are other people or beings on other planets that there is only one God to them?
You said there is only one GOD to us. Are you saying that there are other people or beings on other planets that there is only one God to them
I don't think I said that. All we know is that there are other gods. We only have one God, however. And we know that our God is God to many worlds "without end." Whether or not these other 'gods,' are gods in the same way or whether the term god simply denotes the presence of a divine being is debatable. We have zero scriptures detailing other gods.
: the_last_gunslinger Fri Mar 08, 2013 - 22:12:23
You said there is only one GOD to us. Are you saying that there are other people or beings on other planets that there is only one God to them
I don't think I said that. All we know is that there are other gods. We only have one God, however. And we know that our God is God to many worlds "without end." Whether or not these other 'gods,' are gods in the same way or whether the term god simply denotes the presence of a divine being is debatable. We have zero scriptures detailing other gods.
Mormons believe that God created multiple worlds and each world has people living on it. They also believe that multiple Gods exist but each has their own universe. We are only subject to our God and if we obtain the highest level of heaven we can become gods ourselves.
: the_last_gunslinger Fri Mar 08, 2013 - 22:12:23
You said there is only one GOD to us. Are you saying that there are other people or beings on other planets that there is only one God to them
I don't think I said that. All we know is that there are other gods. We only have one God, however. And we know that our God is God to many worlds "without end." Whether or not these other 'gods,' are gods in the same way or whether the term god simply denotes the presence of a divine being is debatable. We have zero scriptures detailing other gods.
That is one way that mormons and christians differ, it is not debatable to Christians,
That is one way that mormons and christians differ, it is not debatable to Christians,
What's not debatable? The idea of many gods? That's clearly not debatable since the Bible makes this pretty clear. What is debatable is the role of these gods and what authority, if any, they have.
: the_last_gunslinger Fri Mar 08, 2013 - 22:41:07
That is one way that mormons and christians differ, it is not debatable to Christians,
What's not debatable? The idea of many gods? That's clearly not debatable since the Bible makes this pretty clear. What is debatable is the role of these gods and what authority, if any, they have.
You stated "Whether or not these other 'gods,' are gods in the same way"
To a Christian it is not debatable if anyone or thing is equal to God.
To a Christian it is not debatable if anyone or thing is equal to God.
I don't believe I said anything was equal to God. My stance has always been that save for the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, we know literally nothing about other divine beings other than that they exist. I don't believe there is anything equal with God the father either.
There are many cultish things about their doctrines
But I have yet to hear how you define cult. As far as I can tell, your definition of the word is anything that doesn't agree with your interpretation of scripture.
No, they would be shown how it is perfectly fine to do it because IT IS BIBLICAL
It doesn't matter that it's in the Bible. It's still considered weird and cult-like by people on the outside. You are putting forth a flawed argument that cult=anything not found in the Bible, and that's simply not true. Many, many Protestant denominations have extra-biblical practices. And as I've already pointed out, the Trinity isn't in the Bible. That must mean you accept cult-like beliefs, if we use your definition of cult.
And since I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you ought to wash each other's feet.
I stand corrected. My apologies.
If they call the Godhead the Royal Family, I would be using that terminology. It matters not the nomenclature. What matters is that we understand who the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit are
.
But you don't. Unless you deviate from every other Christian in how the Trinity is defined, you believe in an erroneous, fourth century concept of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The Bible never teaches that the three are "co-equal, co-eternal and co-substantial." This is the doctrine that Trinitarians embrace and it's not supported by scripture.
What has happened here is that Mormonism has devised new sacred things, which are worthy of being mocked and cast down from their false perch.
And if you wish to continue believing as such, fine. My point was that withholding sacred things from those who would mock it is not the sign of a cult, since Christ taught that. Certainly you can dispute the relevance of our ordinances, but it is unfair to bring out the word Cult simply because we refuse to discuss highly sacred things in a public forum, thereby opening them up to ridicule and derision.
The LDS does not teach its people the truth.
Yes they do.
Jesus and Satan are no more like brothers than dogs and cats. God is not flesh and bone! He is Spirit!
Jesus's father is God. God also created Satan. Therefore, God is Father to both.
John 4:24
God is a Spirit (a spiritual Being) and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth (reality).
God is Spirit, yes. He is a spiritual being. But nowhere does it say He is ONLY spirit. The Bible also says God is a consuming fire, that he is light. That he is love. Is he only these things? No. Nor is He just a spirit. It's important to realize that the word "is," was inserted by translators and there are no definite articles like 'a' in Greek. This leaves only two Greek words remaining, which translated only to God Spirit. That makes the translation a little more ambiguous, don't you think?
In 1st Corinthians, Paul teaches that our resurrected bodies are "spiritual," bodies. And we know that resurrected bodies are physical. With this interpretation in mind, it is easy to see how God is "Spirit," while still having a tangible body.
And what do you make of the second part of that verse, where we are to worship Him in spirit? Does that mean we are to leave our physical bodies in order to worship Him? Probably not. Therefore, it would be erroneous to assume that the verse was speaking of God being only a spirit as literal.
Yes, the first century Church believed this and passed it down.
We baptize in the authority of the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit---as equals.
Matthew 28:19
Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Colossians 2:10
And you are in Him, made full and having come to fullness of life [in Christ you too are filled with the Godhead—Father, Son and Holy Spirit—and reach full spiritual stature]. And He is the Head of all rule and authority [of every angelic principality and power].
Galatians 4:6
To show that you are his children, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who cries out, "Father, my Father."
I hate to say it, but not a single one of those verses makes any reference to a Trinity that is Co-eternal, Co-equal and Co-substantial. They only make reference to three personages, the father, son and holy ghost. Not a single one of these verses conflicts with LDS teachings, and you have still failed to illustrate that the Biblical writers understood the Godhead in the same way that modern Trinitarians do.
Sounds like brainwashing to me. The doctrines are extra-biblical and not worthy of learning.
Brainwashing? You've got to be kidding me. Now you have a problem with us being too studious? Please explain how we are brainwashed, especially when we are not forced to do any of these things. I didn't attend Seminary, for example, because I live too far away from the church and it didn't fit into my schedule.
It's funny that you first claim that the LDS church withholds information from it's members, and when I show that is not the case, your argument becomes one of 'forcibly,' pumping too much information into members. Which is it?
No I am not. I rely on what Holy Spirit has revealed to me as truth. He uses His word and His people, anointed to teach to make sure His people are steeped in His truth and are enabled to recognize spiritual falsehood and distortion at the drop of a hat. I am ever so thankful to my Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ for that, and have never been so thankful of that very thing until I came to this board.
If you accept the Trinity, then you are relying on man-made Creeds and ignoring what the Bible says. The Trinity is NOT in the Bible and if you subscribe to this doctrine, you are embracing extra-biblical teachings thought up by religious philosophers.
Jesus is God, and He is God in the flesh (not "once a man"), but God the Father is not a man, nor was He ever. Jesus has always been the Son.
What does "in the flesh," mean, then? It is my understanding that Christians believe that Jesus was fully God and Fully Man. If this is true, then yes, you believe God was once a man.
As to whether or not God was ever a man is speculation. The Bible does say that He has always been God, but that doesn't preclude the idea that he once served a similar mission to Jesus Christ, who was also God prior to sojourning in Mortality.
Genesis 1:26
God said, Let Us [Father, Son, and Holy Spirit] make mankind in Our image, after Our likeness, and let them have complete authority over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the [tame] beasts, and over all of the earth, and over everything that creeps upon the earth.
This doesn't conflict with LDS teachings at all.
Take a second or third look at what you wrote.
I give up. I don't see anything I said that denotes that this conversion was of Man. In fact, I'm pretty sure I said the exact opposite.
God would never lead someone down a wrong road.
True. And for me, He didn't.
2 Corinthians 11:14
And no wonder, even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
Maybe YOU were deceived by Satan.
Luke 21:8
Jesus: 8 Be careful. It's easy to be deceived. Many people will come claiming to have My authority. They'll shout, "I'm the One!" or "The time is now!" Don't take a step in their direction.
Yes, also true. I'm fortunate to know that the authority of Jesus Christ is indeed found in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is the other Christian sects that have taken upon themselves this authority when they have no right to do so.
No, He will answer, because you need them. God has not founded the LDS church!
As you have so aptly pointed out, God does not lead one to error. Therefore, He will not pull me out of the church that He founded.
Jude 1:23
Rescue others by snatching them from the flames of judgment. Show mercy to still others, but do so with great caution, hating the sins that contaminate their lives.
Good advice. This is what the LDS are actively trying to do through their extensive missionary program.
I pray Holy Spirit will cause the scales to fall from your eyes and that He will open your eyes to HIS truth.
You're about fifteen years too late. He has indeed opened my eyes to the truth and it is more glorious than I ever thought possible.
: the_last_gunslinger Sat Mar 09, 2013 - 10:22:09
There are many cultish things about their doctrines
But I have yet to hear how you define cult. As far as I can tell, your definition of the word is anything that doesn't agree with your interpretation of scripture.
A cult is a group whose earmarks are EXCLUSIVITY ("We're the only ones with the truth; everyone else is wrong; and if you leave our group your salvation is in danger."), and is SECRETIVE (Certain teachings are not available to outsiders or they're presented only to certain members, sometimes after taking vows of confidentiality.), and is AUTHORITARIAN (Leadership expects total loyalty and unquestioned obedience), which is not always a feature of some cults. They often promote that they have a SPECIAL REVELATION, adding to scripture and adding efforts or particular works in the practice of their "religion".
: Lively Stone
No, they would be shown how it is perfectly fine to do it because IT IS BIBLICAL
It doesn't matter that it's in the Bible. It's still considered weird and cult-like by people on the outside. You are putting forth a flawed argument that cult=anything not found in the Bible, and that's simply not true. Many, many Protestant denominations have extra-biblical practices. And as I've already pointed out, the Trinity isn't in the Bible. That must mean you accept cult-like beliefs, if we use your definition of cult.
People on the outside consider being a Christian weird. That doesn't stop me from showing them Christ. If it isn't supported by scripture, but is encouraged by a so-called religion---we don't have to do it, because it is cultish. Period. Wearing weird underwear and practicing secret handshakes and considering them sacred is cultish behaviour.
And since I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you ought to wash each other's feet.
I stand corrected. My apologies.
Thank you.
: Lively StoneIf they call the Godhead the Royal Family, I would be using that terminology. It matters not the nomenclature. What matters is that we understand who the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit are
.
But you don't. Unless you deviate from every other Christian in how the Trinity is defined, you believe in an erroneous, fourth century concept of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The Bible never teaches that the three are "co-equal, co-eternal and co-substantial." This is the doctrine that Trinitarians embrace and it's not supported by scripture.
No. I believe that God is three Persons, which is how He presents Himself to mankind---Father, Son, Holy Spirit. All scriptural.
: Lively Stone
What has happened here is that Mormonism has devised new sacred things, which are worthy of being mocked and cast down from their false perch.
And if you wish to continue believing as such, fine. My point was that withholding sacred things from those who would mock it is not the sign of a cult, since Christ taught that. Certainly you can dispute the relevance of our ordinances, but it is unfair to bring out the word Cult simply because we refuse to discuss highly sacred things in a public forum, thereby opening them up to ridicule and derision.
Believing the truth of a matter is not merely my wish. It is necessary, in order to walk in righteousness with God. Christ has not taught anything concerning these outlandish ritual and things you hold to be sacred. It is indeed a cult that keeps things under cover and not open to the world. Jesus was all about being open.
Christians aren't afraid of mockery and ridicule! If you hold things secret because of derision, then you operate out of fear and promote ignorance. That is cultish.
: Lively StoneThe LDS does not teach its people the truth.
Yes they do.
No, there is some truth mixed in, but you should know what Jesus says about a little leaven:
Galatians 5:9 A little leaven (a slight inclination to error, or a few false teachers) leavens the whole lump [it perverts the whole conception of faith or misleads the whole church].
There will be judgment to fall heavily on those who mess with the truth.
: Lively Stone
Jesus and Satan are no more like brothers than dogs and cats. God is not flesh and bone! He is Spirit!
Jesus's father is God. God also created Satan. Therefore, God is Father to both.
That is from a lying spirit. God is Creator to angelic beings, but He is not their Father. Jesus is Satan's Creator and is no one's brother but ours.
: Lively StoneJohn 4:24
God is a Spirit (a spiritual Being) and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth (reality).
God is Spirit, yes. He is a spiritual being. But nowhere does it say He is ONLY spirit. The Bible also says God is a consuming fire, that he is light. That he is love. Is he only these things? No. Nor is He just a spirit. It's important to realize that the word "is," was inserted by translators and there are no definite articles like 'a' in Greek. This leaves only two Greek words remaining, which translated only to God Spirit. That makes the translation a little more ambiguous, don't you think?
He says that God is a Spirit. He presents Himself as light and as fire---as Holy Spirit does. I don't argue with God about that.
In 1st Corinthians, Paul teaches that our resurrected bodies are "spiritual," bodies. And we know that resurrected bodies are physical. With this interpretation in mind, it is easy to see how God is "Spirit," while still having a tangible body.
God's tangible body has a name:
JESUS.And what do you make of the second part of that verse, where we are to worship Him in spirit? Does that mean we are to leave our physical bodies in order to worship Him? Probably not. Therefore, it would be erroneous to assume that the verse was speaking of God being only a spirit as literal.
It means we are to worship Him with our whole selves: body, soul and spirit.
: Lively StoneYes, the first century Church believed this and passed it down.
We baptize in the authority of the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit---as equals.
Matthew 28:19
Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Colossians 2:10
And you are in Him, made full and having come to fullness of life [in Christ you too are filled with the Godhead—Father, Son and Holy Spirit—and reach full spiritual stature]. And He is the Head of all rule and authority [of every angelic principality and power].
Galatians 4:6
To show that you are his children, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who cries out, "Father, my Father."
I hate to say it, but not a single one of those verses makes any reference to a Trinity that is Co-eternal, Co-equal and Co-substantial. They only make reference to three personages, the father, son and holy ghost. Not a single one of these verses conflicts with LDS teachings, and you have still failed to illustrate that the Biblical writers understood the Godhead in the same way that modern Trinitarians do.
Yes, three
PERSONS!: Lively StoneSounds like brainwashing to me. The doctrines are extra-biblical and not worthy of learning.
Brainwashing? You've got to be kidding me. Now you have a problem with us being too studious? Please explain how we are brainwashed, especially when we are not forced to do any of these things. I didn't attend Seminary, for example, because I live too far away from the church and it didn't fit into my schedule.
It's funny that you first claim that the LDS church withholds information from it's members, and when I show that is not the case, your argument becomes one of 'forcibly,' pumping too much information into members. Which is it?
Indoctrination of the Mormon system is brainwashing. Satan makes the false doctrines seem enticingly true to people who are searching for the truth. A little lie here and a little lie there makes for a mind and heart that will eventually accept a whopper.
: Lively StoneNo I am not. I rely on what Holy Spirit has revealed to me as truth. He uses His word and His people, anointed to teach to make sure His people are steeped in His truth and are enabled to recognize spiritual falsehood and distortion at the drop of a hat. I am ever so thankful to my Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ for that, and have never been so thankful of that very thing until I came to this board.
If you accept the Trinity, then you are relying on man-made Creeds and ignoring what the Bible says. The Trinity is NOT in the Bible and if you subscribe to this doctrine, you are embracing extra-biblical teachings thought up by religious philosophers.
What's your big beef with God being three Persons? He is THREE PERSONS, and He is manifested that way in scripture.
: Lively StoneJesus is God, and He is God in the flesh (not "once a man"), but God the Father is not a man, nor was He ever. Jesus has always been the Son.
What does "in the flesh," mean, then? It is my understanding that Christians believe that Jesus was fully God and Fully Man. If this is true, then yes, you believe God was once a man.
As to whether or not God was ever a man is speculation. The Bible does say that He has always been God, but that doesn't preclude the idea that he once served a similar mission to Jesus Christ, who was also God prior to sojourning in Mortality.
God the Father has never been a man, as Mormons believe. Jesus is God and man--and even now is still God and man. Holy Spirit is God and the spirit of Christ.
If you must
SPECULATE about how God presents Himself, then you are in the dark.
: Lively StoneGod would never lead someone down a wrong road.
True. And for me, He didn't.
Yet you have embarked on a journey down a long, wide-shouldered road. He hasn't led you there.
: Lively Stone2 Corinthians 11:14
And no wonder, even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
Maybe YOU were deceived by Satan.
Satan always tries to deceive those who walk in the Light, but as I know my Master, Jesus' voice, I can easily recognize Satan's shrill notes, and kick him where it hurts.
I am grateful to God for His discerning power to be able to keenly detect Satanic lies, so that I am not easily deceived. The LDS is extremely easy to mark as deception.
: Lively StoneLuke 21:8
Jesus: 8 Be careful. It's easy to be deceived. Many people will come claiming to have My authority. They'll shout, "I'm the One!" or "The time is now!" Don't take a step in their direction.
Yes, also true. I'm fortunate to know that the authority of Jesus Christ is indeed found in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is the other Christian sects that have taken upon themselves this authority when they have no right to do so.
Actually, the authority of Jesus Christ is found in every believer---not in any one church group---so you have stepped off into deep deception right there.
: Lively StoneNo, He will answer, because you need them. God has not founded the LDS church!
As you have so aptly pointed out, God does not lead one to error. Therefore, He will not pull me out of the church that He founded.
He surely wants to, but if you want to stay mired in deception, that is your choice.
: Lively StoneJude 1:23
Rescue others by snatching them from the flames of judgment. Show mercy to still others, but do so with great caution, hating the sins that contaminate their lives.
Good advice. This is what the LDS are actively trying to do through their extensive missionary program.
Which fights against what the body of Christ is doing in the world.
: Lively StoneI pray Holy Spirit will cause the scales to fall from your eyes and that He will open your eyes to HIS truth.
You're about fifteen years too late. He has indeed opened my eyes to the truth and it is more glorious than I ever thought possible.
If you don't wake up to the truth, you will be more than just 15 years too late. ::frown::
A cult is a group whose earmarks are EXCLUSIVITY ("We're the only ones with the truth; everyone else is wrong; and if you leave our group your salvation is in danger."), and is SECRETIVE (Certain teachings are not available to outsiders or they're presented only to certain members, sometimes after taking vows of confidentiality.), and is AUTHORITARIAN (Leadership expects total loyalty and unquestioned obedience), which is not always a feature of some cults. They often promote that they have a SPECIAL REVELATION, adding to scripture and adding efforts or particular works in the practice of their "religion".
Oh, okay. So Jesus was the leader of a cult, then. What you just described fits perfectly with the early Christian movement.
People on the outside consider being a Christian weird. That doesn't stop me from showing them Christ. If it isn't supported by scripture, but is encouraged by a so-called religion---we don't have to do it, because it is cultish. Period. Wearing weird underwear and practicing secret handshakes and considering them sacred is cultish behaviour.
Do you also consider it cultish teenagers who wear purity rings to remind them of their vow to stay chaste, or people who wear crosses to remind them of the Savior?
Never mind the overwhelming biblical support for sacred clothing.
No. I believe that God is three Persons, which is how He presents Himself to mankind---Father, Son, Holy Spirit. All scriptural.
Which is also what I believe. My gripe is with the false Trinitarian notion of the three persons being co-eternal, co-equal and co-substantial. That is the definition of the Holy Trinity as understood today. Do you believe this, or not?
Believing the truth of a matter is not merely my wish. It is necessary, in order to walk in righteousness with God. Christ has not taught anything concerning these outlandish ritual and things you hold to be sacred. It is indeed a cult that keeps things under cover and not open to the world. Jesus was all about being open.
Jesus did teach these things. Just because they're not in the Bible doesn't mean they didn't come from him. The Bible even says that there were many things Christ taught that were not written.
We don't keep things from the world. We would love for everyone to participate in the temple ordinances. But their nature is still sacred and shouldn't be discussed lightly.
Christians aren't afraid of mockery and ridicule! If you hold things secret because of derision, then you operate out of fear and promote ignorance. That is cultish.
Christians aren't afraid of mockery, true, but that doesn't mean they like to get mocked, or that they should actively seek it. If someone told you he had plans to burn copies of the Bible, would you then hand one over if he asked? Likewise with us, the mocking is going to come, but I'm not going to willfully ask for the things of God to be ridiculed. God himself said that He will not be mocked.
Besides which, there is clear biblical precedent for this thinking. Jesus instructed his followers to not put sacred things before those who would belittle them.
No, there is some truth mixed in, but you should know what Jesus says about a little leaven:
Galatians 5:9
A little leaven (a slight inclination to error, or a few false teachers) leavens the whole lump [it perverts the whole conception of faith or misleads the whole church].
There will be judgment to fall heavily on those who mess with the truth.
This is understood. But since it is actually the rest of Christianity who has 'some truth,' I don't see how this applies to us.
That is from a lying spirit. God is Creator to angelic beings, but He is not their Father. Jesus is Satan's Creator and is no one's brother but ours.
God created angelic beings, yes. In essence, he 'fathered,' them. Keep in mind, the LDS church does not hold that Jesus and Satan are brothers in the biological sense, like mortal brothers. God the Father is considered father to both, so they are 'spiritually' related.
He says that God is a Spirit. He presents Himself as light and as fire---as Holy Spirit does. I don't argue with God about that.
Nor do I. But as I've already shown, the Bible does not say He is only Spirit. We believe Him to be a Spirit too, a spirit housed in a glorified, exalted physical body.
God's tangible body has a name: JESUS.
So are you saying that you believe God DOES have a physical body? I'm a little confused here.
It means we are to worship Him with our whole selves: body, soul and spirit.
Exactly! By your own admission, worshiping in spirit does not mean ONLY in spirit, but in body, soul and spirit. So too is God possessor of both Body and Spirit.
Yes, three PERSONS!
Right. Is it possible that our conceptions of God are not terribly dissimilar?
Indoctrination of the Mormon system is brainwashing. Satan makes the false doctrines seem enticingly true to people who are searching for the truth. A little lie here and a little lie there makes for a mind and heart that will eventually accept a whopper.
You can say the same thing of any church or religion. Being taught what your church's doctrine is does not constitute brainwashing. It means only that you belong to a church. Brainwashing is defined as "systematically using unethically manipulative methods to persuade others to conform to the wishes of the manipulator(s), often to the detriment of the person being manipulated." You will not find coercive practices or forced learning within the LDS church. Everything is voluntary. Again, being taught something does not constitute brainwashing.
What's your big beef with God being three Persons? He is THREE PERSONS, and He is manifested that way in scripture.
I don't have a problem at all with God being three persons. I have issue with the Trinitarian understanding of their oneness is all. I dispute that they are all of one substance (I'm not even sure what that would mean) and I dispute them being Co-equal, as I believe God the Father is greater than Jesus Christ.
Yet you have embarked on a journey down a long, wide-shouldered road. He hasn't led you there.
With all due respect, I am a greater expert on my spirituality than you are. I know where I stand with God, I know He hears my prayers and answers them, and I know He wants me to be a member of this church. My Testimony is unflappable in this matter.
Satan always tries to deceive those who walk in the Light, but as I know my Master, Jesus' voice, I can easily recognize Satan's shrill notes, and kick him where it hurts.
The power to discern the presence of the Evil One is a most precious gift. But you're not the only one who can do that. Do you not think I've felt the tempting, deceitful ways of Satan? Do you not think that I, too have had to call upon my God for power to overcome his snares? I have and I do. And I can attest with all my might, mind and strength, having a knowledge of the ways in which Satan works, that it was not him who guided me to this church. It was nothing less than the active hand of God in bringing my family into the true Gospel.
Actually, the authority of Jesus Christ is found in every believer---not in any one church group---so you have stepped off into deep deception right there.
Every believer...who belongs to Christ's true church and who has been called and ordained by God. Remember, no man can take this honor upon himself. He must be called of God, as was Aaron.
Which fights against what the body of Christ is doing in the world.
On the contrary, we are bringing the fullness of the gospel to the inhabitants of this earth. Seeing the church grow and expand, seeing its membership increase and seeing Joseph Smith's prophecy that temples will dot the earth come to fruition is testament of the truthfulness of our claims.
If you don't wake up to the truth, you will be more than just 15 years too late
I don't believe I'll ever be able to convince you of the reality of my experiences or of the truthfulness of the church. All I can leave you with is my testimony that it's true, and that I know this beyond Man's ability to reason. God lives, Jesus is the Christ and His true church was restored through His chosen Prophet, Joseph Smith.
: the_last_gunslinger Sat Mar 09, 2013 - 15:02:57
: Lively StoneA cult is a group whose earmarks are EXCLUSIVITY ("We're the only ones with the truth; everyone else is wrong; and if you leave our group your salvation is in danger."), and is SECRETIVE (Certain teachings are not available to outsiders or they're presented only to certain members, sometimes after taking vows of confidentiality.), and is AUTHORITARIAN (Leadership expects total loyalty and unquestioned obedience), which is not always a feature of some cults. They often promote that they have a SPECIAL REVELATION, adding to scripture and adding efforts or particular works in the practice of their "religion".
Oh, okay. So Jesus was the leader of a cult, then. What you just described fits perfectly with the early Christian movement.
You are evading.
: Lively StonePeople on the outside consider being a Christian weird. That doesn't stop me from showing them Christ. If it isn't supported by scripture, but is encouraged by a so-called religion---we don't have to do it, because it is cultish. Period. Wearing weird underwear and practicing secret handshakes and considering them sacred is cultish behaviour.
Do you also consider it cultish teenagers who wear purity rings to remind them of their vow to stay chaste, or people who wear crosses to remind them of the Savior?
Never mind the overwhelming biblical support for sacred clothing.
LOL! If a young person desires to wear a purity ring to denote her vow of chastity until marriage, that is not cultish. It is cultural, just as wedding rings are cultural.
Your
sacred underwear is cultish.
: Lively StoneNo. I believe that God is three Persons, which is how He presents Himself to mankind---Father, Son, Holy Spirit. All scriptural.
Which is also what I believe. My gripe is with the false Trinitarian notion of the three persons being co-eternal, co-equal and co-substantial. That is the definition of the Holy Trinity as understood today. Do you believe this, or not?
Never heard of that. They are co-everything.
: Lively StoneBelieving the truth of a matter is not merely my wish. It is necessary, in order to walk in righteousness with God. Christ has not taught anything concerning these outlandish rituals and things you hold to be sacred. It is indeed a cult that keeps things under cover and not open to the world. Jesus was all about being open.
Jesus did teach these things. Just because they're not in the Bible doesn't mean they didn't come from him. The Bible even says that there were many things Christ taught that were not written.
Jesus didn't teach anything that isn't recorded in His word. If it isn't in the bible, and someone claims it is from Jesus, you should know instantly that it is a lie.
We don't keep things from the world. We would love for everyone to participate in the temple ordinances. But their nature is still sacred and shouldn't be discussed lightly.
Hey, the LDS keeps things from you!
There is nothing sacred that cannot be discussed openly. You shroud everything in sacredness, which is the mark of religiosity, and that is a
snare.Daniel 28:21b-22He gives wisdom to the wise
and knowledge to the scholars.
He reveals deep and mysterious things
and knows what lies hidden in darkness,
though he is surrounded by light.Mark 4:22Those things that are hidden are meant to be revealed, and what is concealed is meant to be brought out where its light can shine.
: Lively StoneChristians aren't afraid of mockery and ridicule! If you hold things secret because of derision, then you operate out of fear and promote ignorance. That is cultish.
Christians aren't afraid of mockery, true, but that doesn't mean they like to get mocked, or that they should actively seek it. If someone told you he had plans to burn copies of the Bible, would you then hand one over if he asked? Likewise with us, the mocking is going to come, but I'm not going to willfully ask for the things of God to be ridiculed. God himself said that He will not be mocked.
Besides which, there is clear biblical precedent for this thinking. Jesus instructed his followers to not put sacred things before those who would belittle them.
The problem is that you have a lack of understanding of what
God considers sacred. Mormonism has warped the concept by declaring things sacred which are not. That is the doing of the evil spirit of religion.
: Lively Stone
No, there is some truth mixed in, but you should know what Jesus says about a little leaven:
Galatians 5:9
A little leaven (a slight inclination to error, or a few false teachers) leavens the whole lump [it perverts the whole conception of faith or misleads the whole church].
There will be judgment to fall heavily on those who mess with the truth.
This is understood. But since it is actually the rest of Christianity who has 'some truth,' I don't see how this applies to us.
The whole concept points right at the LDS. Guilty as charged.
: Lively StoneThat is from a lying spirit. God is Creator to angelic beings, but He is not their Father. Jesus is Satan's Creator and is no one's brother but ours.
God created angelic beings, yes. In essence, he 'fathered,' them. Keep in mind, the LDS church does not hold that Jesus and Satan are brothers in the biological sense, like mortal brothers. God the Father is considered father to both, so they are 'spiritually' related.
You change the concept of God as Father. Is He the Father of flora and fauna? He is their Creator, but He is only our Father. Your church is completely missing the boat in their reworking of the concept of God, and needs to be quiet. You out yourself as a cult when you try to approach this topic with your outlandish claims.
: Lively StoneHe says that God is a Spirit. He presents Himself as light and as fire---as Holy Spirit does. I don't argue with God about that.
Nor do I. But as I've already shown, the Bible does not say He is only Spirit. We believe Him to be a Spirit too, a spirit housed in a glorified, exalted physical body.
The word tells us that God the Father is Spirit. That is who He is and that is His substance. The body God has is made of spirit, which has substance. The physical body belongs to Jesus.
: Lively StoneGod's tangible body has a name: JESUS.
So are you saying that you believe God DOES have a physical body? I'm a little confused here.
I'm not suprised that you are confused. God's physical body is Jesus' body.
: Lively StoneIt means we are to worship Him with our whole selves: body, soul and spirit.
Exactly! By your own admission, worshiping in spirit does not mean ONLY in spirit, but in body, soul and spirit. So too is God possessor of both Body and Spirit.
Right, as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
: Lively StoneYes, three PERSONS!
Right. Is it possible that our conceptions of God are not terribly dissimilar?
I am loathe to agree, however if I dig deep enough I will see the finger of the devil somewhere there, distorting the truth in some way. He wouldn't dare leave the essence of who God is untouched. I have already seen how God is distorted by the Mormon religion, making him a creature of flesh and bone, who has had a wife and fathered both Jesus and Lucifer. That's a ploy of Lucifer Himself.
: Lively StoneIndoctrination of the Mormon system is brainwashing. Satan makes the false doctrines seem enticingly true to people who are searching for the truth. A little lie here and a little lie there makes for a mind and heart that will eventually accept a whopper.
You can say the same thing of any church or religion. Being taught what your church's doctrine is does not constitute brainwashing. It means only that you belong to a church. Brainwashing is defined as "systematically using unethically manipulative methods to persuade others to conform to the wishes of the manipulator(s), often to the detriment of the person being manipulated." You will not find coercive practices or forced learning within the LDS church. Everything is voluntary. Again, being taught something does not constitute brainwashing.
I say the same thing about all religions.
I say that the ideas the Mormon religion teaches is a manipulation and is definitely to the detriment of those who fall for them. Spiritually, there is a cost to the acceptance of a false gospel...not only to the one who receives it, but even more so to those who teach it.
When so-called "missionaries" go door-to-door enticing people who are lost and seeking truth into their brand of truth, it is a cunning ans subtle way of intimidation and coercion, just like the JW's do. It's a pretty package, but what is inside the box is a brood of snakes.
: Lively StoneWhat's your big beef with God being three Persons? He is THREE PERSONS, and He is manifested that way in scripture.
I don't have a problem at all with God being three persons. I have issue with the Trinitarian understanding of their oneness is all. I dispute that they are all of one substance (I'm not even sure what that would mean) and I dispute them being Co-equal, as I believe God the Father is greater than Jesus Christ.
All Persons in the Godhead are equal to one another. No One is greater than the other. The fact that the Son took on human nature and made Himself subservient to the Father
temporarily in no way denies the deity of Jesus Christ, nor does it diminish His essential equality with the Father.
: Lively StoneYet you have embarked on a journey down a long, wide-shouldered road. He hasn't led you there.
With all due respect, I am a greater expert on my spirituality than you are. I know where I stand with God, I know He hears my prayers and answers them, and I know He wants me to be a member of this church. My Testimony is unflappable in this matter.
I am sure you are aware of your own spiritual truth, but you are not aware that you are traveling on the broad road, apart from all born again Christians in the world who are traveling the narrow road toward their destination---LIFE.
Matthew 7:13-14"You can enter God's Kingdom only through the narrow gate. The highway to hell is broad, and its gate is wide for the many who choose that way. But the gateway to life is very narrow and the road is difficult, and only a few ever find it.
: Lively StoneSatan always tries to deceive those who walk in the Light, but as I know my Master, Jesus' voice, I can easily recognize Satan's shrill notes, and kick him where it hurts.
The power to discern the presence of the Evil One is a most precious gift. But you're not the only one who can do that. Do you not think I've felt the tempting, deceitful ways of Satan? Do you not think that I, too have had to call upon my God for power to overcome his snares? I have and I do. And I can attest with all my might, mind and strength, having a knowledge of the ways in which Satan works, that it was not him who guided me to this church. It was nothing less than the active hand of God in bringing my family into the true Gospel.
It wasn't God. He is trying to lead you out.
: Lively StoneActually, the authority of Jesus Christ is found in every believer---not in any one church group---so you have stepped off into deep deception right there.
Every believer...who belongs to Christ's true church and who has been called and ordained by God. Remember, no man can take this honor upon himself. He must be called of God, as was Aaron.
Nope. All believers have the authority of Jesus Christ---everything He has we have, and everything He did we can do, because we are joint-heirs with Him.
Mark 16:17-18These miraculous signs will accompany those who believe: They will cast out demons in my name, and they will speak in new languages. They will be able to handle snakes with safety, and if they drink anything poisonous, it won't hurt them. They will be able to place their hands on the sick, and they will be healed."
: Lively StoneWhich fights against what the body of Christ is doing in the world.
On the contrary, we are bringing the fullness of the gospel to the inhabitants of this earth. Seeing the church grow and expand, seeing its membership increase and seeing Joseph Smith's prophecy that temples will dot the earth come to fruition is testament of the truthfulness of our claims.
No, Mormonism fights against the Spirit of God and hampers what the body of Christ is called to do. We are in a battle and the minds and hearts of men are the battlefield.
: Lively StoneIf you don't wake up to the truth, you will be more than just 15 years too late
I don't believe I'll ever be able to convince you of the reality of my experiences or of the truthfulness of the church. All I can leave you with is my testimony that it's true, and that I know this beyond Man's ability to reason. God lives, Jesus is the Christ and His true church was restored through His chosen Prophet, Joseph Smith.
No, you can never convince me of what Holy Spirit has convinced me against by the knowledge of Jesus Christ and His precious word.
Joseph Smith was a heretic in the truest sense of the word, and cannot be considered a prophet of God. He is more akin to Mohammed.
You are evading.
I'm not evading. You gave your definition of a cult and unwittingly condemned Jesus as a cultist.
LOL! If a young person desires to wear a purity ring to denote her vow of chastity until marriage, that is not cultish. It is cultural, just as wedding rings are cultural.
According to you it IS cultish. Are purity rings found in the Bible? Are cross jewelry? No. Therefore, since the Bible doesn't say it, it must be cultish. This is your definition we're working with here.
Your sacred underwear is cultish.
Based on your own made up definition. Tell me, do you believe it is cultish when Aaron was instructed to wear white garments next to their skin. The garments they wore were in association with officiating in the Temple. So actually, our beliefs regarding temple garments are biblical.
Remember, our temple garments are intended to remind us of the covenants we have made with God and as such are not all that very different in intent than a purity ring or cross.
Never heard of that. They are co-everything.
Co-eternal, Co-substantial, Co-equal is what defines the Trinitarian concept of God. Mormons reject this because it is not biblical. When you spoke of the Trinity, it was under the assumption that you believed these things as well. I still don't know if you do or not.
Jesus didn't teach anything that isn't recorded in His word. If it isn't in the bible, and someone claims it is from Jesus, you should know instantly that it is a lie.
John 21:25
"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."
What were these other things he did? Miracles? Probably. But there's a high likelihood that he gave additional instructions as well. And again, nowhere does the Bible say that all of God's truth is contained only in the sixty six books of the Bible.
Hey, the LDS keeps things from you!
There is nothing sacred that cannot be discussed openly. You shroud everything in sacredness, which is the mark of religiosity, and that is a snare.
Except for when Jesus says otherwise. Remember, pearls before swine? Clearly we are told not to sully the things which are sacred before a hostile and ungodly crowd.
The problem is that you have a lack of understanding of what God considers sacred. Mormonism has warped the concept by declaring things sacred which are not. That is the doing of the evil spirit of religion.
This is a matter of personal belief on your part. As for me, I know better.
The whole concept points right at the LDS. Guilty as charged.
Disagree, of course.
You change the concept of God as Father. Is He the Father of flora and fauna? He is their Creator, but He is only our Father. Your church is completely missing the boat in their reworking of the concept of God, and needs to be quiet. You out yourself as a cult when you try to approach this topic with your outlandish claims.
I didn't change anything. We view God as our father and as theirs because He created us. Let me state it plainly here, we don't believe Jesus and Satan are brothers in the same way that we look at human relations. Jesus and Satan, or any of us, were not born in the same way people on earth are born. God created us. We don't know how, and we don't really care.
The word tells us that God the Father is Spirit. That is who He is and that is His substance. The body God has is made of spirit, which has substance. The physical body belongs to Jesus.
And where does the Bible say that God's only substance is spirit? As I've already said, the original Greek merely says God Spirit. We agree that God is Spirit, but as the Apostle Paul pointed out, physical, resurrected bodies are considered "spiritual bodies." You are reading your already preconceived notions into this verse and the Bible doesn't support it.
I am loathe to agree, however if I dig deep enough I will see the finger of the devil somewhere there, distorting the truth in some way. He wouldn't dare leave the essence of who God is untouched. I have already seen how God is distorted by the Mormon religion, making him a creature of flesh and bone, who has had a wife and fathered both Jesus and Lucifer. That's a ploy of Lucifer Himself.
Another accusation of the devil working his magic, so to speak. Look all you want, the devil has no part in our faith.
The essence of who God is was perverted by Christians in the early fourth century. The LDS position is the one espoused throughout the Bible and was the orthodox position for the first two or three centuries afterwards. This is a matter of simple research.
All Persons in the Godhead are equal to one another. No One is greater than the other. The fact that the Son took on human nature and made Himself subservient to the Father temporarily in no way denies the deity of Jesus Christ, nor does it diminish His essential equality with the Father.
The Bible makes it plain that the Son is subordinate to the Father. Jesus Christ said that the Father is greater than he is. That alone is pretty damaging to your claim. Then factor in Christ's statement that he has come to do the will of his father who sent him, not his own. So again, we have a father who devised the plan of salvation, and sent the Son. Also, it is well known that only the father knows the time of the end of the world. If they were both equal, this would be knowledge afforded to both. And last, we have the words of the resurrected savior to Mary Magdalene, that he has not yet ascended to his father...and his god. So right here, we see that the Son perceives the Father to be His God. That in no way implies equality.
I am sure you are aware of your own spiritual truth, but you are not aware that you are traveling on the broad road, apart from all born again Christians in the world who are traveling the narrow road toward their destination---LIFE.
On the contrary. I fear it is YOU who is lost right now, wandering in darkness. Indeed, much as the prophet Amos predicted, that there would be many running to and fro, searching for the true word of God and will not be able to find it. Fortunately, I face no such dilemma. I am in God's kingdom and it has brought tremendous blessings to me and my family.
It wasn't God. He is trying to lead you out.
You weren't there. It was indeed God. If you experienced what I did, you'd have no choice but to believe. For me, my beliefs have transcended faith to the point where I have a perfect and full knowledge of the Truth.
No, Mormonism fights against the Spirit of God and hampers what the body of Christ is called to do. We are in a battle and the minds and hearts of men are the battlefield.
Actually, it is Mormons who are the only ones authorized to preach the gospel and administer in the saving ordinances of the gospel.
Nope. All believers have the authority of Jesus Christ---everything He has we have, and everything He did we can do, because we are joint-heirs with Him.
Yes all believers of Christ's true church. But the Priesthood is found only in the LDS church and no man can claim authority unless called by God through revelation, as per the criteria laid out in the Bible.
And as a little side note, notice how we are joint-heirs with Christ. Think about that in regard to our belief in the deification of Man. Think of what Christ has and is, and what it means to be an heir.
Mark 16:17-18
These miraculous signs will accompany those who believe: They will cast out demons in my name, and they will speak in new languages. They will be able to handle snakes with safety, and if they drink anything poisonous, it won't hurt them. They will be able to place their hands on the sick, and they will be healed."
Yes, those who believe and are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
No, you can never convince me of what Holy Spirit has convinced me against by the knowledge of Jesus Christ and His precious word.
Unfortunately, it wasn't the Holy Spirit. If it was the Spirit, you'd be Mormon by now.
Joseph Smith was a heretic in the truest sense of the word, and cannot be considered a prophet of God. He is more akin to Mohammed.
Joseph Smith was indeed a prophet of God, foreordained to usher in the dispensation of the fullness of times. Reject him at your peril.
: the_last_gunslinger Sat Mar 09, 2013 - 20:55:33
You are evading.
I'm not evading. You gave your definition of a cult and unwittingly condemned Jesus as a cultist.
Nope, never did that. ::frown::
: Lively StoneLOL! If a young person desires to wear a purity ring to denote her vow of chastity until marriage, that is not cultish. It is cultural, just as wedding rings are cultural.
According to you it IS cultish. Are purity rings found in the Bible? Are cross jewelry? No. Therefore, since the Bible doesn't say it, it must be cultish. This is your definition we're working with here.
Not. you need to discern the difference between cultural and cultish. I've done that. Your turn.
: Lively StoneYour sacred underwear is cultish.
Based on your own made up definition. Tell me, do you believe it is cultish when Aaron was instructed to wear white garments next to their skin. The garments they wore were in association with officiating in the Temple. So actually, our beliefs regarding temple garments are biblical.
LOL! "Instructed" is the byword, here. Who gave the instruction?
Remember, our temple garments are intended to remind us of the covenants we have made with God and as such are not all that very different in intent than a purity ring or cross.
Temple life no longer exists. Making your activities secret and sacred is the telling point that it is not cultural but cultish--and not required by God in serving Him.
: Lively StoneNever heard of that. They are co-everything.
Co-eternal, Co-substantial, Co-equal is what defines the Trinitarian concept of God. Mormons reject this because it is not biblical. When you spoke of the Trinity, it was under the assumption that you believed these things as well. I still don't know if you do or not.
You reject a lot of things that ARE biblical. How can you expect anyone to believe that you know what you are talking about, scripturally?
: Lively Stone
Jesus didn't teach anything that isn't recorded in His word. If it isn't in the bible, and someone claims it is from Jesus, you should know instantly that it is a lie.
John 21:25
"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."
What were these other things he did? Miracles? Probably. But there's a high likelihood that he gave additional instructions as well. And again, nowhere does the Bible say that all of God's truth is contained only in the sixty six books of the Bible.
Typical. You want to use that one verse to excuse the Mormon's acceptance of another gospel dictated by a demon spirit to a wayward man?
There is NOTHING absent from scripture than ANYONE needs to know! Those countless other things that Jesus did were more of the same miraculous events He did that were recorded. He said nothing new or it would be there for us. You need to trust God!
: Lively StoneHey, the LDS keeps things from you!
There is nothing sacred that cannot be discussed openly. You shroud everything in sacredness, which is the mark of religiosity, and that is a snare.
Except for when Jesus says otherwise. Remember, pearls before swine? Clearly we are told not to sully the things which are sacred before a hostile and ungodly crowd.
The first thing to remember is that one must know what is sacred and what isn't. Clearly, the Mormon needs instruction in that area. The truth is not to be kept under wraps.
Being wise and keeping one's lips shut is one thing, but keeping things shrouded in mystery and secrecy is not of God. It's a Satanic game. It is not unlike the Satanic cult of Freemasonry which your Joseph Smith was a member of.
: Lively StoneThe problem is that you have a lack of understanding of what God considers sacred. Mormonism has warped the concept by declaring things sacred which are not. That is the doing of the evil spirit of religion.
This is a matter of personal belief on your part. As for me, I know better.
That is not the truth.
: Lively StoneThe whole concept points right at the LDS. Guilty as charged.
Disagree, of course.
Of course, but it is true, nonetheless.
: Lively StoneYou change the concept of God as Father. Is He the Father of flora and fauna? He is their Creator, but He is only our Father. Your church is completely missing the boat in their reworking of the concept of God, and needs to be quiet. You out yourself as a cult when you try to approach this topic with your outlandish claims.
I didn't change anything. We view God as our father and as theirs because He created us. Let me state it plainly here, we don't believe Jesus and Satan are brothers in the same way that we look at human relations. Jesus and Satan, or any of us, were not born in the same way people on earth are born. God created us. We don't know how, and we don't really care.
Your view is erroneous, and spiritually immature.
Jesus was born like any other baby boy is born.
: Lively StoneThe word tells us that God the Father is Spirit. That is who He is and that is His substance. The body God has is made of spirit, which has substance. The physical body belongs to Jesus.
And where does the Bible say that God's only substance is spirit? As I've already said, the original Greek merely says God Spirit. We agree that God is Spirit, but as the Apostle Paul pointed out, physical, resurrected bodies are considered "spiritual bodies." You are reading your already preconceived notions into this verse and the Bible doesn't support it.
I gave the scriptural passage already. It says that God is Spirit. That is His substance. You are keeping to your malformed understanding and adding to it the fact that human flesh will one day be glorified and become like Jesus' glorified flesh body. We will be exactly like He is. The Father remains as He always has been, and so does Holy Spirit.
: Lively StoneI am loathe to agree, however if I dig deep enough I will see the finger of the devil somewhere there, distorting the truth in some way. He wouldn't dare leave the essence of who God is untouched. I have already seen how God is distorted by the Mormon religion, making him a creature of flesh and bone, who has had a wife and fathered both Jesus and Lucifer. That's a ploy of Lucifer Himself.
Another accusation of the devil working his magic, so to speak. Look all you want, the devil has no part in our faith.
He is the great deceiver and the author of it all, that angel of light that appeared to the apostate and beguiled Joseph Smith.
The essence of who God is was perverted by Christians in the early fourth century. The LDS position is the one espoused throughout the Bible and was the orthodox position for the first two or three centuries afterwards. This is a matter of simple research.
Nonsense.
: Lively StoneAll Persons in the Godhead are equal to one another. No One is greater than the other. The fact that the Son took on human nature and made Himself subservient to the Father temporarily in no way denies the deity of Jesus Christ, nor does it diminish His essential equality with the Father.
The Bible makes it plain that the Son is subordinate to the Father. Jesus Christ said that the Father is greater than he is. That alone is pretty damaging to your claim. Then factor in Christ's statement that he has come to do the will of his father who sent him, not his own. So again, we have a father who devised the plan of salvation, and sent the Son. Also, it is well known that only the father knows the time of the end of the world. If they were both equal, this would be knowledge afforded to both. And last, we have the words of the resurrected savior to Mary Magdalene, that he has not yet ascended to his father...and his god. So right here, we see that the Son perceives the Father to be His God. That in no way implies equality.
Nothing is damaging to my claim. Jesus placed Himself as submissive to the Father temporarily---as I said. His greatness and equality with Him is not in question.
Jesus chose to allow the Father to have such knowledge about the end, but Jesus has that knowledge well in hand now.
As for His appearance to Mary Magdalene, what are you saying---that Jesus the man shouldn't recognize the Father as God all of a sudden?
: Lively StoneI am sure you are aware of your own spiritual truth, but you are not aware that you are traveling on the broad road, apart from all born again Christians in the world who are traveling the narrow road toward their destination---LIFE.
On the contrary. I fear it is YOU who is lost right now, wandering in darkness. Indeed, much as the prophet Amos predicted, that there would be many running to and fro, searching for the true word of God and will not be able to find it. Fortunately, I face no such dilemma. I am in God's kingdom and it has brought tremendous blessings to me and my family.
You have become lulled into sleep by the enemy. Being disobedient and accepting other revelations and false prophets leads to spiritual weakness and death:
Judges 16:19Delilah lulled Samson to sleep with his head in her lap, and then she called in a man to shave off the seven locks of his hair. In this way she began to bring him down, and his strength left him.
The Lord Jesus Christ is my Lord and Saviour, and His word is my spiritual food. His Spirit dwells within me and shows me the way to go. He has never let me down. He shows me what is of God and what serves the cause of Satan. Mormonism is a blatant example of the delusion of Satan on the minds and hearts of men, women and dear children in many places on the globe.
I will spend my life stomping on Satan's head, and will not quit until I breathe my last---and even then I'll get a few good licks in.
Deuteronomy 28:13If you listen to these commands of the Lord your God that I am giving you today, and if you carefully obey them,
the Lord will make you the head and not the tail, and you will always be on top and never at the bottom.Habakkuk 3:19The Sovereign Lord is my strength! He makes me as surefooted as a deer, able to tread upon the heights.
: Lively StoneIt wasn't God. He is trying to lead you out.
You weren't there. It was indeed God. If you experienced what I did, you'd have no choice but to believe. For me, my beliefs have transcended faith to the point where I have a perfect and full knowledge of the Truth.
I needn't have had to have been there. Experiencing God is not what you have experienced. You do not have full and perfect knowledge of the Truth. That is a lie of the enemy you are choosing to believe, and a prideful boast, because NO ONE person has full and perfect knowledge of the Truth. We who know Jesus Christ are all at different levels of sanctification, and maturity.
: Lively StoneNo, Mormonism fights against the Spirit of God and hampers what the body of Christ is called to do. We are in a battle and the minds and hearts of men are the battlefield.
Actually, it is Mormons who are the only ones authorized to preach the gospel and administer in the saving ordinances of the gospel.
Now your error is condensing into solid patches. ::pondering::
: Lively StoneNope. All believers have the authority of Jesus Christ---everything He has we have, and everything He did we can do, because we are joint-heirs with Him.
Yes all believers of Christ's true church. But the Priesthood is found only in the LDS church and no man can claim authority unless called by God through revelation, as per the criteria laid out in the Bible.
And as a little side note, notice how we are joint-heirs with Christ. Think about that in regard to our belief in the deification of Man. Think of what Christ has and is, and what it means to be an heir.
More solid evidence of error. I am a member of the royal priesthood of God. I don't think you know the word very well. That is the problem with those who compromise God's holy word by accepting a man's delusional words that are touted as equal with God's holy word!
: Lively StoneMark 16:17-18
These miraculous signs will accompany those who believe: They will cast out demons in my name, and they will speak in new languages. They will be able to handle snakes with safety, and if they drink anything poisonous, it won't hurt them. They will be able to place their hands on the sick, and they will be healed."
Yes, those who believe and are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
More bamboozlement.
: Lively StoneNo, you can never convince me of what Holy Spirit has convinced me against by the knowledge of Jesus Christ and His precious word.
Unfortunately, it wasn't the Holy Spirit. If it was the Spirit, you'd be Mormon by now.
God help you.
: Lively StoneJoseph Smith was a heretic in the truest sense of the word, and cannot be considered a prophet of God. He is more akin to Mohammed.
Joseph Smith was indeed a prophet of God, foreordained to usher in the dispensation of the fullness of times. Reject him at your peril.
He has never demonstrated himself to be a prophet of God except to those his followers succeed in infecting with his tainted message, who never had the truth before they fell into the hands of the LDS.I reject him and please the Lord Jesus Christ in doing so.
Nope, never did that.
Yes you do. You defined a cult as being exclusive (the only ones who have salvation) By being authoritarian (demanding obedience) and by withholding some teachings. Jesus did all of these things. Does the Bible not teach that Jesus is the way, the only means of salvation? That there is no name given that can redeem mankind save Christ alone? Exclusivity. Are we not told to have complete faith and obedience in both the Father and Son, and likewise were not the ancient Jews subject to the words of the Prophets as delivered by God? Authoritarian. And didn't Jesus teach in parables to hide certain divine truths from the people? Remember when Christ took his disciples away from the crowd and said this, "To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted." Some of Christ's followers were granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, and others were not. Secretive.
Not. you need to discern the difference between cultural and cultish. I've done that. Your turn.
I'm not concerned with such a distinction. You're original claim was that it was cultish because it was not in the Bible. Neither are purity rings, therefore, you'd think those are cultish also. What you're doing now is changing your own definition by making a distinction between culture and cult. Your argument fails because you use your own definition of cult as proof that we are one. That's a textbook example of circular reasoning.
LOL! "Instructed" is the byword, here. Who gave the instruction?
God did, but that's not my point. You scoffed at the idea of sacred clothing, believing that too is the sign of a cult. I merely pointed out that there is clear biblical precedence for this.
Temple life no longer exists. Making your activities secret and sacred is the telling point that it is not cultural but cultish--and not required by God in serving Him.
They're not secret. They're sacred. We will not withhold anything from those who honestly wish to partake. The Temple is open to all who are willing to obey the will of God.
You reject a lot of things that ARE biblical. How can you expect anyone to believe that you know what you are talking about, scripturally?
I haven't rejected anything biblical. My understanding is different than yours is all. Now I may not be a Bible scholar, but I think I've done an adequate job of showing that I am at least passingly familiar with the Scriptures.
Typical. You want to use that one verse to excuse the Mormon's acceptance of another gospel dictated by a demon spirit to a wayward man?
Mormons don't preach another gospel, but that's beside the point. My attempt was to illustrate that Jesus did far more than what is recorded in the Bible. What transpired, I don't know. I'm not saying he instituted modern day temple rituals to his disciples, nor do I believe that's what this was talking about. I aimed to show only that the Bible does not have a complete record of everything Christ said or did.
There is NOTHING absent from scripture than ANYONE needs to know! Those countless other things that Jesus did were more of the same miraculous events He did that were recorded. He said nothing new or it would be there for us. You need to trust God!
And how do you know there is nothing absent? The Bible doesn't make that claim ever.
The first thing to remember is that one must know what is sacred and what isn't. Clearly, the Mormon needs instruction in that area. The truth is not to be kept under wraps.
There's nothing to say to this if you insist on believing that these things aren't sacred. Of course you're going to hold such a view if you reject the church. I don't, however and see nothing in the Bible that forbids cherishing the sacred.
Being wise and keeping one's lips shut is one thing, but keeping things shrouded in mystery and secrecy is not of God. It's a Satanic game. It is not unlike the Satanic cult of Freemasonry which your Joseph Smith was a member of.
We don't keep things shrouded in mystery and secrecy. Again, the Temple is available to all, as well as its moving symbolism.
I'm also unaware of the Freemasons being Satanic.
I gave the scriptural passage already. It says that God is Spirit. That is His substance. You are keeping to your malformed understanding and adding to it the fact that human flesh will one day be glorified and become like Jesus' glorified flesh body. We will be exactly like He is. The Father remains as He always has been, and so does Holy Spirit.
You gave a verse that says only in essence, God Spirit. That is a far cry from your claim that God's essence is ONLY spirit. Nowhere is that found in the Bible. Where is it written that the Father has only a spiritual body? Simply saying that He is Spirit does not cut it. Mormons believe this too.
He is the great deceiver and the author of it all, that angel of light that appeared to the apostate and beguiled Joseph Smith.
Right, the devil came to Joseph Smith and founded a church that stresses the importance of living a moral life and accepting Jesus Christ as your savior, while constantly warning against Satan. This doesn't exactly sound like the devil's M.O.
Nonsense.
Why is it nonsense? I've challenged you to show me where the Bible defines the Trinity as currently understood. You cannot do it because it's not in there. The Bible never claims that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are co-equal, co-eternal and co-substantial. That is the current mode of Trinitarian thinking and it is a byproduct of Man, not to be found in any of the holy scriptures.
Likewise, I have already given you several examples of Orthodox first and second century Christians who held to the LDS position regarding the nature of God. (Eusebius, Justin Martyr, etc.)
Nothing is damaging to my claim. Jesus placed Himself as submissive to the Father temporarily---as I said. His greatness and equality with Him is not in question.
And where in the Bible does it say that Jesus Christ "temporarily" made himself subordinate to the Father? Never mind the fact that if they are both of one substance, as Trinitarians believe, it would be impossible to make one part of himself subordinate to the other.
Jesus chose to allow the Father to have such knowledge about the end, but Jesus has that knowledge well in hand now.
Scriptural support for this? Where is it written that Jesus "allowed," the Father to have such knowledge. And why would Jesus NOT permit himself to have it also? What purpose would that serve? The only thing that makes sense is that the plan of salvation proceeded from the Father, as Christ said, and that Christ himself was not permitted to because it was the will of His father, who is greater than He.
As for His appearance to Mary Magdalene, what are you saying---that Jesus the man shouldn't recognize the Father as God all of a sudden?
If the Father and Son are both God as you understand it, then no. If the Father is God to the Son, that immediately eliminates the idea of being co-equal. That's what the word God means. Jesus was supposedly fully God as well. If He is God, how then could he also have a god unless he were subordinate?
You have become lulled into sleep by the enemy. Being disobedient and accepting other revelations and false prophets leads to spiritual weakness and death:
Nope.
I needn't have had to have been there. Experiencing God is not what you have experienced. You do not have full and perfect knowledge of the Truth. That is a lie of the enemy you are choosing to believe, and a prideful boast, because NO ONE person has full and perfect knowledge of the Truth. We who know Jesus Christ are all at different levels of sanctification, and maturity.
Except it was God. I know this. It matters not what you say because I have it on pretty good authority that you are wrong. The Spirit of God was ever present during our conversion, and remains strong as I diligently strive to live a Christian life.
I also never said that I have a full and perfect knowledge of all truth, only that my belief in the LDS church is such that I no longer question or doubt because I know, for the Spirit has given me this testimony.
Now your error is condensing into solid patches.
Nope, just stating simple fact.
More solid evidence of error. I am a member of the royal priesthood of God. I don't think you know the word very well. That is the problem with those who compromise God's holy word by accepting a man's delusional words that are touted as equal with God's holy word!
You don't understand what Peter meant by "royal priesthood." He was making reference to the Old Testament, whereby the people would be "a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation." He is not espousing a Priesthood of all believers, an erroneous doctrine of Martin Luther he used to justify his split with Rome.
Jesus Christ said to his apostles that he 'chose and ordained' them. Not that they had power merely by believing in His name. In fact, Christ also said that not everyone who says they are a follower of his, even if they profess to prophecy in his name and cast out devils are actually chosen of him. The Priesthood of all believers flies in the face of everything the Bible says. And to assume this authority upon yourself is a most grave error that Christ warns us about.
God help you.
Sorry to be so blunt, but I stand by my statement. You do not have the power of the Holy Ghost, which comes only by the laying on of hands by authorized servants of Christ. And those servants came be found only in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
I reject him and please the Lord Jesus Christ in doing so.
Keep in mind the fates of those who reject God's chosen prophets. I can do nothing but voice my testimony of the validity of his prophetic calling. I would not recommend rejecting him or any of his successors.
: the_last_gunslinger Sun Mar 10, 2013 - 08:31:43
Nope, never did that.
Yes you do. You defined a cult as being exclusive (the only ones who have salvation) By being authoritarian (demanding obedience) and by withholding some teachings. Jesus did all of these things. Does the Bible not teach that Jesus is the way, the only means of salvation? That there is no name given that can redeem mankind save Christ alone? Exclusivity. Are we not told to have complete faith and obedience in both the Father and Son, and likewise were not the ancient Jews subject to the words of the Prophets as delivered by God? Authoritarian. And didn't Jesus teach in parables to hide certain divine truths from the people? Remember when Christ took his disciples away from the crowd and said this, "To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted." Some of Christ's followers were granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, and others were not. Secretive.
So, you make Jesus out to be a cultist.
: Lively StoneNot. you need to discern the difference between cultural and cultish. I've done that. Your turn.
I'm not concerned with such a distinction. You're original claim was that it was cultish because it was not in the Bible. Neither are purity rings, therefore, you'd think those are cultish also. What you're doing now is changing your own definition by making a distinction between culture and cult. Your argument fails because you use your own definition of cult as proof that we are one. That's a textbook example of circular reasoning.
You need to make the distinction! You are dodging.
: Lively StoneLOL! "Instructed" is the byword, here. Who gave the instruction?
God did, but that's not my point. You scoffed at the idea of sacred clothing, believing that too is the sign of a cult. I merely pointed out that there is clear biblical precedence for this.
No longer applicable in this New Covenant age. What you practice is simply religiosity at its worst.
: Lively StoneTemple life no longer exists. Making your activities secret and sacred is the telling point that it is not cultural but cultish--and not required by God in serving Him.
They're not secret. They're sacred. We will not withhold anything from those who honestly wish to partake. The Temple is open to all who are willing to obey the will of God.
Yeah, right. ::frown:: A Mormon cannot even enter the temple until one is considered worthy. Non-Mormons are not allowed.
: Lively StoneYou reject a lot of things that ARE biblical. How can you expect anyone to believe that you know what you are talking about, scripturally?
I haven't rejected anything biblical. My understanding is different than yours is all. Now I may not be a Bible scholar, but I think I've done an adequate job of showing that I am at least passingly familiar with the Scriptures.
You do reject many biblical truths in favour of your own. Familiarity with scripture means nothing compared with knowing Jesus Christ and His truth. Even the devil knows scripture, and he enjoys twisting it so that the unlearned and learned alike may succumb to his treacly lies.
: Lively StoneTypical. You want to use that one verse to excuse the Mormon's acceptance of another gospel dictated by a demon spirit to a wayward man?
Mormons don't preach another gospel, but that's beside the point. My attempt was to illustrate that Jesus did far more than what is recorded in the Bible. What transpired, I don't know. I'm not saying he instituted modern day temple rituals to his disciples, nor do I believe that's what this was talking about. I aimed to show only that the Bible does not have a complete record of everything Christ said or did.
You've been lulled to sleep by the enemy's lies. The gospel message has been tampered with in Mormonism.
The gospel of Mormonism requires good works. It teaches that righteousness and eternal life are obtained only by keeping the entire law of God. Mormonism teaches that the sacrifice of Jesus provided for the resurrection of all people. It did not pay the full price for salvation. Therefore, Mormons must rely upon their own good works to obtain eternal life. The Mormon gospel also teaches that the sacrificial blood of Jesus is not sufficient to cover some sins. In some cases, the sinner must add his own blood to that of Jesus to atone for the sin.
It's the satanic freemasonry influence.
: Lively StoneThere is NOTHING absent from scripture than ANYONE needs to know! Those countless other things that Jesus did were more of the same miraculous events He did that were recorded. He said nothing new or it would be there for us. You need to trust God!
And how do you know there is nothing absent? The Bible doesn't make that claim ever.
There is NOTHING LACKING in the truth of the word God has given us.
Luke 1:1-4Many people have set out to write accounts about the events that have been fulfilled among us. 2 They used the eyewitness reports circulating among us from the early disciples. 3 Having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I also have decided to write a careful account for you, most honorable Theophilus, 4
so you can be certain of the truth of everything you were taught.1 Corinthians 4:6Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us
you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.
: Lively Stone
The first thing to remember is that one must know what is sacred and what isn't. Clearly, the Mormon needs instruction in that area. The truth is not to be kept under wraps.
There's nothing to say to this if you insist on believing that these things aren't sacred. Of course you're going to hold such a view if you reject the church. I don't, however and see nothing in the Bible that forbids cherishing the sacred.
I don't reject the church of Jesus Christ, but I do reject the facsimile you belong to and the things made up out of the minds of wayward men who say they are sacred.
: Lively StoneBeing wise and keeping one's lips shut is one thing, but keeping things shrouded in mystery and secrecy is not of God. It's a Satanic game. It is not unlike the Satanic cult of Freemasonry which your Joseph Smith was a member of.
We don't keep things shrouded in mystery and secrecy. Again, the Temple is available to all, as well as its moving symbolism.
I'm also unaware of the Freemasons being Satanic.
Sure you have secrecy, and yes, Freemasonry is rooted in the Satanic. As your precious Joseph Smith was a Freemason, we can know that he was deluded from the very outset. God wouldn't be using a man like that to further His kingdom...but Satan surely would.
: Lively StoneI gave the scriptural passage already. It says that God is Spirit. That is His substance. You are keeping to your malformed understanding and adding to it the fact that human flesh will one day be glorified and become like Jesus' glorified flesh body. We will be exactly like He is. The Father remains as He always has been, and so does Holy Spirit.
You gave a verse that says only in essence, God Spirit. That is a far cry from your claim that God's essence is ONLY spirit. Nowhere is that found in the Bible. Where is it written that the Father has only a spiritual body? Simply saying that He is Spirit does not cut it. Mormons believe this too.
God is Spirit. Period. You need nothing else. You have no biblical proof that God is anything but.
: Lively StoneHe is the great deceiver and the author of it all, that angel of light that appeared to the apostate and beguiled Joseph Smith.
Right, the devil came to Joseph Smith and founded a church that stresses the importance of living a moral life and accepting Jesus Christ as your savior, while constantly warning against Satan. This doesn't exactly sound like the devil's M.O.
Yes, he did. He has seen to it that he has perverted who Jesus is. That way, Mormons believe they are worshiping Jesus Christ, but it isn't Jesus at all--you worship a false Jesus. Mormons believe insidious lies about Him. They alter the truth about who He is, where He was born (they deny the word of God and teach he was born in Jerusalem), teach that He was married to more than one woman, that He is the brother of Lucifer, and that He had a mother.
BEWARE, PEOPLE!2 Corinthians 11:4You happily put up with whatever anyone tells you, even if they preach a different Jesus than the one we preach, or a different kind of Spirit than the one you received, or a different kind of gospel than the one you believed.
Matthew 7:15"Beware of false prophets who come disguised as harmless sheep but are really vicious wolves.
Matthew 7:22-23On judgment day many will say to me, 'Lord! Lord! We prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name and performed many miracles in your name.' But I will reply, 'I never knew you. Get away from me, you who break God's laws.'
: Lively StoneNonsense.
Why is it nonsense? I've challenged you to show me where the Bible defines the Trinity as currently understood. You cannot do it because it's not in there. The Bible never claims that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are co-equal, co-eternal and co-substantial. That is the current mode of Trinitarian thinking and it is a byproduct of Man, not to be found in any of the holy scriptures.
Likewise, I have already given you several examples of Orthodox first and second century Christians who held to the LDS position regarding the nature of God. (Eusebius, Justin Martyr, etc.)
I go by the word! No one who knows Jesus Christ personally holds to any LDS position.
God has revealed Himself as three literally at the baptism of Jesus! That is enough for me!
: Lively StoneNothing is damaging to my claim. Jesus placed Himself as submissive to the Father temporarily---as I said. His greatness and equality with Him is not in question.
And where in the Bible does it say that Jesus Christ "temporarily" made himself subordinate to the Father? Never mind the fact that if they are both of one substance, as Trinitarians believe, it would be impossible to make one part of himself subordinate to the other.
1 Corinthians 15:24After that the end will come, when he will turn the Kingdom over to God the Father, having destroyed every ruler and authority and power.
: Lively StoneJesus chose to allow the Father to have such knowledge about the end, but Jesus has that knowledge well in hand now.
Scriptural support for this? Where is it written that Jesus "allowed," the Father to have such knowledge. And why would Jesus NOT permit himself to have it also? What purpose would that serve? The only thing that makes sense is that the plan of salvation proceeded from the Father, as Christ said, and that Christ himself was not permitted to because it was the will of His father, who is greater than He.
Jesus knows all things, as God. As a man, confined in the flesh and to Earth on His mission, it wasn't required for Him to know the day or hour at which He would return. His business was then and there for that time, to be the Redeemer.
: Lively StoneAs for His appearance to Mary Magdalene, what are you saying---that Jesus the man shouldn't recognize the Father as God all of a sudden?
If the Father and Son are both God as you understand it, then no. If the Father is God to the Son, that immediately eliminates the idea of being co-equal. That's what the word God means. Jesus was supposedly fully God as well. If He is God, how then could he also have a god unless he were subordinate?
Nonsense!
There's nothing 'odd' about Jesus the Messiah calling God 'God' at all. Not only is it historically and theologically inconceivable that He would deny that, we also have passages where God (within the literary structure, and not just through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) calls Jesus "God", too:
Philippians 2:6-116 Though he was God,
he did not think of equality with God
as something to cling to.
7 Instead, he gave up his divine privileges;
he took the humble position of a slave
and was born as a human being.
When he appeared in human form,
8 he humbled himself in obedience to God
and died a criminal's death on a cross.
9 Therefore, God elevated him to the place of highest honor
and gave him the name above all other names,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
Hebrews 1:8But to the Son he says,
"Your throne, O God, endures forever and ever.
You rule with a scepter of justice.
Jesus regularly refers to His Father as "God" before His followers and His audiences---this is no big deal.
: Lively StoneYou have become lulled into sleep by the enemy. Being disobedient and accepting other revelations and false prophets leads to spiritual weakness and death:
Nope.
Indeed it does. Anaesthetized is more the effect.
: Lively StoneI needn't have had to have been there. Experiencing God is not what you have experienced. You do not have full and perfect knowledge of the Truth. That is a lie of the enemy you are choosing to believe, and a prideful boast, because NO ONE person has full and perfect knowledge of the Truth. We who know Jesus Christ are all at different levels of sanctification, and maturity.
Except it was God. I know this. It matters not what you say because I have it on pretty good authority that you are wrong. The Spirit of God was ever present during our conversion, and remains strong as I diligently strive to live a Christian life.
Your understanding of our authority is skewed. It is not that of Jesus Christ and His word, because you believe in another Jesus and adulterated as well as OTHER false scriptures.
Striving (to live a Christian life) is a notorious aspect of Mormonism. That is because they do not have the power of Holy Spirit to live for Christ without striving.
I also never said that I have a full and perfect knowledge of all truth, only that my belief in the LDS church is such that I no longer question or doubt because I know, for the Spirit has given me this testimony.
That is not the idea you have conveyed.
: Lively StoneNow your error is condensing into solid patches.
Nope, just stating simple fact.
Solid clumps of error.
: Lively StoneMore solid evidence of error. I am a member of the royal priesthood of God. I don't think you know the word very well. That is the problem with those who compromise God's holy word by accepting a man's delusional words that are touted as equal with God's holy word!
You don't understand what Peter meant by "royal priesthood." He was making reference to the Old Testament, whereby the people would be "a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation." He is not espousing a Priesthood of all believers, an erroneous doctrine of Martin Luther he used to justify his split with Rome.
Jesus Christ said to his apostles that he 'chose and ordained' them. Not that they had power merely by believing in His name. In fact, Christ also said that not everyone who says they are a follower of his, even if they profess to prophecy in his name and cast out devils are actually chosen of him. The Priesthood of all believers flies in the face of everything the Bible says. And to assume this authority upon yourself is a most grave error that Christ warns us about.
This is something that you cannot speak knowledgeably about. You are completely wrong in all aspects of this subject matter. Every single believer in Jesus Christ (the real Jesus Christ) has every spiritual blessing and promise that Jesus has, as well as every authority He has, because we are His joint-heirs, brothers by adoption into the Family of God. Whatever belongs to Jesus is mine also.
: Lively StoneGod help you.
Sorry to be so blunt, but I stand by my statement. You do not have the power of the Holy Ghost, which comes only by the laying on of hands by authorized servants of Christ. And those servants came be found only in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
I have the power of Holy Spirit coursing through me as a Spirit-filled believer in Jesus Christ. The same power that raised Jesus from the grave lives within me. Such is the miraculously wonderful and joyous thing we have in Christ! The LDS has no clue about it.
: Lovely StoneI reject Joseph Smith and please the Lord Jesus Christ in doing so.
Keep in mind the fates of those who reject God's chosen prophets. I can do nothing but voice my testimony of the validity of his prophetic calling. I would not recommend rejecting him or any of his successors.
Keep in mind the fate that awaits those who follow false prophets!
God says He will destroy the false prophet, but He will also punish those who follow the false prophets!
Isaiah 9:14-16Therefore, in a single day the Lord will destroy both the head and the tail,
the noble palm branch and the lowly reed.
15 The leaders of Israel are the head,
and the lying prophets are the tail.
16 For the leaders of the people have misled them.
They have led them down the path of destruction.
Ezekiel 14:10False prophets and those who seek their guidance will all be punished for their sins.
Matthew 15:14 so ignore them. They are blind guides leading the blind, and if one blind person guides another, they will both fall into a ditch."
Luke 6:39 Then Jesus gave the following illustration: "Can one blind person lead another? Won't they both fall into a ditch?
We have see in scripture the fate of false prophets, and we can see that the fate of those who follow false prophets will be the same. These people are also lost. A good reason for judging false prophesy is that the spiritual eyes of those who are deceived may be opened, that they also may turn from the error of their ways. Most false prophets do not know that they are false, because they are deceived, so if their falseness can be exposed, there is the possibility that they will repent and get right with God:
James 5:19-20My dear brothers and sisters, if someone among you wanders away from the truth and is brought back, 20 you can be sure that whoever brings the sinner back will save that person from death and bring about the forgiveness of many sins.
2 Peter 3:9The Lord isn't really being slow about his promise, as some people think. No, he is being patient for your sake. He does not want anyone to be destroyed, but wants everyone to repent.
As long as you are still breathing, there is time to repent.
So, you make Jesus out to be a cultist.
No. YOU did. I just illustrated the point I made in my opening post, that is, any attempt to label us as a cult unwittingly labels Christianity one as well. You made up your own definition, even and unfortunately for you, if you truly believe exclusivity, secrecy and authority constitutes a cult, then you must begrudgingly accept Jesus Christ as a cult leader.
I don't do that, and I wouldn't define a cult as such.
You need to make the distinction! You are dodging.
I'm not dodging. I'm simply not entertaining that portion of the argument since it is irrelevant to what we're speaking about. You initially claimed that any religious practice not found in the Bible is cultish. When I showed you two prominent ones found in Protestant circles, you changed your argument and said that since they are cultural it's okay. It's up to you to defend your initial statement and to explain away your double standard.
No longer applicable in this New Covenant age. What you practice is simply religiosity at its worst.
And when did this New Covenant age commence? Immediately after Christ? If so, then you need to explain why there are many accounts of the apostles worshiping in the temple found in the Book of Acts. While Paul was praying in the temple, he was given a vision in a trance (Acts 22:17). The Lord then appears to him in the temple in the very next verse. Clearly the apostles didn't stop worshiping in temples upon the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ.
Yeah, right. ::frown:: A Mormon cannot even enter the temple until one is considered worthy. Non-Mormons are not allowed.
But not because they're secret, but sacred. The Temple is the House of the Lord and we are expected to live a life worthy to be in His presence. If someone had a no smoking policy for his home and refused to let people smoke in there, would that be evidence that he is being secretive? Or is it illustrative that there are certain standards that must be kept to be allowed entrance? It's a similar concept here. To claim that they are "secret," would mean that we intentionally keep them from others. And if you knew anything about our missionary endeavors, you'd know that it is the church's desire that everyone everywhere would partake of the blessing afforded by the temple.
You do reject many biblical truths in favour of your own. Familiarity with scripture means nothing compared with knowing Jesus Christ and His truth. Even the devil knows scripture, and he enjoys twisting it so that the unlearned and learned alike may succumb to his treacly lies.
Correct, but whose understanding has been twisted by Satan? It wasn't mine so...
You've been lulled to sleep by the enemy's lies. The gospel message has been tampered with in Mormonism.
The gospel of Mormonism requires good works. It teaches that righteousness and eternal life are obtained only by keeping the entire law of God. Mormonism teaches that the sacrifice of Jesus provided for the resurrection of all people. It did not pay the full price for salvation. Therefore, Mormons must rely upon their own good works to obtain eternal life. The Mormon gospel also teaches that the sacrificial blood of Jesus is not sufficient to cover some sins. In some cases, the sinner must add his own blood to that of Jesus to atone for the sin.
Patently false. We don't believe this. We don't in any way believe our works can justify us. We all have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God. We need a savior or else we'd be utterly lost. What you just stated is a common misunderstanding promulgated by those who are antagonistic to the church.
There is NOTHING LACKING in the truth of the word God has given us.
That's true. Unfortunately, you reject most of what God has revealed in favor of a man-made doctrine of Biblical exclusivity.
God wouldn't be using a man like that to further His kingdom
Sure, God wouldn't use a man with flaws...because being a free mason is far worse than murderers, adulterers and persecutors in the Bible he used to further His goals, right?
God is Spirit. Period. You need nothing else. You have no biblical proof that God is anything but.
Simply repeating your statement doesn't make it any more cogent. You have not shown any evidence that God's essence is only spirit. You cite only one instance that is accurately rendered "God Spirit." Where in these two words do you derive that God only has a spirit body and is merely of spiritual essence?
Yes, he did. He has seen to it that he has perverted who Jesus is. That way, Mormons believe they are worshiping Jesus Christ, but it isn't Jesus at all--you worship a false Jesus. Mormons believe insidious lies about Him. They alter the truth about who He is, where He was born (they deny the word of God and teach he was born in Jerusalem), teach that He was married to more than one woman, that He is the brother of Lucifer, and that He had a mother
.
Clearly you don't understand LDS doctrine. Mormons believe Jesus was born in Bethlehem. the Book of Alma in the Book of Mormon makes a passing reference to him being born in "the LAND of Jerusalem," and this is true. The land of Jerusalem is not the same thing as the city of Jerusalem. Bethlehem is a mere five miles south of Jerusalem. This would definitely constitute being in the land of Jerusalem, especially coming from the prophet Alma, living on the other side of the world. Even locals considered the city of Hebron to be in the land of Jerusalem and that's another 25 miles away.
The LDS also do not, I repeat DO NOT teach that Jesus Christ was married, much less to many women. I've already touched on the relationship between Jesus and Satan, that they are not peers or equals, nor is it taught that they are brothers in any sense other than that God the Father can be rightly called Father to both.
I go by the word! No one who knows Jesus Christ personally holds to any LDS position.
Except the writers of the Bible and the first and second century Christians, you mean?
God has revealed Himself as three literally at the baptism of Jesus! That is enough for me!
...which doesn't prove the Trinitarian viewpoint of God at all. This shows only that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three distinct individuals. It says nothing of them being one God, Co-eternal, Co-substantial and Co-equal. The LDS don't dispute this example and it in no way conflicts with our doctrine.
After that the end will come, when he will turn the Kingdom over to God the Father, having destroyed every ruler and authority and power
This says nothing of Jesus temporarily making himself subordinate to the Father during his mortal sojourn. In fact, it implies heavily that the Father is and always will be greater than he is. Paul is speaking about the resurrection and the end of the world, Christ's second coming. And it states explicitly that Christ will hand over everything to the Father, who put everything below the son, and that the Son will then become subject to God the Father, who put everything below him as well. So we see here that Jesus Christ will reign until he stomps out all evil. Then He will hand over everything to God the Father and become subject to him as well. This isn't speaking about mortality anymore. This is speaking about the eternities. After the world ends, Christ, an immortal and glorified being will become subject to his father. This proves my point that they are not equal, while doing nothing to support your claim that Christ "temporarily" made himself less.
Jesus knows all things, as God. As a man, confined in the flesh and to Earth on His mission, it wasn't required for Him to know the day or hour at which He would return. His business was then and there for that time, to be the Redeemer.
Yes, I know this is your position, but where does the Bible SAY this? Where is it written that it wasn't required of him?
Nonsense!
There's nothing 'odd' about Jesus the Messiah calling God 'God' at all. Not only is it historically and theologically inconceivable that He would deny that, we also have passages where God (within the literary structure, and not just through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) calls Jesus "God", too:
But it doesn't make sense. If Jesus is God and is equal with the Father, why then would he call the Father HIS God? He wasn't speaking broadly about the Father being God, he was speaking personally and intimately of the Father being HIS God. This denotes that the Son is less than the father...his god. How can God himself have a god?
Striving (to live a Christian life) is a notorious aspect of Mormonism. That is because they do not have the power of Holy Spirit to live for Christ without striving
So you don't believe in living a good, moral Christian life? I'm really confused here. Aren't we told to keep the commandments if we love Christ? Aren't we told to be perfect, to endure to the end? Seriously, I don't know why you'd object to Mormons trying to live good, Christ-centered lives. I thought all Christians did this.
That is not the idea you have conveyed.
If so, then it was my error. I would never presume to have a knowledge of all there is as pertaining to God. I'm not that conceded.
This is something that you cannot speak knowledgeably about. You are completely wrong in all aspects of this subject matter. Every single believer in Jesus Christ (the real Jesus Christ) has every spiritual blessing and promise that Jesus has, as well as every authority He has, because we are His joint-heirs, brothers by adoption into the Family of God. Whatever belongs to Jesus is mine also
Every true believer (members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) do have all of the blessing associated with the Holy Ghost. But the Bible is clear on this, no man can assume to act for God. He must be called of God and ordained. God's house is a house of order. If everyone assumed such authority to conduct the affairs of the church, where would the order be? The authority of the Holy Priesthood doesn't come simply because you want it or because you claim to be a follower of Christ. In fact Jesus Christ specifically states that merely being one of his disciples does not make him authorized to administer in the Kingdom. The idea of a priesthood of all believers is a nice, cozy idea, unfortunately, Peter was not espousing such an ideal, nor is this doctrine to be found any earlier than the Protestant reformation. And even then it was used by Martin Luther to try to discredit the Roman Catholic Church. This is a man-made doctrine from Luther that didn't even exist until 1520.
I have the power of Holy Spirit coursing through me as a Spirit-filled believer in Jesus Christ. The same power that raised Jesus from the grave lives within me. Such is the miraculously wonderful and joyous thing we have in Christ! The LDS has no clue about it.
On the contrary. ONLY the LDS know something about it as the gift of the Holy Ghost is only given by those who are authorized to do so, as explained in the Bible. You may have an occasional glimmer of inspiration from the spirit, but unless authorized holders of God's Holy Priesthood, acting under those who hold the proper priesthood keys, lay their hands upon you and bestow this blessing, you do not have the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Keep in mind the fate that awaits those who follow false prophets!
God says He will destroy the false prophet, but He will also punish those who follow the false prophets!
Then it's a good thing I'm not following false prophets.
As long as you are still breathing, there is time to repent.
Indeed, I believe you ought to take this advice.
: the_last_gunslinger Tue Mar 12, 2013 - 09:12:16
So, you make Jesus out to be a cultist.
No. YOU did. I just illustrated the point I made in my opening post, that is, any attempt to label us as a cult unwittingly labels Christianity one as well. You made up your own definition, even and unfortunately for you, if you truly believe exclusivity, secrecy and authority constitutes a cult, then you must begrudgingly accept Jesus Christ as a cult leader.
I don't do that, and I wouldn't define a cult as such.
You uphold what constitutes a cult and claim Jesus is all for it.
: Lively StoneYou need to make the distinction! You are dodging.
I'm not dodging. I'm simply not entertaining that portion of the argument since it is irrelevant to what we're speaking about. You initially claimed that any religious practice not found in the Bible is cultish. When I showed you two prominent ones found in Protestant circles, you changed your argument and said that since they are cultural it's okay. It's up to you to defend your initial statement and to explain away your double standard.
What you claim the Church does is biblical. What the Mormon religion claims is cultish because it defies God's word from the very outset, based on a lie originating from the deceived Joseph Smith---not Jesus Christ.
: Lively Stone
No longer applicable in this New Covenant age. What you practice is simply religiosity at its worst.
And when did this New Covenant age commence? Immediately after Christ? If so, then you need to explain why there are many accounts of the apostles worshiping in the temple found in the Book of Acts. While Paul was praying in the temple, he was given a vision in a trance (Acts 22:17). The Lord then appears to him in the temple in the very next verse. Clearly the apostles didn't stop worshiping in temples upon the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ.
Christian Jews were free to worship God in the Temple! Jesus didn't come to crush Judaism.
: Lively StoneYeah, right. ::frown:: A Mormon cannot even enter the temple until one is considered worthy. Non-Mormons are not allowed.
But not because they're secret, but sacred. The Temple is the House of the Lord and we are expected to live a life worthy to be in His presence. If someone had a no smoking policy for his home and refused to let people smoke in there, would that be evidence that he is being secretive? Or is it illustrative that there are certain standards that must be kept to be allowed entrance? It's a similar concept here. To claim that they are "secret," would mean that we intentionally keep them from others. And if you knew anything about our missionary endeavors, you'd know that it is the church's desire that everyone everywhere would partake of the blessing afforded by the temple.
That is:
1. cultish
2. elitist
The house of God is open to all---sinners included.
: Lively StoneYou do reject many biblical truths in favour of your own. Familiarity with scripture means nothing compared with knowing Jesus Christ and His truth. Even the devil knows scripture, and he enjoys twisting it so that the unlearned and learned alike may succumb to his treacly lies.
Correct, but whose understanding has been twisted by Satan? It wasn't mine so...
Joseph Smith was deceived first hand by a demonic spirit, if not Satan himself. It goes from there.
: Lively StoneYou've been lulled to sleep by the enemy's lies. The gospel message has been tampered with in Mormonism.
The gospel of Mormonism requires good works. It teaches that righteousness and eternal life are obtained only by keeping the entire law of God. Mormonism teaches that the sacrifice of Jesus provided for the resurrection of all people. It did not pay the full price for salvation. Therefore, Mormons must rely upon their own good works to obtain eternal life. The Mormon gospel also teaches that the sacrificial blood of Jesus is not sufficient to cover some sins. In some cases, the sinner must add his own blood to that of Jesus to atone for the sin.
Patently false. We don't believe this. We don't in any way believe our works can justify us. We all have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God. We need a savior or else we'd be utterly lost. What you just stated is a common misunderstanding promulgated by those who are antagonistic to the church.
I don't believe that. There is a heavy weight of performance laid on the backs of Mormons.
: Lively StoneThere is NOTHING LACKING in the truth of the word God has given us.
That's true. Unfortunately, you reject most of what God has revealed in favor of a man-made doctrine of Biblical exclusivity.
That is a lie right there. We have all we need in His given word, and reject only anything that any one claims is a new revelation of Jesus Christ because we know we have His complete revelation already.
False prophets and wolves are those who promote further revelation. Pretty easy to detect, actually.
: Lively StoneGod wouldn't be using a man like that to further His kingdom
Sure, God wouldn't use a man with flaws...because being a free mason is far worse than murderers, adulterers and persecutors in the Bible he used to further His goals, right?
God wouldn't use a man who is not a believer in the first place. Freemasonry is most likely the very place that Joseph Smith received his delusion. It is a Satanic cult also.
: Lively StoneGod is Spirit. Period. You need nothing else. You have no biblical proof that God is anything but.
Simply repeating your statement doesn't make it any more cogent. You have not shown any evidence that God's essence is only spirit. You cite only one instance that is accurately rendered "God Spirit." Where in these two words do you derive that God only has a spirit body and is merely of spiritual essence?
You need to provide scripture that shows that God has physicality apart from the Messiah.
: Lively StoneYes, he did. He has seen to it that he has perverted who Jesus is. That way, Mormons believe they are worshiping Jesus Christ, but it isn't Jesus at all--you worship a false Jesus. Mormons believe insidious lies about Him. They alter the truth about who He is, where He was born (they deny the word of God and teach he was born in Jerusalem), teach that He was married to more than one woman, that He is the brother of Lucifer, and that He had a mother
.
Clearly you don't understand LDS doctrine. Mormons believe Jesus was born in Bethlehem. the Book of Alma in the Book of Mormon makes a passing reference to him being born in "the LAND of Jerusalem," and this is true. The land of Jerusalem is not the same thing as the city of Jerusalem. Bethlehem is a mere five miles south of Jerusalem. This would definitely constitute being in the land of Jerusalem, especially coming from the prophet Alma, living on the other side of the world. Even locals considered the city of Hebron to be in the land of Jerusalem and that's another 25 miles away.
The LDS also do not, I repeat DO NOT teach that Jesus Christ was married, much less to many women. I've already touched on the relationship between Jesus and Satan, that they are not peers or equals, nor is it taught that they are brothers in any sense other than that God the Father can be rightly called Father to both.
I am glad you refute those things, but why on earth change what has already been given by God about Jesus' birthplace?
As for Jesus' marital status, Brigham Young himself had this to say:
"The Scripture says that He, the Lord, came walking in the Temple, with "HIS TRAIN; I do not know who they were, unless his wives and children;" (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13. page 309): Lively StoneI go by the word! No one who knows Jesus Christ personally holds to any LDS position.
Except the writers of the Bible and the first and second century Christians, you mean?
No,
no one who knows Jesus Christ personally holds to any LDS position.
: Lively StoneGod has revealed Himself as three literally at the baptism of Jesus! That is enough for me!
...which doesn't prove the Trinitarian viewpoint of God at all. This shows only that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three distinct individuals. It says nothing of them being one God, Co-eternal, Co-substantial and Co-equal. The LDS don't dispute this example and it in no way conflicts with our doctrine.
Yes, God is revealed as three distinct persons.
: Living StoneAfter that the end will come, when he will turn the Kingdom over to God the Father, having destroyed every ruler and authority and power
This says nothing of Jesus temporarily making himself subordinate to the Father during his mortal sojourn. In fact, it implies heavily that the Father is and always will be greater than he is. Paul is speaking about the resurrection and the end of the world, Christ's second coming. And it states explicitly that Christ will hand over everything to the Father, who put everything below the son, and that the Son will then become subject to God the Father, who put everything below him as well. So we see here that Jesus Christ will reign until he stomps out all evil. Then He will hand over everything to God the Father and become subject to him as well. This isn't speaking about mortality anymore. This is speaking about the eternities. After the world ends, Christ, an immortal and glorified being will become subject to his father. This proves my point that they are not equal, while doing nothing to support your claim that Christ "temporarily" made himself less.
Both Jesus the Son and God the Father and Holy Spirit are equal in power and authority.
: Lively StoneJesus knows all things, as God. As a man, confined in the flesh and to Earth on His mission, it wasn't required for Him to know the day or hour at which He would return. His business was then and there for that time, to be the Redeemer.
Yes, I know this is your position, but where does the Bible SAY this? Where is it written that it wasn't required of him?
Jesus Himself said that the Father knows the time of His return, yet He Himself did not. It was not required of Him to know. He knows now, as the glorified Son, sitting at the right hand of the Father.
: Lively StoneNonsense!
There's nothing 'odd' about Jesus the Messiah calling God 'God' at all. Not only is it historically and theologically inconceivable that He would deny that, we also have passages where God (within the literary structure, and not just through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) calls Jesus "God", too:
But it doesn't make sense. If Jesus is God and is equal with the Father, why then would he call the Father HIS God? He wasn't speaking broadly about the Father being God, he was speaking personally and intimately of the Father being HIS God. This denotes that the Son is less than the father...his god. How can God himself have a god?
It may not make sense to the fleshly mind of man, but it is the truth nonetheless, and must be accepted by faith. I don't have any problem with Jesus declaring the Father to be His God---He was speaking as a flesh man, as our example. As a flesh and blood man, He was a creature a little lower than the angelic realm, just as we are---temporarily.
Hebrews 2:9What we do see is Jesus, who was given a position "a little lower than the angels"; and because he suffered death for us, he is now "crowned with glory and honor." Yes, by God's grace, Jesus tasted death for everyone.
You really need to get into the true word of God.
: Lively StoneStriving (to live a Christian life) is a notorious aspect of Mormonism. That is because they do not have the power of Holy Spirit to live for Christ without striving
So you don't believe in living a good, moral Christian life? I'm really confused here. Aren't we told to keep the commandments if we love Christ? Aren't we told to be perfect, to endure to the end? Seriously, I don't know why you'd object to Mormons trying to live good, Christ-centered lives. I thought all Christians did this.
Walking in the Spirit equates with moral uprightness. Without Holy Spirit living in and through us, we will never be able to walk in righteousness, but will always be striving to reach some benchmark of goodness.
: Lively StoneThis is something that you cannot speak knowledgeably about. You are completely wrong in all aspects of this subject matter. Every single believer in Jesus Christ (the real Jesus Christ) has every spiritual blessing and promise that Jesus has, as well as every authority He has, because we are His joint-heirs, brothers by adoption into the Family of God. Whatever belongs to Jesus is mine also
Every true believer (members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) do have all of the blessing associated with the Holy Ghost. But the Bible is clear on this, no man can assume to act for God. He must be called of God and ordained. God's house is a house of order. If everyone assumed such authority to conduct the affairs of the church, where would the order be? The authority of the Holy Priesthood doesn't come simply because you want it or because you claim to be a follower of Christ. In fact Jesus Christ specifically states that merely being one of his disciples does not make him authorized to administer in the Kingdom. The idea of a priesthood of all believers is a nice, cozy idea, unfortunately, Peter was not espousing such an ideal, nor is this doctrine to be found any earlier than the Protestant reformation. And even then it was used by Martin Luther to try to discredit the Roman Catholic Church. This is a man-made doctrine from Luther that didn't even exist until 1520.
Nonsense. Jesus Christ is busy building His Church and His Spirit is busy anointing His followers to do the work of the Church. There is no organizational chart, or body that ordains men and women---or children for that matter---to do the works of Christ.
God calls, and He equips those He calls. Every person who receives salvation in Jesus Christ receives certain gifts and abilities with which to serve God with power and success. It is not a Church function.
: Lively StoneI have the power of Holy Spirit coursing through me as a Spirit-filled believer in Jesus Christ. The same power that raised Jesus from the grave lives within me. Such is the miraculously wonderful and joyous thing we have in Christ! The LDS has no clue about it.
On the contrary. ONLY the LDS know something about it as the gift of the Holy Ghost is only given by those who are authorized to do so, as explained in the Bible. You may have an occasional glimmer of inspiration from the spirit, but unless authorized holders of God's Holy Priesthood, acting under those who hold the proper priesthood keys, lay their hands upon you and bestow this blessing, you do not have the gift of the Holy Ghost.
This is a complete fabrication of the LDS religion. You are steeped and mired in a false religion and not in the truth of God's word, and are now trying to pass off lies of the Mormon religion to those of us here who know the word of God. It's rather laughable.
As a child of the King, I am a member of the royal priesthood. I have more than one gift of the Holy Spirit, and have the right as a believer to lay hands on those who would receive from Him.
Just from your lack of knowledge about the operation of Holy Spirit, I can see that the LDS has blinded you to His truth and Mormonism has been revealed to be false and a snare.
: Lively StoneKeep in mind the fate that awaits those who follow false prophets!
God says He will destroy the false prophet, but He will also punish those who follow the false prophets!
Then it's a good thing I'm not following false prophets.
That is a foolish thing to be saying, seeing as the LDS is founded not only by a false prophet, but by a poor example of a man, to boot.
: Lively StoneAs long as you are still breathing, there is time to repent.
Indeed, I believe you ought to take this advice.
I have done so---50 years ago and each time I fail God, ever since. I have yet to commit the sin of following after a false prophet and embracing a false religion. That is something Holy Spirit will have to deal heavily with you about. It is only then that you will desire to repent. I do pray that it is soon and will not be too late.
You uphold what constitutes a cult and claim Jesus is all for it.
No...I took your definition of a cult and showed how Jesus fit. I reject your definition of a cult.
What you claim the Church does is biblical. What the Mormon religion claims is cultish because it defies God's word from the very outset, based on a lie originating from the deceived Joseph Smith---not Jesus Christ.
So purity rings and cross jewelry are biblical?
Christian Jews were free to worship God in the Temple! Jesus didn't come to crush Judaism.
Ah, so your initial statement that temple worship ceased was incorrect, then.
That is:
1. cultish
2. elitist
The house of God is open to all---sinners included.
The House of God is open to all who accept His true gospel. Yes, sinners included. Mormons don't expect perfection to enter the temple.
Joseph Smith was deceived first hand by a demonic spirit, if not Satan himself. It goes from there.
I already commented on this topic in the other thread, the biblical test for spirits. Any spirit who testified that Christ was manifest in the flesh is of God, according to 1st John. And since the angels that appeared to Joseph Smith wholeheartedly testified of this, they were not of Satan.
I don't believe that. There is a heavy weight of performance laid on the backs of Mormons.
I don't care if you don't believe it. I've been a member for fifteen years; I know our doctrine better than you do. If you'd like, I can give scriptural support from LDS only scriptures to show this. We believe that we will always fall short of perfection, regardless of how hard we try. That's where the atonement comes in; it makes up that which we lack.
God wouldn't use a man who is not a believer in the first place. Freemasonry is most likely the very place that Joseph Smith received his delusion. It is a Satanic cult also
Joseph Smith didn't become a freemason until 1842, twelve years after the formal organization of the church and twenty two years after the First Vision.
I would like also evidence that Freemasonry is satanic.
You need to provide scripture that shows that God has physicality apart from the Messiah.
The Father has a body of flesh and bones, as tangible as man's; the Son also D&C 130:22. And the numerous accounts of Biblical prophets who saw God and testified that he was in the likeness of Man.
I'd like to see your evidence to the contrary, though. So far, you've offered only God Spirit as proof, which as I've stated, is hardly conclusive. And when you take into consideration what God being Spirit would have meant to the Jewish people further distances your claim from this verse. Christopher Stead, an instructor ad Cambridge Divinity School (and a non-LDS theologian) stated this, "By saying that God is spiritual, we do not mean that he has no body ... but rather that he is the source of a mysterious life-giving power and energy that animates the human body, and himself possesses this energy in the fullest measure." Hebrews would have understood God being a spirit as being in possession of some kind of life-giving power, and this would be seen as his mode of operation, not as a literal description of his being.
And the great Christian writer Tertullian (one of the early Christians that espoused some LDS views) said this, "For who will deny that God is a body, although 'God is a Spirit?' For Spirit has a bodily substance of its own kind, in its own form."
I am glad you refute those things, but why on earth change what has already been given by God about Jesus' birthplace?
Nothing has been changed. Jesus was born in the land of Jerusalem. In fact, this is pretty strong evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. This type of description in relation to a specific place is perfectly in harmony with how the ancient Hebrew people would have understood it.
As for Jesus' marital status, Brigham Young himself had this to say:
"The Scripture says that He, the Lord, came walking in the Temple, with "HIS TRAIN; I do not know who they were, unless his wives and children
First off, I'd hardly say that Brigham Young was saying unequivocally that He was married, only that is what he supposes the scriptures are referring to. Secondly, as I've pointed out in other threads, the Journal of Discourses are not official canon and do not represent what the church teaches as authentic doctrine. In other words, we are not bound by them. And lastly, maybe Brigham Young did believe Christ was married. I know lots of Mormons who do. Even I think it's a possibility. But just because some might think so doesn't make it doctrine. The church takes no official position as to whether or not Jesus was married and allows members to make up their mind on that. Even if we did believe this, though, why is it a big deal? Does the Bible specifically say he wasn't married?
No, no one who knows Jesus Christ personally holds to any LDS position.
...except biblical prophets, apostles and early Christians.
Yes, God is revealed as three distinct persons.
But that's not what the scene at the baptism says. It says only that Christ came up out of the water, the Holy Ghost descended and the Father spoke from heaven. Where in there does it say that these three are One God, co-equal, co-substantial, co-eternal?
Both Jesus the Son and God the Father and Holy Spirit are equal in power and authority.
Yet even the scriptural verses you use to support your argument say otherwise.
It may not make sense to the fleshly mind of man, but it is the truth nonetheless, and must be accepted by faith. I don't have any problem with Jesus declaring the Father to be His God---He was speaking as a flesh man, as our example. As a flesh and blood man, He was a creature a little lower than the angelic realm, just as we are---temporarily.
That's an awfully convenient answer. You're saying in essence, if my doctrine doesn't make sense, it's not supposed to be and it's beyond our comprehension.
Walking in the Spirit equates with moral uprightness. Without Holy Spirit living in and through us, we will never be able to walk in righteousness, but will always be striving to reach some benchmark of goodness.
So essentially you believe the exact same thing we do, that we are to live good lives because we love Christ.
Nonsense. Jesus Christ is busy building His Church and His Spirit is busy anointing His followers to do the work of the Church. There is no organizational chart, or body that ordains men and women---or children for that matter---to do the works of Christ.
So are you just going to ignore all the New Testament references to being called and ordained? Are you going to dispute what the Bible says about an organization that has prophets, apostles, evangelists, teachers, elders, bishops and deacons? These positions were for the edification of the saints until they are unified in faith. And this is something that has clearly not happened. What do you think it meant when Christ called and "ordained" the twelve, or where He gave the keys of the Kingdom to Peter? Why is the Bible full of instances where apostles instructed the church, and where other ecclesiastical positions were filled? What did it mean when Paul wrote to Titus when he gave the instruction, :that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee." See, Titus was to set things in order, and ordain elders in the same manner that Paul appointed Titus himself. As Hebrews 5:4 says, "And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron." This pretty much disrupts your entire argument. You don't get this authority by desiring it, for no man can take this honor upon himself. God must call him, as he did with Aaron.
The idea of a Universal Priesthood is an apostate doctrine that was not in existence until the Protestant reformation.
This is a complete fabrication of the LDS religion. You are steeped and mired in a false religion and not in the truth of God's word, and are now trying to pass off lies of the Mormon religion to those of us here who know the word of God. It's rather laughable.
What's laughable about it? The LDS understanding of the gift of the Holy Ghost is entirely biblical. Only those who possess the authority to bestow it may do so, like Ananias did to Paul upon his conversion.
As a child of the King, I am a member of the royal priesthood. I have more than one gift of the Holy Spirit, and have the right as a believer to lay hands on those who would receive from Him.
Except the Bible does not support a universal priesthood, and that is not what Peter was referring to.
Just from your lack of knowledge about the operation of Holy Spirit, I can see that the LDS has blinded you to His truth and Mormonism has been revealed to be false and a snare.
And what exactly have I said that is incorrect about the Spirit?
God calls, and He equips those He calls. Every person who receives salvation in Jesus Christ receives certain gifts and abilities with which to serve God with power and success. It is not a Church function
.
Yes, certainly. Every individual of Christ's church (LDS) has been given spiritual gifts. But I'm not speaking about that. I'm talking about the authority to act in behalf of God in carrying out the ordinances and function of the church.
That is a foolish thing to be saying, seeing as the LDS is founded not only by a false prophet, but by a poor example of a man, to boot
Is his reputation any more disreputable than the prophets of the Bible? Think about that for a minute.
I have done so---50 years ago and each time I fail God, ever since. I have yet to commit the sin of following after a false prophet and embracing a false religion. That is something Holy Spirit will have to deal heavily with you about. It is only then that you will desire to repent. I do pray that it is soon and will not be too late.
You make it sound like I've never repented before, which I have. I have no reason to repent of my current religious affiliation because God has made it known that I am accepted by Him. And who am I...or you...to disagree with Him or to comment on my relationship with Him?
: the_last_gunslinger Tue Mar 12, 2013 - 15:35:50
You uphold what constitutes a cult and claim Jesus is all for it.
No...I took your definition of a cult and showed how Jesus fit. I reject your definition of a cult.
Of course you do. It is to your own detriment.
: Lively StoneWhat you claim the Church does is biblical. What the Mormon religion claims is cultish because it defies God's word from the very outset, based on a lie originating from the deceived Joseph Smith---not Jesus Christ.
So purity rings and cross jewelry are biblical?
A person who chooses to wear a cross or a purity ring, or a flag pin on their lapel are doing something cultural, not biblical, or cultish. The secret things that the Mormon deems sacred are cultish, and not cultural.
: Lively StoneChristian Jews were free to worship God in the Temple! Jesus didn't come to crush Judaism.
Ah, so your initial statement that temple worship ceased was incorrect, then.
No, not incorrect. Christians quite quickly formed local churches, and became separate from the rejecting Judaism. Churches are not the Temple.
: Lively Stone
That is:
1. cultish
2. elitist
The house of God is open to all---sinners included.
The House of God is open to all who accept His true gospel. Yes, sinners included. Mormons don't expect perfection to enter the temple.
The house of God is open to all, period. Mormons decree worthiness and membership for entry to their temples.
: Lively StoneJoseph Smith was deceived first hand by a demonic spirit, if not Satan himself. It goes from there.
I already commented on this topic in the other thread, the biblical test for spirits. Any spirit who testified that Christ was manifest in the flesh is of God, according to 1st John. And since the angels that appeared to Joseph Smith wholeheartedly testified of this, they were not of Satan.
That is a convenient argument. It is obvious that the lying spirit completely deceived Joseph Smith. The devil himself knows that Jesus Christ is God manifest in the flesh. He offers up twisted truth. It is up to the true believer to be on guard for the subtle lies that Satan presents.
: Lively StoneI don't believe that. There is a heavy weight of performance laid on the backs of Mormons.
I don't care if you don't believe it. I've been a member for fifteen years; I know our doctrine better than you do. If you'd like, I can give scriptural support from LDS only scriptures to show this. We believe that we will always fall short of perfection, regardless of how hard we try. That's where the atonement comes in; it makes up that which we lack.
Trying hard is the hallmark of Mormonism, among other religions. You need to study up on the atonement---it doesn't make up for what we lack. God's grace through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ does it all for us because we lack everything necessary for righteousness in ourselves.
: Lively StoneGod wouldn't use a man who is not a believer in the first place. Freemasonry is most likely the very place that Joseph Smith received his delusion. It is a Satanic cult also
Joseph Smith didn't become a freemason until 1842, twelve years after the formal organization of the church and twenty two years after the First Vision.
Proof enough that he was not led by God.
I would like also evidence that Freemasonry is satanic.
That would necessitate another thread.
: Lively StoneYou need to provide scripture that shows that God has physicality apart from the Messiah.
The Father has a body of flesh and bones, as tangible as man's; the Son also D&C 130:22. And the numerous accounts of Biblical prophets who saw God and testified that he was in the likeness of Man.
Sorry, but you fail to reveal scripture that proves this. When God revealed Himself as a man to anyone in the OT, He was the pre-incarnate Christ.
I'd like to see your evidence to the contrary, though. So far, you've offered only God Spirit as proof, which as I've stated, is hardly conclusive. And when you take into consideration what God being Spirit would have meant to the Jewish people further distances your claim from this verse. Christopher Stead, an instructor ad Cambridge Divinity School (and a non-LDS theologian) stated this, "By saying that God is spiritual, we do not mean that he has no body ... but rather that he is the source of a mysterious life-giving power and energy that animates the human body, and himself possesses this energy in the fullest measure." Hebrews would have understood God being a spirit as being in possession of some kind of life-giving power, and this would be seen as his mode of operation, not as a literal description of his being.
And the great Christian writer Tertullian (one of the early Christians that espoused some LDS views) said this, "For who will deny that God is a body, although 'God is a Spirit?' For Spirit has a bodily substance of its own kind, in its own form."
::pondering:: Still no scripture... ::eatingpopcorn:
: Lively StoneI am glad you refute those things, but why on earth change what has already been given by God about Jesus' birthplace?
Nothing has been changed. Jesus was born in the land of Jerusalem. In fact, this is pretty strong evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. This type of description in relation to a specific place is perfectly in harmony with how the ancient Hebrew people would have understood it.
What God has provided in His word is enough. The Book of Mormon reveals nothing of authenticity, because it is a gargantuan fraud.
: Lively StoneAs for Jesus' marital status, Brigham Young himself had this to say:
"The Scripture says that He, the Lord, came walking in the Temple, with "HIS TRAIN; I do not know who they were, unless his wives and children
First off, I'd hardly say that Brigham Young was saying unequivocally that He was married, only that is what he supposes the scriptures are referring to. Secondly, as I've pointed out in other threads, the Journal of Discourses are not official canon and do not represent what the church teaches as authentic doctrine. In other words, we are not bound by them. And lastly, maybe Brigham Young did believe Christ was married. I know lots of Mormons who do. Even I think it's a possibility. But just because some might think so doesn't make it doctrine. The church takes no official position as to whether or not Jesus was married and allows members to make up their mind on that. Even if we did believe this, though, why is it a big deal? Does the Bible specifically say he wasn't married?
Many other Mormon writers declare Jesus married. For anyone to even entertain the idea reveals a weakness for heresy. The "church' doesn't have the voice to receive or reject or to have
'an official position' on anything. Christians, as the Body of Christ, do.
It's a big deal because to teach that Jesus was married is heresy. Here is more of the heretical Mormon belief:
Note what the LDS prophets preached and believed about Jesus Christ:
Jedediah M. Grant, Second Counselor to Brigham Young the Second Prophet of the LDS Church:
"Celsus was a heathen philosopher; and what does he say upon the subject of Christ and his Apostles, and their belief? He says, the 'grand reason why the Gentiles and philosophers of his school persecuted Jesus Christ, was because He had so many wives; there were Elizabeth, and Mary, and a host of others that followed Him.' After Jesus went from the stage of action, the Apostles followed the example of their master. . . The grand reason of the burst of public sentiment in anathemas upon Christ and his disciples, casing his crucifixion, was evidently based on polygamy,. . .a belief in the doctrine of plurality of wives caused the persecution of Jesus, and his followers. We might almost think they were 'Mormons' " (Journal of Discourses, Vol 1. ppl 345-346)
Mormon Apostle Orson Hyde made these statements:
"It will be borne in mind that once on a time, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; . . .no less a person than Jesus Christ was married on that occasion. If he was never married, his intimacy with Mary and Martha, and the other Mary also whom Jesus loved, must have been highly unbecoming and improper to say the least of it."
"I will venture to say that if Jesus Christ were now to pass thought the most pious countries in Christendom with a train of women, such as used to follow him, . . .he would be mobbed, tarred, and feathered, and rode, not on as ass, but on a rail."
"At this doctrine the long-faced hypocrite and the sanctimonious bigot will probably cry, blasphemy! . . . Object not, therefore, too strongly against the marriage of Christ." (All the above statements: Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pages 259-260)
"When Mary of old came to the sepulcher. . .she saw two angels in white. and they said unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She said unto them, Because they have take away my Lord, OR HUSBAND, and I know not where they have laid him." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, page 210)
In 1853 the following appeared in the Mormon church paper, the Millennial Star:
". . .we apprehend that even greater troubles than these may arise before mankind learn all the particulars of Christ's incarnation-how and by whom he was begotten; the character of the relationships formed by the act; the number of wives and children he had. . ." (The Millennial Star, Vol 15, page 825): Lively StoneNo, no one who knows Jesus Christ personally holds to any LDS position.
...except biblical prophets, apostles and early Christians.
That is completely false. Mormons may hold some true beliefs, but they are a Johnny-come-lately religion.
: Lively StoneYes, God is revealed as three distinct persons.
But that's not what the scene at the baptism says. It says only that Christ came up out of the water, the Holy Ghost descended and the Father spoke from heaven. Where in there does it say that these three are One God, co-equal, co-substantial, co-eternal?
The baptism of Jesus Christ revealed the three in one place at the same time. That is all you need to know.
: Lively StoneBoth Jesus the Son and God the Father and Holy Spirit are equal in power and authority.
Yet even the scriptural verses you use to support your argument say otherwise.
That's a lie. The entire body of scripture teaches you otherwise.
: Lively StoneIt may not make sense to the fleshly mind of man, but it is the truth nonetheless, and must be accepted by faith. I don't have any problem with Jesus declaring the Father to be His God---He was speaking as a flesh man, as our example. As a flesh and blood man, He was a creature a little lower than the angelic realm, just as we are---temporarily.
That's an awfully convenient answer. You're saying in essence, if my doctrine doesn't make sense, it's not supposed to be and it's beyond our comprehension.
Nothing convenient about it. It is the SIMPLE truth. It is for you to believe, not argue over.
: Lively StoneWalking in the Spirit equates with moral uprightness. Without Holy Spirit living in and through us, we will never be able to walk in righteousness, but will always be striving to reach some benchmark of goodness.
So essentially you believe the exact same thing we do, that we are to live good lives because we love Christ.
Basically, except that because of Holy Spirit dwelling within us, we are transformed by His power and enabled to live the life God calls us to live. It doesn't and shouldn't require heavy striving.
: Lively StoneNonsense. Jesus Christ is busy building His Church and His Spirit is busy anointing His followers to do the work of the Church. There is no organizational chart, or body that ordains men and women---or children for that matter---to do the works of Christ.
So are you just going to ignore all the New Testament references to being called and ordained? Are you going to dispute what the Bible says about an organization that has prophets, apostles, evangelists, teachers, elders, bishops and deacons? These positions were for the edification of the saints until they are unified in faith. And this is something that has clearly not happened. What do you think it meant when Christ called and "ordained" the twelve, or where He gave the keys of the Kingdom to Peter? Why is the Bible full of instances where apostles instructed the church, and where other ecclesiastical positions were filled? What did it mean when Paul wrote to Titus when he gave the instruction, :that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee." See, Titus was to set things in order, and ordain elders in the same manner that Paul appointed Titus himself. As Hebrews 5:4 says, "And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron." This pretty much disrupts your entire argument. You don't get this authority by desiring it, for no man can take this honor upon himself. God must call him, as he did with Aaron.
The idea of a Universal Priesthood is an apostate doctrine that was not in existence until the Protestant reformation.
You have been completely indoctrinated in error, and it is because of your small, churchy thinking.
I have the authority of Jesus Christ to do the works of Christ as He enables me. He says so.
: Lively StoneThis is a complete fabrication of the LDS religion. You are steeped and mired in a false religion and not in the truth of God's word, and are now trying to pass off lies of the Mormon religion to those of us here who know the word of God. It's rather laughable.
What's laughable about it? The LDS understanding of the gift of the Holy Ghost is entirely biblical. Only those who possess the authority to bestow it may do so, like Ananias did to Paul upon his conversion.
Who bestows what? We, who are Christ's and are indwelt by Holy Spirit, baptized in His power, have the authority to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ, lay hands on the sick, raise the dead and to cast out demons in Jesus' name.
: Lively StoneAs a child of the King, I am a member of the royal priesthood. I have more than one gift of the Holy Spirit, and have the right as a believer to lay hands on those who would receive from Him.
Except the Bible does not support a universal priesthood, and that is not what Peter was referring to.
Universal? No---only believers in Jesus Christ are His royal priesthood.
: Lively StoneJust from your lack of knowledge about the operation of Holy Spirit, I can see that the LDS has blinded you to His truth and Mormonism has been revealed to be false and a snare.
And what exactly have I said that is incorrect about the Spirit?
Most everything so far.
: Lively StoneGod calls, and He equips those He calls. Every person who receives salvation in Jesus Christ receives certain gifts and abilities with which to serve God with power and success. It is not a Church function
.
Yes, certainly. Every individual of Christ's church (LDS) has been given spiritual gifts. But I'm not speaking about that. I'm talking about the authority to act in behalf of God in carrying out the ordinances and function of the church.
The Church of Jesus Christ does not include any other religion, especially the LDS. Anyone who has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ has the authority to act in any which way He calls. As for the operation of the local church, Jesus calls and equips and places those he needs for every position of ministry.
: Lively StoneThat is a foolish thing to be saying, seeing as the LDS is founded not only by a false prophet, but by a poor example of a man, to boot
Is his reputation any more disreputable than the prophets of the Bible? Think about that for a minute.
Smith's reputation is that of a man who is not of God, a dupe of Satan and a deceiver of men because of that. Every prophet of God in scripture were real men with foibles and weaknesses but they were redeemed men, who knew and walked with God and were not pawns of Satan.
: Lively StoneI have done so---50 years ago and each time I fail God, ever since. I have yet to commit the sin of following after a false prophet and embracing a false religion. That is something Holy Spirit will have to deal heavily with you about. It is only then that you will desire to repent. I do pray that it is soon and will not be too late.
You make it sound like I've never repented before, which I have. I have no reason to repent of my current religious affiliation because God has made it known that I am accepted by Him. And who am I...or you...to disagree with Him or to comment on my relationship with Him?
Repenting of deception is still outstanding. There is a great gulf fixed between what you claim is the truth about Jesus Christ and what every born again Christian who walks with Him daily knows.
Of course you do. It is to your own detriment.
And yours as well. You make Christ out to be a cult leader with your definition. I won't do that.
A person who chooses to wear a cross or a purity ring, or a flag pin on their lapel are doing something cultural, not biblical, or cultish. The secret things that the Mormon deems sacred are cultish, and not cultural.
It's impossible to win this argument because you made up your own definition of cult to suit your own needs. What makes it more cult-like to attribute sacredness to something?
You may disagree with the church, but to say that believing in sacred clothing makes one a cult is to do so to the ancient Israelites. As much as you disagree with us, the notion of sacred temple clothings IS biblical.
No, not incorrect. Christians quite quickly formed local churches, and became separate from the rejecting Judaism. Churches are not the Temple.
Of course you're incorrect. You said that temple worship ended with the New Covenant. Clearly it didn't as illustrated from the Book of Acts. Churches are not temples, I'm aware. I don't know what relevance that has. All I know is that early Christians still maintained temple worship as part of their Christianity, and Christ must not have had a problem with it because He appeared in the temple to give instructions during moments of prayer.
That is a convenient argument. It is obvious that the lying spirit completely deceived Joseph Smith. The devil himself knows that Jesus Christ is God manifest in the flesh. He offers up twisted truth. It is up to the true believer to be on guard for the subtle lies that Satan presents.
Yes, it's a convenient argument because it completely nullifies your own. The devil does know Jesus is come in the flesh. Read what the verse says. EVERY spirit that testifies that Christ is come in the flesh is of God, this is what the Bible says. Since Moroni testified of this truth, it cannot, according to the Bible, be from Satan. I understand it presents a conundrum for your position, but rather than taking the Bible at its word, you maintain still that it is Satan. If you claim this, then you are saying you do not trust the Bible on this matter.
Trying hard is the hallmark of Mormonism, among other religions. You need to study up on the atonement---it doesn't make up for what we lack. God's grace through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ does it all for us because we lack everything necessary for righteousness in ourselves.
Exactly, we cannot save ourselves. But, the Bible makes it clear that works are part of the equation. You're probably familiar with James's comments that faith without works is dead. Works complements our faith, validates it. If we have so little faith that it does not inspire us to action, is it truly faith sufficient enough to save us? We keep the commandments because Jesus proclaimed that those who love him will do so. Tell me, do you think you can be saved if you don't love Christ?
Proof enough that he was not led by God.
How is this proof? Even if it is a sin to be a free mason, and I see no evidence of this, is it truly worse than the actions of David, who not only committed adultery, resulting in an illegitimate marriage, but then tried to rectify the problem by sending the woman's husband into battle, hoping he'd be killed? Is it any worse than Paul prior to his conversion, who most likely had a part in the stoning of Stephen? A prophet need not be perfect, assuming even that free masonry is forbidden by God. And so far, you've given no evidence for that.
Sorry, but you fail to reveal scripture that proves this. When God revealed Himself as a man to anyone in the OT, He was the pre-incarnate Christ.
Hey, what do you know? We too believe that the OT incarnation of God is the pre-incarnate Christ. See, we have some things in common.
Still no scripture...
I already gave you a passage from the D&C. It's not my fault that you reject God's modern day revelations.
I can ask the same of you, though. Where does the Bible say that God's essence is only spirit? I find it interesting that you will ignore the textual and literary context to make your point. I pointed to the words of Jewish scholars who explained what the term God is Spirit would have meant to the Jews at that time. And they would not have interpreted it to mean that God's body is made of just spirit.
What God has provided in His word is enough. The Book of Mormon reveals nothing of authenticity, because it is a gargantuan fraud.
Except that the Bible never say the Bible's enough.
Many other Mormon writers declare Jesus married. For anyone to even entertain the idea reveals a weakness for heresy. The "church' doesn't have the voice to receive or reject or to have 'an official position' on anything. Christians, as the Body of Christ, do.
Yes the church does. Official doctrine is established by the joint voice of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and then by revelation to the members of the church by the power of the Holy Ghost. It doesn't matter how many members entertain an incorrect ideal. That does not make it the official church position.
You also show a profound lack of understanding about the structure of the church. Each of these quotes you posted were from people other than the president of the church. They don't have the authority to declare God's will to the people. Only the President of the Church holds those keys.
Why is it, though, heretical to believe Christ was married? Where is that in the Bible?
That is completely false. Mormons may hold some true beliefs, but they are a Johnny-come-lately religion.
I can give ample evidence that most (though admittedly not all) of our beliefs have support from the Bible. And I can show you many, many first century Christians who believe in such things as baptism for the dead. Do you know that Polycarp, a disciple to John the disciple believed that man may become God? Since he was taught by an apostle who actually knew Christ, it's fair to say that he knew what he was talking about.
The baptism of Jesus Christ revealed the three in one place at the same time. That is all you need to know.
I don't think you are comprehending what I'm getting at. I can see that all three are present in one place here. But nowhere does this account claim that the three are One God because they are of One essence.
That's a lie. The entire body of scripture teaches you otherwise.
Read the verse you used to support that Christ is equal with God the Father. It says the exact opposite. It says that God gave Christ temporary authority over the earth until evil is eradicated, then Christ hands it over to the Father and becomes subject to Him. What do you think it means when it says Jesus Christ will become subject to the Father? Keep in mind, this isn't speaking of Christ's mortal ministry, as these events are to occur after the resurrection. If the Father and Son are equal, why is the son subject to the Father?
Nothing convenient about it. It is the SIMPLE truth. It is for you to believe, not argue over.
Somehow, I get the idea that you wouldn't accept the same answer from me to explain away one of our more complex doctrines.
Basically, except that because of Holy Spirit dwelling within us, we are transformed by His power and enabled to live the life God calls us to live. It doesn't and shouldn't require heavy striving.
I would disagree. The Bible teaches us to endure to the end, to remain steadfast in the face of trials and temptations. I'd say this means we need to work to become more like Christ. Your interpretation fails to explain how so-called devout, spirit filled Christians go wayward and succumb to sin. Simply looking around this forum, you'll see many, many Christians struggling to overcome their weaknesses and sins.
You have been completely indoctrinated in error, and it is because of your small, churchy thinking.
I have the authority of Jesus Christ to do the works of Christ as He enables me. He says so.
Fine if you think so. But you've got to understand that I find it incredibly hard to ignore the clear biblical model of priesthood leadership. How do you explain away the many verses that testify of church offices and ordinations?
Who bestows what? We, who are Christ's and are indwelt by Holy Spirit, baptized in His power, have the authority to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ, lay hands on the sick, raise the dead and to cast out demons in Jesus' name.
An authorized Priesthood holder confers these gifts. One must possess such authority to do these things. Think again of the account of Paul's conversion. He didn't receive the Holy Ghost upon his conversion. No, he was sent to Ananias, someone who held the Priesthood of God, and He bestowed this gift upon him. So too is it this way in today's church.
Universal? No---only believers in Jesus Christ are His royal priesthood.
Universal priesthood and priesthood of all believers are synonyms of one another. That's all I meant by the phrase.
Most everything so far.
Examples?
The Church of Jesus Christ does not include any other religion, especially the LDS. Anyone who has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ has the authority to act in any which way He calls. As for the operation of the local church, Jesus calls and equips and places those he needs for every position of ministry
Yes, Jesus Christ calls and ordains people to the ministry. This is the Priesthood, individuals given authority by God to act in His name. No, everyone who has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ does not have this authority, meaning the Priesthood. Christ says the exact opposite. Remember again, No one can take this honor upon himself, he must be called of God. You don't get this authority because you feel you deserve it, nor can you claim authority simply because. The Bible has a set standard regarding this issue. In the New Testament, people are called and ordained, the church is organized with specific priesthood offices (Bishop, Teacher, Prophet, Apostle, Elder). As far as I can tell, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-days Saints is the only church on earth who mirrors the New Testament church in this regard.
Smith's reputation is that of a man who is not of God, a dupe of Satan and a deceiver of men because of that. Every prophet of God in scripture were real men with foibles and weaknesses but they were redeemed men, who knew and walked with God and were not pawns of Satan.
You're using another logical fallacy. To distinguish that Joseph Smith is not a prophet of God, because He wasn't of God. Circular reasoning at its finest. And what's worse, you didn't even address the question at hand. You said God would never use someone who partook of the things Joseph Smith did to accomplish his purpose. My sole reason in pointing to biblical prophets is that yes, He does choose horribly flawed men to accomplish his purposes. I aim to show that one cannot discount Joseph Smith solely on the grounds that he had faults, even if they are major.
Repenting of deception is still outstanding. There is a great gulf fixed between what you claim is the truth about Jesus Christ and what every born again Christian who walks with Him daily knows.
I see the gulf the other way. There is a great gulf of apostasy between the true church of Jesus Christ as taught by the LDS and what every other so-called born again Christian believes.
: the_last_gunslinger Wed Mar 13, 2013 - 15:35:18
Of course you do. It is to your own detriment.
And yours as well. You make Christ out to be a cult leader with your definition. I won't do that.
What an inane statement.
: Lively StoneA person who chooses to wear a cross or a purity ring, or a flag pin on their lapel are doing something cultural, not biblical, or cultish. The secret things that the Mormon deems sacred are cultish, and not cultural.
It's impossible to win this argument because you made up your own definition of cult to suit your own needs. What makes it more cult-like to attribute sacredness to something?
You may disagree with the church, but to say that believing in sacred clothing makes one a cult is to do so to the ancient Israelites. As much as you disagree with us, the notion of sacred temple clothings IS biblical.
You need to answer why you denote sacredness to underwear and secret handshakes. In Christ we are free people and there are no restrictions on clothing for us except for modesty.
: Lively StoneNo, not incorrect. Christians quite quickly formed local churches, and became separate from the rejecting Judaism. Churches are not the Temple.
Of course you're incorrect. You said that temple worship ended with the New Covenant. Clearly it didn't as illustrated from the Book of Acts. Churches are not temples, I'm aware. I don't know what relevance that has. All I know is that early Christians still maintained temple worship as part of their Christianity, and Christ must not have had a problem with it because He appeared in the temple to give instructions during moments of prayer.
Temple worship is for Jews.
: Lively StoneThat is a convenient argument. It is obvious that the lying spirit completely deceived Joseph Smith. The devil himself knows that Jesus Christ is God manifest in the flesh. He offers up twisted truth. It is up to the true believer to be on guard for the subtle lies that Satan presents.
Yes, it's a convenient argument because it completely nullifies your own. The devil does know Jesus is come in the flesh. Read what the verse says. EVERY spirit that testifies that Christ is come in the flesh is of God, this is what the Bible says. Since Moroni testified of this truth, it cannot, according to the Bible, be from Satan. I understand it presents a conundrum for your position, but rather than taking the Bible at its word, you maintain still that it is Satan. If you claim this, then you are saying you do not trust the Bible on this matter.
Even lying spirits will speak those words to deceive. We are admonished to test the spirits. Moroni is tested and has flunked abysmally. His place is waiting for him in the Lake of Fire.
: Lively StoneTrying hard is the hallmark of Mormonism, among other religions. You need to study up on the atonement---it doesn't make up for what we lack. God's grace through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ does it all for us because we lack everything necessary for righteousness in ourselves.
Exactly, we cannot save ourselves. But, the Bible makes it clear that works are part of the equation. You're probably familiar with James's comments that faith without works is dead. Works complements our faith, validates it. If we have so little faith that it does not inspire us to action, is it truly faith sufficient enough to save us? We keep the commandments because Jesus proclaimed that those who love him will do so. Tell me, do you think you can be saved if you don't love Christ?
Works are not part of the equation for salvation. Good works is the natural byproduct of a regenerated spirit, a renewed mind in Christ.
: Lively StoneProof enough that he was not led by God.
How is this proof? Even if it is a sin to be a free mason, and I see no evidence of this, is it truly worse than the actions of David, who not only committed adultery, resulting in an illegitimate marriage, but then tried to rectify the problem by sending the woman's husband into battle, hoping he'd be killed? Is it any worse than Paul prior to his conversion, who most likely had a part in the stoning of Stephen? A prophet need not be perfect, assuming even that free masonry is forbidden by God. And so far, you've given no evidence for that.
Freemasonry involves unholy oaths and associations. I find it laughable that you would try to equate Joseph smith to David and to Paul, both of whom were redeemed by God and they repented of their sin. Smith didn't, and he kept right on sinning. No prophets are perfect, but if they have one foot in hell and claim to know Christ, then their word is unreliable. His life is not one that anyone should emulate, where we should emulate Paul, and God invites us to do just that.
Interestingly enough, Don LeFevre, a past spokesman for the Mormon church has said the church "...strongly advises its members not to affiliate with organizations that are secret, oath-bound, or would cause them to lose interest in church activities."
: Lively StoneSorry, but you fail to reveal scripture that proves this. When God revealed Himself as a man to anyone in the OT, He was the pre-incarnate Christ.
Hey, what do you know? We too believe that the OT incarnation of God is the pre-incarnate Christ. See, we have some things in common.
Interesting.
: Lively StoneStill no scripture...
I already gave you a passage from the D&C. It's not my fault that you reject God's modern day revelations.
Not good enough.
I can ask the same of you, though. Where does the Bible say that God's essence is only spirit? I find it interesting that you will ignore the textual and literary context to make your point. I pointed to the words of Jewish scholars who explained what the term God is Spirit would have meant to the Jews at that time. And they would not have interpreted it to mean that God's body is made of just spirit.
John 4:24 AMP
God is a Spirit (a spiritual Being) and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth (reality).
What John says here is far more reliable than any Jewish scholar...he was a Jewish man who walked with Jesus and knew Him intimately.
: Lively StoneWhat God has provided in His word is enough. The Book of Mormon reveals nothing of authenticity, because it is a gargantuan fraud.
Except that the Bible never say the Bible's enough.
Scripture attests to its own sufficiency. Those who know God hear that from His Spirit. Those who only think they know God will fall for any new thing that comes down the pike. God warns us against false prophets and those who would present a new Gospel. There is no new gospel of Jesus Christ. It isn't necessary! The gospel we have is sufficient for all!
: Lively StoneMany other Mormon writers declare Jesus married. For anyone to even entertain the idea reveals a weakness for heresy. The "church' doesn't have the voice to receive or reject or to have 'an official position' on anything. Christians, as the Body of Christ, do.
Yes the church does. Official doctrine is established by the joint voice of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and then by revelation to the members of the church by the power of the Holy Ghost. It doesn't matter how many members entertain an incorrect ideal. That does not make it the official church position.
There is no such church that has a voice you rely on. The only Church is the Body of Christ which is comprised of every single believer in Jesus Christ.
You also show a profound lack of understanding about the structure of the church. Each of these quotes you posted were from people other than the president of the church. They don't have the authority to declare God's will to the people. Only the President of the Church holds those keys.
No--you have the wrong notion of what the Body of Christ is like. There is no president of any church. Jesus is the head of the Church in the world. Nothing you have said here is scripturally supported!
Why is it, though, heretical to believe Christ was married? Where is that in the Bible?
It is heretical because it goes against what Christians know and believe is the truth through the word of God. If you choose to believe Jesus had a wife or wives, that is your prerogative, but you need to have solid scriptural proof if you want to claim it here in these forums.
: Lively StoneThat is completely false. Mormons may hold some true beliefs, but they are a Johnny-come-lately religion.
I can give ample evidence that most (though admittedly not all) of our beliefs have support from the Bible. And I can show you many, many first century Christians who believe in such things as baptism for the dead. Do you know that Polycarp, a disciple to John the disciple believed that man may become God? Since he was taught by an apostle who actually knew Christ, it's fair to say that he knew what he was talking about.
It matters not that there is some agreement in scripture for some of your beliefs or some agreement from early believers...they had no inkling of Mormonism. The truth is that Mormonism picks and chooses what it wants to believe.
Polycarp was wrong, if that is indeed what he believed! We do have to use discretion and spiritual wisdom when confronted with people's individual beliefs.
Malachi 3:18Then you shall again discern
Between the righteous and the wicked,
Between one who serves God
And one who does not serve Him.
: Lively StoneThe baptism of Jesus Christ revealed the three in one place at the same time. That is all you need to know.
I don't think you are comprehending what I'm getting at. I can see that all three are present in one place here. But nowhere does this account claim that the three are One God because they are of One essence.
What is it you are talking about when you say, 'essence'? Why do you harp on that?
: Lively StoneThat's a lie. The entire body of scripture teaches you otherwise.
Read the verse you used to support that Christ is equal with God the Father. It says the exact opposite. It says that God gave Christ temporary authority over the earth until evil is eradicated, then Christ hands it over to the Father and becomes subject to Him. What do you think it means when it says Jesus Christ will become subject to the Father? Keep in mind, this isn't speaking of Christ's mortal ministry, as these events are to occur after the resurrection. If the Father and Son are equal, why is the son subject to the Father?
Jesus the Son has His job to do, the Father has His and the Spirit has His. They are all God, and equal to one another. Jesus is not subject as in lesser than the Father! He places Himself in a position a little lower than the angels, as man, yet it is a temporary position!
Philippians 2:5-11
5 You must have the same attitude that Christ Jesus had.
6 Though he was God,
he did not think of equality with God
as something to cling to.
7 Instead, he gave up his divine privileges;
he took the humble position of a slave
and was born as a human being.
When he appeared in human form,
8 he humbled himself in obedience to God
and died a criminal's death on a cross.
9 Therefore, God elevated him to the place of highest honor
and gave him the name above all other names,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
: Lively StoneNothing convenient about it. It is the SIMPLE truth. It is for you to believe, not argue over.
Somehow, I get the idea that you wouldn't accept the same answer from me to explain away one of our more complex doctrines.
You're right.
: Lively StoneBasically, except that because of Holy Spirit dwelling within us, we are transformed by His power and enabled to live the life God calls us to live. It doesn't and shouldn't require heavy striving.
I would disagree. The Bible teaches us to endure to the end, to remain steadfast in the face of trials and temptations. I'd say this means we need to work to become more like Christ. Your interpretation fails to explain how so-called devout, spirit filled Christians go wayward and succumb to sin. Simply looking around this forum, you'll see many, many Christians struggling to overcome their weaknesses and sins.
Yes, endure, be steadfast, yet in Christ and by the power of Holy Spirit working in and through us, what He asks of us due to the anointing becomes a pleasure and not a hardship. If a person finds himself striving, he is working in the power of his own strength, not God's.
Those who succumb to sin and fall away have never experienced the baptism and empowerment of Holy Spirit.
: Lively StoneYou have been completely indoctrinated in error, and it is because of your small, churchy thinking.
I have the authority of Jesus Christ to do the works of Christ as He enables me. He says so.
Fine if you think so. But you've got to understand that I find it incredibly hard to ignore the clear biblical model of priesthood leadership. How do you explain away the many verses that testify of church offices and ordinations?
I believe in the priesthood of the saints. We are all saints and all leaders. We are the light of the world and the salt of the earth.
Revelation 1:6and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.
Revelation 5:10And have made us kings and priests to our God; And we shall reign on the earth."
: Lively StoneWho bestows what? We, who are Christ's and are indwelt by Holy Spirit, baptized in His power, have the authority to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ, lay hands on the sick, raise the dead and to cast out demons in Jesus' name.
An authorized Priesthood holder confers these gifts. One must possess such authority to do these things. Think again of the account of Paul's conversion. He didn't receive the Holy Ghost upon his conversion. No, he was sent to Ananias, someone who held the Priesthood of God, and He bestowed this gift upon him. So too is it this way in today's church.
That's religion talking. It isn't what God's word says about us.
: Lively StoneUniversal? No---only believers in Jesus Christ are His royal priesthood.
Universal priesthood and priesthood of all believers are synonyms of one another. That's all I meant by the phrase.
Phew!
: Lively stoneMost everything so far.
Examples?
Due to the extreme length of these posts, I am not about to go combing through them for your answer.
: Lively Stone
The Church of Jesus Christ does not include any other religion, especially the LDS. Anyone who has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ has the authority to act in any which way He calls. As for the operation of the local church, Jesus calls and equips and places those He needs for every position of ministry
Yes, Jesus Christ calls and ordains people to the ministry. This is the Priesthood, individuals given authority by God to act in His name. No, everyone who has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ does not have this authority, meaning the Priesthood. Christ says the exact opposite. Remember again, No one can take this honor upon himself, he must be called of God. You don't get this authority because you feel you deserve it, nor can you claim authority simply because. The Bible has a set standard regarding this issue. In the New Testament, people are called and ordained, the church is organized with specific priesthood offices (Bishop, Teacher, Prophet, Apostle, Elder). As far as I can tell, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-days Saints is the only church on earth who mirrors the New Testament church in this regard.
We all have Jesus' authority to act in His name. Your ideas on priesthood are not what the bible teaches. We have this honour bestowed upon us by our new birthright, as co-heirs, brothers of Jesus. As for positions within the local church, God calls and equips us for those, but we all should be operating as leaders in the Body of Christ worldwide.
My own local church models the New Testament church.
: Lively StoneSmith's reputation is that of a man who is not of God, a dupe of Satan and a deceiver of men because of that. Every prophet of God in scripture was a real man with foibles and weaknesses but they were redeemed men, who knew and walked with God and were not pawns of Satan.
You're using another logical fallacy. To distinguish that Joseph Smith is not a prophet of God, because He wasn't of God. Circular reasoning at its finest. And what's worse, you didn't even address the question at hand. You said God would never use someone who partook of the things Joseph Smith did to accomplish his purpose. My sole reason in pointing to biblical prophets is that yes, He does choose horribly flawed men to accomplish his purposes. I aim to show that one cannot discount Joseph Smith solely on the grounds that he had faults, even if they are major.
A deceived man is not of God. I wouldn't follow after or listen to someone who has been deceived.
: Lively Stone
Repenting of deception is still outstanding. There is a great gulf fixed between what you claim is the truth about Jesus Christ and what every born again Christian who walks with Him daily knows.
I see the gulf the other way. There is a great gulf of apostasy between the true church of Jesus Christ as taught by the LDS and what every other so-called born again Christian believes.
Anyone who calls their own brand of church, or one's choice of religion the true church of Jesus Christ is deceived. It is not an organization like the RCC or the LDS or the JW's.
The true Church of Jesus Christ is the whole Body of Christ, made up of every born again Christian in the world. THAT is what the word of God teaches. Anything else is a lie.
Aynone claiming that they alone are the true church of Jesus Christ have shown themsleves to be false and a cult.
All born again Bible believing Christians are part of the church, the body of Christ.
Aynone claiming that they alone are the true church of Jesus Christ have shown themsleves to be false and a cult.
All born again Bible believing Christians are part of the church, the body of Christ
And where is this definition found? This would condemn the early Christian church as well, you know. They too taught that they were the only true church. John's gospel is believed to be written solely to discredit other so-called Christian sects.
And for the record, Mormons are Born again Bible believing Christians.
What an inane statement.
How is it an insane statement? You claimed that the hallmarks of a cult are 1. exclusivity, 2. authoritarian/hierarchical, 3. secretive. Jesus Christ was all of these things, so if you maintain that a cult has these features, then Christ is a cult leader, according to YOUR definition. If you say otherwise, then you are exhibiting a double standard, applying the term 'cult,' to Mormons, when the early Christians thought the same way.
You need to answer why you denote sacredness to underwear and secret handshakes. In Christ we are free people and there are no restrictions on clothing for us except for modesty.
I don't think you fully understand our position on this. We don't believe the "handshake," or the cloth garments themselves are sacred. The sacredness comes from what they represent, which is our relationship with Christ and the covenants we make with him. Consider the idea of the sacrament of the Lord's supper ( Not exactly comparable, but I think it illustrates my point somewhat). It's not the bread and wine/water that is sacred. Those are just tokens. Outside of a religious context, there's nothing particularly special about them. Yet many churches believe them to be sacred be cause of what they
represent. The are eaten in remembrance of Christ and that is what gives them a special place in religious circles. Likewise, there is nothing particularly special about a hand gesture or a piece of clothing, other than that they are emblems of our deep spiritual commitment to God. That's why we hold them in high esteem.
Even lying spirits will speak those words to deceive. We are admonished to test the spirits. Moroni is tested and has flunked abysmally. His place is waiting for him in the Lake of Fire.
But to hold to that line of thinking is to say that the Bible is wrong and that you know better than the scriptures. What you said is entirely non-scriptural. 1st John says ALL spirits who testify of Jesus Christ coming in the flesh is of God. If you believe the scriptures, you can't use your argument, because the test given by John explicitly states that a spirit testifying of Christ is proof that it is from God.
It's interesting that you maintain still that there was a spiritual presence that came to Joseph Smith. If you believe that, and if you believe what the Bible says, that any spirit testifying that Christ is come in the flesh is of God, then the only logical conclusion is that you accept Moroni as an angel of the Lord.
Works are not part of the equation for salvation. Good works is the natural byproduct of a regenerated spirit, a renewed mind in Christ.
I think we're arguing semantics here, due in large part because the LDS use different terminology when discussion grace. We make no distinction between faith and works; they are inseparable. Like I said before, James makes it clear that faith without works is dead, and dead faith cannot save us, can it?
Freemasonry involves unholy oaths and associations. I find it laughable that you would try to equate Joseph smith to David and to Paul, both of whom were redeemed by God and they repented of their sin. Smith didn't, and he kept right on sinning. No prophets are perfect, but if they have one foot in hell and claim to know Christ, then their word is unreliable. His life is not one that anyone should emulate, where we should emulate Paul, and God invites us to do just that.
Of course I would equate Joseph Smith with David and Paul. We believe Joseph Smith to be a prophet and apostle, just like the other two. You are interjecting your own ideas about who Joseph Smith was, claiming that he was unrepentant and had one foot in hell. I obviously reject this idea, so naturally, the distinction you are trying to make between Joseph Smith and the biblical prophets has no bearing on my argument, since I see no difference.
Interestingly enough, Don LeFevre, a past spokesman for the Mormon church has said the church "...strongly advises its members not to affiliate with organizations that are secret, oath-bound, or would cause them to lose interest in church activities."
And I'd probably agree with it. I'm not excusing Smith's involvement with Free Masons, and from what little I know about them, I wouldn't want to be a member. I'm just making the case that membership in this organization alone does not exclude on from his prophetic calling.
Not good enough.
Well, you asked for scriptural support...why would I confine my answers to only the Bible when I know there is more. That'd be like me demanding that you prove everything you believe using only the Old Testament.
God is a Spirit (a spiritual Being) and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth (reality).
Here you are again interjecting your interpretation into this verse. Nowhere does it say God's body is made up of only spirit.
What John says here is far more reliable than any Jewish scholar...he was a Jewish man who walked with Jesus and knew Him intimately.
Typically, I'd agree with this. John is a much greater authority on the gospel than an academic. But, what you are not grasping is that John was a Jew, and most of his audience was as well, so it is important to understand what he meant in light of how the Jewish people would have understood it. Jewish scholarship helps clarify this point. John would have written of God being Spirit within the Jewish context, which did not preclude the belief that God has a physical body.
Scripture attests to its own sufficiency. Those who know God hear that from His Spirit. Those who only think they know God will fall for any new thing that comes down the pike. God warns us against false prophets and those who would present a new Gospel. There is no new gospel of Jesus Christ. It isn't necessary! The gospel we have is sufficient for all!
Absolutely agree. The difference is in what we accept as scripture. Yes, the scriptures are sufficient, but the LDS believe anything that is spoken or written by the power of the Holy Ghost is scripture. This would include all of the scriptural books we accept, as well as the words of living prophets. There is only one gospel, and it is sufficient for all. We just disagree on fundamental points regarding that gospel.
There is no such church that has a voice you rely on. The only Church is the Body of Christ which is comprised of every single believer in Jesus Christ.
In the New Testament, church doctrine and policy were laid out by the apostles. Don't you recall all the verses you cited that warned the people to hearken to the words of the prophets? That's what we believe. God establishes His doctrine, His will, and reveals it to his servants, the Prophets (Amos 3:7). Just because a large group of members start believing in something doesn't make it true. The body of believers don't have the power or authority to proclaim new doctrine.
No--you have the wrong notion of what the Body of Christ is like. There is no president of any church. Jesus is the head of the Church in the world. Nothing you have said here is scripturally supported!
Absolutely there is a president of the church. What do you think it meant when Christ gave the keys of the Kingdom to Peter? Peter was the chief apostle in his day. He was the president of the church, under Jesus Christ. Your idea of a loosely connected body of believers is entirely erroneous and has no basis in scripture. The church is founded upon prophets and apostles, who act in the name of God in leading the church. It is clear from the New Testament that the apostles were in a position of authority. It was them who had the authority to proclaim new doctrine, such as when Peter received the revelation to bring the gospel to the gentiles. It was Peter who presided over the council in Jerusalem in 50 A.D. It was the apostles who wrote the epistles to clarify doctrine, proclaim new ones and warn against false beliefs. The idea of apostolic leadership is so fundamental to the functioning of the New Testament church, I find it hard to believe that it is even in dispute.
It is heretical because it goes against what Christians know and believe is the truth through the word of God. If you choose to believe Jesus had a wife or wives, that is your prerogative, but you need to have solid scriptural proof if you want to claim it here in these forums.
No, it goes against what you think Christians ought to believe. On what is this belief based on? As far as I know, the Bible never states one way or the other Jesus's marital status, so your guess is just that, a guess, and is no more valid than mine or anyone else's. Why do I need to show scriptural support for this (and I maintain still that I'm okay with him being married, not that I actually accept it as fact)? Where is your scriptural proof that he wasn't? This is in the realm of theological speculation, and an item of so little consequence, I fail to see any real spiritual consequences one way or the other.
It matters not that there is some agreement in scripture for some of your beliefs or some agreement from early believers...they had no inkling of Mormonism. The truth is that Mormonism picks and chooses what it wants to believe. Polycarp was wrong, if that is indeed what he believed! We do have to use discretion and spiritual wisdom when confronted with people's individual beliefs.
So you're okay with discrediting an actual disciple of John the Apostle? Fair enough. I'm sure he had his own ideas about things and he probably was wrong on some things. And like you said, we can discern between what is truth and what is someone's personal beliefs. All I'm asking is that you keep this in mind when discussing Mormonism, especially when quoting from the Journal of Discourses. The leaders of the church have their own opinions on doctrine, like whether Christ was married, etc. That doesn't mean we have to accept that, since we are all entitled to believe whatever we want on these issues.
What is it you are talking about when you say, 'essence'? Why do you harp on that?
Because that's the current understanding of the Holy Trinity. Mainstream Christians hold that there are three personages (father, son and holy ghost) that are One Being (God). They are co-equal, co-substantial and co-eternal. This means that all three members of the Trinity are one because they have always existed with each other, are all equal with each other and they are one because they are of One substance, or essence, quite literally being One God.
This is in contrast to the LDS position which hold that there are three personages (father, son and holy ghost) that are One God, but this oneness is to be understood metaphorically, being one in purpose, united fully in perfection, grace, mercy, justice, love, compassion, etc. We deny also that all three members are of equal status and we deny that they are of One substance. So far, I don't understand what a Trinitarian means when they say One Substance.
Forgive me if I have mischaracterized your beliefs, or erroneously presumed you to hold to them. Is this your belief, or do you hold to something different? What does it mean to be One God?
Jesus the Son has His job to do, the Father has His and the Spirit has His. They are all God, and equal to one another. Jesus is not subject as in lesser than the Father! He places Himself in a position a little lower than the angels, as man, yet it is a temporary position!
I know this is your belief, but you have yet to show it. You are reading your own interpretations into the scriptural text. Even the verse you cited from Philippians says only that Christ gave up his divine status to become like a slave. We believe this too. Jesus is Divine, but God the Father is still greater. Christ himself said so. He called the Father His God. Logic dictates that for one to have a god, he must be less. The verse you quoted awhile ago, from 1st Corinthians, I think, even said that Jesus Christ only had dominion over what the Father gave him, and that after the resurrection, Christ will give all back to the Father and will indeed become subject to God the Father. This is why I can't accept them as being co-equal. Christ is less than the Father, who is His God, and who was given authority by the Father, and will be subject unto the Father after the resurrection. It's hard to make a case for them being equal when there is so much biblical resistance to the idea.
You're right.
So you're admitting to a double standard.
Yes, endure, be steadfast, yet in Christ and by the power of Holy Spirit working in and through us, what He asks of us due to the anointing becomes a pleasure and not a hardship. If a person finds himself striving, he is working in the power of his own strength, not God's.
Those who succumb to sin and fall away have never experienced the baptism and empowerment of Holy Spirit.
I'm having a hard time nailing down your position on this. You almost make it seem like you no longer struggle with sin and temptation once you're a believer. This is impossible, however, as we are always capable of sin. And so long as we have a predisposition to sin, we must strive harder for perfection. This doesn't mean that God is left out of the equation, for we can't do it without His help, obviously. By striving, I simply mean that we are to push forward always in the cause of righteousness, do our best to shun sin, to serve our God and to love those around us.
I believe in the priesthood of the saints. We are all saints and all leaders. We are the light of the world and the salt of the earth.
Revelation 1:6
and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.
Revelation 5:10
And have made us kings and priests to our God; And we shall reign on the earth."
I believe these things too, but through an LDS theological lens, they take on a different meaning.
That's religion talking. It isn't what God's word says about us.
On the contrary, the Bible fully supports this. What do you think it means to not take this honor upon yourself? Why do you think that Paul had to have hands laid on him before receiving the Holy Spirit? Why didn't he get it immediately upon his conversion?
Due to the extreme length of these posts, I am not about to go combing through them for your answer.
Fair enough. Maybe at some later date, I'll start up some other LDS threads detailing specific doctrinal issues. That could be interesting.
We all have Jesus' authority to act in His name. Your ideas on priesthood are not what the bible teaches. We have this honour bestowed upon us by our new birthright, as co-heirs, brothers of Jesus. As for positions within the local church, God calls and equips us for those, but we all should be operating as leaders in the Body of Christ worldwide.
The Body of Christ refers to the believers that are part of God's true church, the church that wields his authority. You're right in what you're saying, but I believe the body of Christ is limited to the LDS religion as no other Christian church possesses this authority. The only true church is the one Christ built which has as its foundation Prophets and Apostles (Eph. 2:20). The Bible makes it clear that the Body of Christ, the church is a structured and organized entity with each member having a role to play. Ephesians 4:11-13 details the various offices of this organized church, Prophet, apostle, elder, bishop, teacher, etc. This was done for the perfecting and edification of the saints until they are united in the faith. As it is clear that Christianity is not united, these positions are still needed. They are given also so that we may not be tossed to and fro as children by every wind of doctrine.
Evangelical Christianity very much resembles children tossed to and fro, having no unified structure, no shared common doctrines. They are those who believe it is okay if various churches contradict each other, so long as they share the same Christian DNA so to speak. The problem is, God didn't create 2000 denominations, He created One. One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism (Eph. 4:5). Not 2000 faiths, not a loosely affiliated collection of similar yet still different faiths, but One. The church of Christ is compared to a body in the Bible, yet Evangelical Christianity is essentially a body without a brain. There are thousands of different belief systems, different churches that share many things in common but diverge too significantly to be considered "one faith." The LDS on the other hand is a body WITH a brain, that brain being the apostles of our Lord, Jesus Christ, those appointed to reveal the mind and will of God and to ensure that we are of one accord and are of "One Faith."
Take Baptists and Methodists, for example. They are similar in some regards, sure. But a Baptist is primarily Calvinist, whereas Methodists, are Arminian, and they disagree on key theological points such as soteriology. Can you honestly say they are of one faith? That is an essential part of the body of Christ, that they are of one faith. Certainly they're not because they are not unified in their doctrine. And as Paul so succinctly asked, "Can God be Divided?" The answer is no, He cannot.
My own local church models the New Testament church.
Really? So your church is lead by apostles?
A deceived man is not of God. I wouldn't follow after or listen to someone who has been deceived.
Nor would I. That's why I reject all other forms of Christianity.
Anyone who calls their own brand of church, or one's choice of religion the true church of Jesus Christ is deceived. It is not an organization like the RCC or the LDS or the JW's. The true Church of Jesus Christ is the whole Body of Christ, made up of every born again Christian in the world. THAT is what the word of God teaches. Anything else is a lie.
That's NOT what the Bible teaches. As I just wrote, there is ONE FAITH, not thousands. God organized One church, that are to be united in faith and teachings. Believing us to be the only true church IS what the Bible teaches, for if there are many different forms of Christianity, how can they possibly be united in all things?
: the_last_gunslinger Thu Mar 14, 2013 - 07:58:07
Aynone claiming that they alone are the true church of Jesus Christ have shown themsleves to be false and a cult.
All born again Bible believing Christians are part of the church, the body of Christ
And where is this definition found? This would condemn the early Christian church as well, you know. They too taught that they were the only true church. John's gospel is believed to be written solely to discredit other so-called Christian sects.
LOL! Jesus founded His Church through His apostles. They spoke the truth! The church of Jesus Christ is made up of all born again believers. That's it.
And for the record, Mormons are Born again Bible believing Christians.
You will receive an argument from born again Christians about that.
LOL! Jesus founded His Church through His apostles. They spoke the truth! The church of Jesus Christ is made up of all born again believers. That's it.
Yep, he founded his church. They taught the truth, correct. One truth, the only truth. One Faith, not 2000, remember?
You will receive an argument from born again Christians about that.
I don't care if I get an argument from them. My claim is valid. We are Christians, born again into a Christian life, who believe in the Bible.
: the_last_gunslinger Thu Mar 14, 2013 - 14:19:35
LOL! Jesus founded His Church through His apostles. They spoke the truth! The church of Jesus Christ is made up of all born again believers. That's it.
Yep, he founded his church. They taught the truth, correct. One truth, the only truth. One Faith, not 2000, remember?
You will receive an argument from born again Christians about that.
I don't care if I get an argument from them. My claim is valid. We are Christians, born again into a Christian life, who believe in the Bible.
So you have totally re-defined what a Christian is...
So you have totally re-defined what a Christian is..
Considering that the definition of Christian traditionally has always meant a person who believes in Jesus Christ, and one whose faith is based upon the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, I'd say that it's the other way around. When you consider that the Bible never gives any specific parameters as to what constitutes a Christian, those who seek to exclude Mormonism do so out of their own arbitrary and self-serving definitions.
: the_last_gunslinger Thu Mar 14, 2013 - 15:15:20
So you have totally re-defined what a Christian is..
Considering that the definition of Christian traditionally has always meant a person who believes in Jesus Christ, and one whose faith is based upon the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, I'd say that it's the other way around. When you consider that the Bible never gives any specific parameters as to what constitutes a Christian, those who seek to exclude Mormonism do so out of their own arbitrary and self-serving definitions.
The Bible warns of false prophets...Christians thank God that He does, and He makes clear to us the sheep in wolves clothing (crystal clear)...
If you were on this side (those in Christ, the One True God and Eternal Life) looking out into the world of false religion, you would clearly see......as it is, you are blinded by false prophets, false teaching, false hope, false faith, false joy...false peace...false security...false eternal life...
: the_last_gunslinger Thu Mar 14, 2013 - 14:19:35
LOL! Jesus founded His Church through His apostles. They spoke the truth! The church of Jesus Christ is made up of all born again believers. That's it.
Yep, he founded his church. They taught the truth, correct. One truth, the only truth. One Faith, not 2000, remember?
Yes, one faith, one Church, one Word...not 2000 or any other revelation, either. Christianity has no room for any Johnny-come-latelies, nor will it make any room for them.
: Lively StoneYou will receive an argument from born again Christians about that.
I don't care if I get an argument from them. My claim is valid. We are Christians, born again into a Christian life, who believe in the Bible.
Yes, I am sure you are hardened to what Christians have to say to you. You must preserve your religion at all costs, as I am sure that there is a lot of personal pride invested there. Come Judgment Day, that pride will not provide the Mormon any protection.
Your claim is only valid to you, but it is not in line with the word of God. People who follow after the wolf dressed in sheepskin find themselves in the wolf's grip. All they have been enticed to believe will be stripped away, leaving them naked and without excuse.
Yes, one faith, one Church, one Word...not 2000 or any other revelation, either. Christianity has no room for any Johnny-come-latelies, nor will it make any room for them.
Yes, one faith. You have just agreed with me and nullified your point. There are not thousands of faith, therefore, to claim that multiple churches are part of the body of Christ is in direct contrast to holy writ and your own words.
Your position is non-biblical, as I've shown. There is no Priesthood of all believers, nor is there any support for your claim that all so-called "Born Again Christians," are part of the Body of Christ. Unless you are in possession of God's priesthood authority, you can not lay claim to being a part of the body of Christ. And this authority is found solely in the LDS church.
Yes, I am sure you are hardened to what Christians have to say to you. You must preserve your religion at all costs, as I am sure that there is a lot of personal pride invested there. Come Judgment Day, that pride will not provide the Mormon any protection.
I am hardened to what other Christians say about these things because they aren't true. Your positions are entirely unbiblical and close, honest study and prayer has revealed to me the flaws inherent in the brand of Christianity you profess.
My pride has nothing to do with me preserving my religion. My church was founded by Jesus Christ Himself. It would be the epitome of pride to say to Christ that I know these things you've shown me are true, but I'm going to reject it completely because it is unpopular amongst false preachers. That is the one sure way to end up in hell, to become a son of perdition, having a spirit-borne knowledge of the church, given by the Holy Ghost, yet rejecting it anyways. I will not do that.
Your claim is only valid to you, but it is not in line with the word of God. People who follow after the wolf dressed in sheepskin find themselves in the wolf's grip. All they have been enticed to believe will be stripped away, leaving them naked and without excuse
It's valid to me...and to God. That's all that matters. I don't care really if you think I'm Christian, or if I'm saved. Honestly, what you think about my faith is of no consequence. I'm concerned only with my stance before God.
: the_last_gunslinger Fri Mar 15, 2013 - 16:13:39
Yes, one faith, one Church, one Word...not 2000 or any other revelation, either. Christianity has no room for any Johnny-come-latelies, nor will it make any room for them.
Yes, one faith. You have just agreed with me and nullified your point. There are not thousands of faith, therefore, to claim that multiple churches are part of the body of Christ is in direct contrast to holy writ and your own words.
No, you agreed with me. There is only ONE BODY OF CHRIST. There are many factions within which the body of Christ thrives. You need to learn about what the true Church of Jesus Christ is.
Your position is non-biblical, as I've shown. There is no Priesthood of all believers, nor is there any support for your claim that all so-called "Born Again Christians," are part of the Body of Christ. Unless you are in possession of God's priesthood authority, you can not lay claim to being a part of the body of Christ. And this authority is found solely in the LDS church.
I never take any position that is not biblically supported. You need to come up with scripture that declares me wrong. so far you are not doing too well on that score. God tells me I am part of the royal priesthood of believers, and that as a joint heir with Jesus, I have everything that Jesus has. The Bible says nothing about some separate group that holds any authority such as you claim.
: Lively StoneYes, I am sure you are hardened to what Christians have to say to you. You must preserve your religion at all costs, as I am sure that there is a lot of personal pride invested there. Come Judgment Day, that pride will not provide the Mormon any protection.
I am hardened to what other Christians say about these things because they aren't true. Your positions are entirely unbiblical and close, honest study and prayer has revealed to me the flaws inherent in the brand of Christianity you profess.
Study of what? Writings other than God's? That is no authority. Of course, the enemy would break down any understanding of truth that you would gain by reading the bible, because he has caused you to become compromised by another spirit of religion.
My pride has nothing to do with me preserving my religion. My church was founded by Jesus Christ Himself. It would be the epitome of pride to say to Christ that I know these things you've shown me are true, but I'm going to reject it completely because it is unpopular amongst false preachers. That is the one sure way to end up in hell, to become a son of perdition, having a spirit-borne knowledge of the church, given by the Holy Ghost, yet rejecting it anyways. I will not do that.
Your particular brand of 'church' was not founded by Jesus Christ. It would be a blessing to you if you would say that the things I have shown you are true! How could you say that is pride? How could you actually deny the truth there based on such a flimsy excuse?
Mormonism is a creation of a son of perdition! Break free and find true freedom in the REAL person of Jesus Christ.
: Lively StoneYour claim is only valid to you, but it is not in line with the word of God. People who follow after the wolf dressed in sheepskin find themselves in the wolf's grip. All they have been enticed to believe will be stripped away, leaving them naked and without excuse
It's valid to me...and to God. That's all that matters. I don't care really if you think I'm Christian, or if I'm saved. Honestly, what you think about my faith is of no consequence. I'm concerned only with my stance before God.
Paul declared, "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works"
2 Corinthians 11:13-15 Church history has been replete with such splinter groups, heresies, sects, denominations, cults of all bizarre types and sizes and beliefs. They are all part and parcel of the "great apostasy" that developed over the centuries from the original church of God. Paul warned the brethren in Ephesus, "For I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves"
Acts 20:29-30He was especially concerned about the church in Galatia, and wrote to them, exclaiming, "I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to PERVERT the gospel of Christ"
Galatians1:6-7This was already beginning to occur during the very FIRST generation and Age of the church! The apostasy and heresy has developed and grown massively since that era, and the LDS is just one example of a Nicolaitan-like taint that the Lord will judge with the sword of His mouth---He says.
Gunslinger- I have a fun idea, why don't you go to the Catholic forum and argue with them about Priesthood and the one true church.
No, you agreed with me. There is only ONE BODY OF CHRIST. There are many factions within which the body of Christ thrives. You need to learn about what the true Church of Jesus Christ is.
Your claims are completely contradictory here. Since when has One Church, One Faith been defined as many 'factions?' Many factions denotes several competing theological ideas. They cannot all be united in the faith as the One True Faith spoken of by Paul if they are independent and separate faith traditions.
I never take any position that is not biblically supported. You need to come up with scripture that declares me wrong. so far you are not doing too well on that score. God tells me I am part of the royal priesthood of believers, and that as a joint heir with Jesus, I have everything that Jesus has. The Bible says nothing about some separate group that holds any authority such as you claim
On the contrary. I've given ample support for my position regarding the need of divine authority delegated to men for the purposes of the ministry. I've recounted the structure of the New Testament church, the order that was had, the various ecclesiastical offices that were in existence, the need to be called by God and then ordained by someone already holding that authority (as was the case with Paul and Ananias.) These all support my ideas regarding Priesthood authority, and you've done nothing really to refute these. Your only evidence is taking "Royal Priesthood," out of context and misreading what it meant to be a joint-heir of Christ.
The evidence is clearly there. Look at Mathew 10:1, where it is written that Christ 'gave power,' to his disciples. They didn't just "have it" because they believed in Christ. They needed to be ordained and given that authority. Mark 13:34 contains a parable given by Jesus, likening himself to a man who left his house and gave his servants authority to handle his affairs while he was away. This is comparable to Christ leaving earth, but giving to his disciples authority to run the church. What do you make of Mathew 16:18, where Christ gives Peter, the senior apostle, the keys of the kingdom, so that he could bind on earth and in heaven? What were these keys? They were nothing less than the authority of the Priesthood of Jesus Christ.
What about the calling of Mathias as an apostle? This first denotes the idea that the apostles were to persist, otherwise they would not have sought to fill vacancies. But it is further evidence of the ways in which Christ calls his servants. Mathias was called by revelation to fulfill his apostolic responsibility, and like the other apostles, he was given authority to do such. Acts 6:1-6 gives an account of the Twelve delegating authority to others. Unable to meet every single need of the church on their own, the apostles sought seven worthy young men and appointed them to fill specific ecclesiastical responsibilities. The account even states that this authority was given by the laying on of hands. And it was only after their ordination that they began filling their responsibilities as assistants to the Twelve. See, they didn't just have the authority merely by believing in Christ. It had to be given to them by those already holding it. The calling of Paul and Barnabas is similar. God declared that these two be 'set apart,' for the ministry. See, they were called by revelation, and the account even states that the laying on of hands was utilized to bestow this authority on them. They didn't presume to have this authority, nor did they have it merely by virtue of being a Christian. They were first specifically called by God through revelation, then given this authority by the laying on of hands of authorized priesthood holders.
John 15:16 further illustrates this when he says, "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain." See? We don't choose Christ, nor do we simply take this authority of our own volition. Christ chooses who he wants and ordains them to their specific task.
Another good verse that illustrates this is found Acts 19:13-16, which reads, "Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth. 14 And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so. 15 And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye? 16 And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded."
This shows that merely believing in Christ and seeking to do good is not enough. Here, these Jews invoke the name of Christ, use similar language to the apostles, and even mention one of the apostles by name (Paul,) hoping to emulate the miracles they've seen the apostles do. Clearly, they are trying to do something good here, in the name of Jesus Christ, and what is the response of the devils? Essentially, we know who Jesus and Paul is, but who the heck are you? Then the devils fall upon the Jews and injure them. See, they didn't have the authority to perform this act, and as such, the demons were unswayed, and could not be overcome.
So yes, the biblical evidence for my position is overwhelming.
Study of what? Writings other than God's? That is no authority. Of course, the enemy would break down any understanding of truth that you would gain by reading the bible, because he has caused you to become compromised by another spirit of religion.
I still don't understand your aversion to religion. You do realize you belong to a religion, don't you?
Your particular brand of 'church' was not founded by Jesus Christ. It would be a blessing to you if you would say that the things I have shown you are true! How could you say that is pride? How could you actually deny the truth there based on such a flimsy excuse?
Not sure what you're asking here. What 'flimsy excuse,' are you referring to?
Mormonism is a creation of a son of perdition! Break free and find true freedom in the REAL person of Jesus Christ.
I believe in the real Jesus Christ. Honestly, claims to the contrary are becoming quite tiring.
Paul declared, "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works" 2 Corinthians 11:13-15
Church history has been replete with such splinter groups, heresies, sects, denominations, cults of all bizarre types and sizes and beliefs. They are all part and parcel of the "great apostasy" that developed over the centuries from the original church of God. Paul warned the brethren in Ephesus, "For I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves" Acts 20:29-30
He was especially concerned about the church in Galatia, and wrote to them, exclaiming, "I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to PERVERT the gospel of Christ" Galatians1:6-7
Exactly. The Great Apostasy had already begun. It became so widespread and perverse that the true gospel and its priesthood authority was withdrawn, necessitating a Restoration. That's where Mormonism comes in. Mormonism solves the centuries-long issue of apostate splinter groups.
This was already beginning to occur during the very FIRST generation and Age of the church! The apostasy and heresy has developed and grown massively since that era, and the LDS is just one example of a Nicolaitan-like taint that the Lord will judge with the sword of His mouth---He says.
Yes, developed and grown, encompassing all faith traditions until the Restoration. Your faith is a by-product of the apostasy.
: the_last_gunslinger Sat Mar 02, 2013 - 15:01:56
As a practicing Latter-day Saint, or Mormon as we are colloquially called, there is perhaps no challenge to my faith that irks me more than the accusation that it is a cult. The term "cult," is used so often nowadays that word itself has lost any semblance of meaning.
But of course, if one is going to rely on such a word to define a system of belief, there must be some meaning behind the word, or else the label becomes utterly useless. It leaves me wondering how those who believe Mormonism is a cult define this word, under what definition would Mormonism fit. It's my experience that when those attempt to put forth a definition, they inadvertently condemn nearly every single religion in existence, including mainstream ::frown::. Take, for example, the definition put forth by Dictionary.com:
noun
1.
a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2.
an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3.
the object of such devotion.
4.
a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5.
Sociology . a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
Now I would hardly argue that Mormonism would be rightly classified as a cult using such a definition. But I think that nearly every adherent of any religion would have to admit that they, too fit the dictionary definition of cult. Most religions do have a person or thing that they venerate, or a set of ideals that a group of followers each subscribe to. One can conclude, then, that the above definition can't possibly be what Mormon detractors are referring to, since all of Christianity fits this definition.
The World English Dictionary has a similar definition of cult, adding one more, which is,
. a quasi-religious organization using devious psychological techniques to gain and control adherents
This definition would be one applied to dangerous cults, defined by the field of sociology. And though many disagree with Mormon teachings, it would be pretty hard to argue that it is a religious organization that uses 'devious psychological techniques to gain and control adherents.'
There have been some (like Pastor Robert Jeffress during the 2012 election cycle) who attempted to label Mormonism as a "Theological Cult," and gave as his reasoning that Mormonism came out 2000 years after Christianity, who has their own leader (Joseph Smith) and their own book of scripture (the Book of Mormon). Setting aside the completely arbitrary nature of this definition, it fails on another level, in that one could then label Christianity itself as a "theological cult" of Judaism, i.e. a religion that came out thousands of years after Judaism, with their own leader (Jesus Christs) and their own Scriptures (the New Testament).
All of this leaves me wondering, in all honesty, what does "Cult" mean? And how does Mormonism fit the moniker of cult? Is there some definition that would encompass only Mormonism while leaving unscathed any other mainstream religion? I'm not really interested in getting into a lengthy debate on the subject, but I ask simply out of curiosity, to see what sort of rationale is used.
I completely disagree with Latter Day Saints theology, but I don't call it a cult. Practically, cult means any group someone doesn't like. Cult has no Biblical basis, so it can take on any meaning.
I think the word cult today is generally understood to mean a group or sect that is usually led by a person who is deceived and deluded, thinks they are Christian when their beliefs say they are not. They add to the Bible, and often have their own 'bible' and apparent extra Biblical 'revelations' from God.
I think the word cult today is generally understood to mean a group or sect that is usually led by a person who is deceived and deluded, thinks they are Christian when their beliefs say they are not. They add to the Bible, and often have their own 'bible' and apparent extra Biblical 'revelations' from God.
I think it is a bit disingenuous to claim that the word 'cult' is "generally understood." That is far from the case. The definition you put forth, "a group or sect that is usually led by a person who is deceived and deluded, thinks they are Christian when their beliefs say they are not. The add to the Bible and often have their own 'bible,' is a definition I've only ever heard on websites like this one that are dominated by traditional evangelical/Protestant Christians specifically looking to exclude particular groups that they don't agree with. One of the biggest problems with such a definition is that so much of it is left up to interpretation and may change from person to person. Believing a person is deceived, for example, does not work because we all disagree with what that means. I've been told that I've been deceived because of my Mormonism. I, on the other hand, believe that it's everyone else that's been deceived. Therefore, using your definition, you all belong to a cult because you've all been deceived.
We encounter a similar problem in the sentiment that a cult is someone who professes to be a Christian when their beliefs say otherwise. First of all, this would imply that there can only be Christian-based cults. Many cults--truly dangerous cults, don't profess to be Christian at all. Are they not cults just because they don't profess to be Christian? And secondly, one then has to definitively define what is 'true Christian beliefs.' Clearly, I would disagree with those on here about what that means. From my perspective, all other Christian sects have deviated from true Christian beliefs. This also opens up a discussion about how wrong someone can be and still be Christian. No one on these forums agrees completely on all points of theology. One person believes in a pre-tribulation rapture, and another doesn't. Both are still considered Christian on here, but one has to be harboring an unChristian and incorrect belief as both ideas cannot be true. And since one has to have deviated, at least on this one point, from true Christianity, is that individual a member of a cult.
One final point about your definition that should be considered and that's the utter subjective nature of it. The main points you put forth (deceived, believing to be Christian but are harboring incorrect beliefs) are the exact same things I can levy at "traditional Christians," because I obviously believe I am right. And if your definition cannot be applied evenly or objectively, it has absolutely no power in defining anything and is utterly useless.
: the_last_gunslinger Tue Feb 11, 2014 - 23:10:52truly dangerous
The "truly dangerous" are the ones that lead to final destruction, eternal death.
gunslinger,
May I ask, why do you believe in another book besides the Bible? Would you consider the Bible, in and of itself to be insufficient?
: the_last_gunslinger Tue Feb 11, 2014 - 23:10:52
I think the word cult today is generally understood to mean a group or sect that is usually led by a person who is deceived and deluded, thinks they are Christian when their beliefs say they are not. They add to the Bible, and often have their own 'bible' and apparent extra Biblical 'revelations' from God.
I think it is a bit disingenuous to claim that the word 'cult' is "generally understood." That is far from the case. The definition you put forth, "a group or sect that is usually led by a person who is deceived and deluded, thinks they are Christian when their beliefs say they are not. The add to the Bible and often have their own 'bible,' is a definition I've only ever heard on websites like this one that are dominated by traditional evangelical/Protestant Christians specifically looking to exclude particular groups that they don't agree with. One of the biggest problems with such a definition is that so much of it is left up to interpretation and may change from person to person. Believing a person is deceived, for example, does not work because we all disagree with what that means. I've been told that I've been deceived because of my Mormonism. I, on the other hand, believe that it's everyone else that's been deceived. Therefore, using your definition, you all belong to a cult because you've all been deceived.
We encounter a similar problem in the sentiment that a cult is someone who professes to be a Christian when their beliefs say otherwise. First of all, this would imply that there can only be Christian-based cults. Many cults--truly dangerous cults, don't profess to be Christian at all. Are they not cults just because they don't profess to be Christian? And secondly, one then has to definitively define what is 'true Christian beliefs.' Clearly, I would disagree with those on here about what that means. From my perspective, all other Christian sects have deviated from true Christian beliefs. This also opens up a discussion about how wrong someone can be and still be Christian. No one on these forums agrees completely on all points of theology. One person believes in a pre-tribulation rapture, and another doesn't. Both are still considered Christian on here, but one has to be harboring an unChristian and incorrect belief as both ideas cannot be true. And since one has to have deviated, at least on this one point, from true Christianity, is that individual a member of a cult.
One final point about your definition that should be considered and that's the utter subjective nature of it. The main points you put forth (deceived, believing to be Christian but are harboring incorrect beliefs) are the exact same things I can levy at "traditional Christians," because I obviously believe I am right. And if your definition cannot be applied evenly or objectively, it has absolutely no power in defining anything and is utterly useless.
That is what people I have met seem to think the word defines.
If by traditional Christians you mean those who believe that the Bible and only the Bible it our authority, then that is surely 99% of all Christians.
Mormons are being deceived, as are JW's and Scientologists as are billions of others. Anyone who adds things to Gods word, and claims to have 'special revelations' that add to the Word, and even to specifically contradict it, are surely deceived.
: chosenone Tue Dec 31, 2013 - 21:39:09
I think the word cult today is generally understood to mean a group or sect that is usually led by a person who is deceived and deluded, thinks they are Christian when their beliefs say they are not. They add to the Bible, and often have their own 'bible' and apparent extra Biblical 'revelations' from God.
Chosen - do you consider "Hare Krishna" and "Falun Gong" to be cults? They have nothing to do with christianity.
May I ask, why do you believe in another book besides the Bible? Would you consider the Bible, in and of itself to be insufficient?
I believe that God's Word is sufficient, all of it. The Bible is the Word of God, so too is the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price. I don't look at them as being separate from one another. They all originated from God and all four together constitutes all that God has chosen to reveal to us at this time.
Chosen One, perhaps within your social circle, the term 'cult' has come to mean what you claim. I contest your assertion that your definition is the generally understood definition of the term as that is simply not true. A definition that is as subjective as yours has no power to define anything. I could just as easily label you a cultist with the same definition as I believe that you have been deceived and that you hold to beliefs that directly contradict true Christianity.
: the_last_gunslinger Wed Feb 12, 2014 - 16:59:35
May I ask, why do you believe in another book besides the Bible? Would you consider the Bible, in and of itself to be insufficient?
I believe that God's Word is sufficient, all of it. The Bible is the Word of God, so too is the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price. I don't look at them as being separate from one another. They all originated from God and all four together constitutes all that God has chosen to reveal to us at this time.
So would the Bible, in and of itself, be insufficient?
: raggthyme13 Thu Feb 13, 2014 - 01:58:46
: the_last_gunslinger Wed Feb 12, 2014 - 16:59:35
May I ask, why do you believe in another book besides the Bible? Would you consider the Bible, in and of itself to be insufficient?
I believe that God's Word is sufficient, all of it. The Bible is the Word of God, so too is the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price. I don't look at them as being separate from one another. They all originated from God and all four together constitutes all that God has chosen to reveal to us at this time.
So would the Bible, in and of itself, be insufficient?
Let's check the LDS 'scriptures' and what they say:
1 Nephi 13:28 Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and aprecious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God.
http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/13.28-29?lang=eng#27 (http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/13.28-29?lang=eng#27)
: TonkaTim Thu Feb 13, 2014 - 03:11:18
: raggthyme13 Thu Feb 13, 2014 - 01:58:46
: the_last_gunslinger Wed Feb 12, 2014 - 16:59:35
May I ask, why do you believe in another book besides the Bible? Would you consider the Bible, in and of itself to be insufficient?
I believe that God's Word is sufficient, all of it. The Bible is the Word of God, so too is the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price. I don't look at them as being separate from one another. They all originated from God and all four together constitutes all that God has chosen to reveal to us at this time.
So would the Bible, in and of itself, be insufficient?
Let's check the LDS 'scriptures' and what they say:
1 Nephi 13:28 Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and aprecious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God.
http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/13.28-29?lang=eng#27 (http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/13.28-29?lang=eng#27)
Wow that troubling. So basically they say that they need to add to the Bible because they say things have been taken away from it. Convenient.
What I think is also very 'convenient' was their leader, Joseph Smith, getting those 'revelations' that he could apparently have many young 'women/wives' being that he was already sleeping with several women at the time, and so committing adultery. According to him God then made his sexual sins 'allowable'. Well we could all do that, claim that God has given us a 'revelation' that says we can carry on with our sins because He has changed his mind and now 'allows' them.
Now that alone would show me without a doubt that this man wasn't of God before he said another word. I have no idea why anyone could believe in such a mans words or actions.
: DaveW Wed Feb 12, 2014 - 05:40:09
: chosenone Tue Dec 31, 2013 - 21:39:09
I think the word cult today is generally understood to mean a group or sect that is usually led by a person who is deceived and deluded, thinks they are Christian when their beliefs say they are not. They add to the Bible, and often have their own 'bible' and apparent extra Biblical 'revelations' from God.
Chosen - do you consider "Hare Krishna" and "Falun Gong" to be cults? They have nothing to do with christianity.
I consider them to be other faiths.
: the_last_gunslinger Wed Feb 12, 2014 - 17:02:16
Chosen One, perhaps within your social circle, the term 'cult' has come to mean what you claim. I contest your assertion that your definition is the generally understood definition of the term as that is simply not true. A definition that is as subjective as yours has no power to define anything. I could just as easily label you a cultist with the same definition as I believe that you have been deceived and that you hold to beliefs that directly contradict true Christianity.
You are allowed to call me what you like, but the Bible alone is my authority. I do not believe in men who claim extra biblical 'revelations' that they claim are equal to Gods word, and who write their own 'Holy' book when the Bible forbids us from adding to His word.
You are welcome to check my beliefs against the bible, but many beliefs of the mormons contradict Gods word in startling ways, or add to it.
You are allowed to call me what you like, but the Bible alone is my authority. I do not believe in men who claim extra biblical 'revelations' that they claim are equal to Gods word, and who write their own 'Holy' book when the Bible forbids us from adding to His word.
You are welcome to check my beliefs against the bible, but many beliefs of the mormons contradict Gods word in startling ways, or add to it.
Amen Chosenone~ Would the_last_gunslinger like for us to prove just how corrupt and cultist the Mormons are? They are so far from the teachings of God's infallible word that it does not take a aged saints to prove them a cult, most young believers could do so. That just how far they are from the truth. God's word is the truth, and the only measuring stick that men can use to prove who are cults, and who are not.
So would the Bible, in and of itself, be insufficient?
Let me ask you a question. Do you believe that a book that has caused thousands of competing religious philosophies to spring into existence, a book that no one can seem to agree on regarding some of its most basic tenets is sufficient? A book that didn't even exist in its current state until voted upon over four hundred years after the death of Christ? How can such a book be completely sufficient if there is so much confusion and uncertainty surrounding it? God is not the author of confusion.
What IS sufficient is the word of God, in whatever form that takes. The Bible constitutes the Word of God, as does the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, words of current apostles and prophets as well as personal revelation.
Wow that troubling. So basically they say that they need to add to the Bible because they say things have been taken away from it. Convenient.
A point of clarification. We don't say that we need to add to the Bible. Man did not write the Book of Mormon. It was written by ancient prophets as inspired by God, just as the Bible was. God can add whatever He wants to His word.
On another note, it is obvious that things have been removed or lost from the Bible. Those who claim otherwise must account for:
-the fact that completeness and inerancy is not a biblical doctrine
- the fact that there is no unanimity regarding what actually constitutes the true biblical canon. Which translation is inerrant? What about the apocrypha?
-the fact that the Bible contains some error and inconsistencies
-the many non-canonical books that the Bible itself considers authoritative (such as the Book of Enoch cited by James)
-the fact that the Bible has not proven sufficient to prevent a myriad of competing and conflicting doctrines, theologies and practices, all of which cannot be true.
This last point is most relevant to the discussion as the Book of Mormon verse cited above states that many 'plain and precious truths' have been lost. As evidence of this, I cite the complete confusion and disagreements amongst the many Christian Sects. In its purest form, the Word of God IS plain and precious and there would not be so many competing theories because the true meaning would be self evident.
What I think is also very 'convenient' was their leader, Joseph Smith, getting those 'revelations' that he could apparently have many young 'women/wives' being that he was already sleeping with several women at the time, and so committing adultery
.
In the future, I would refrain from stating things that are not true. It seriously hurts your credibility. There is not a single shred of evidence that Joseph Smith ever engaged in sexual relations even with his known wives outside of Emma. There is absolutely no evidence that he engaged sexually with women prior to receiving the revelation allowing polygamy. Such charges were not even levied against Smith until decades after his death, by second and third hand sources, published in anti-Mormon literature.
Now that alone would show me without a doubt that this man wasn't of God before he said another word. I have no idea why anyone could believe in such a mans words or actions.
Ignoring for the moment that the things you said about Joseph's indiscretions aren't actually true, are you prepared to say that you expect a prophet of God to be free of any serious sins or iniquitous behavior? Are you willing to denounce Jacob as being chosen of God because he obtained his birthright through deceit? Do you discount King David because he committed adultery, resulting in an illegitimate pregnancy. Then to cover it up, he sent the woman's husband into battle hoping he'd be killed? What about polygamy with Abraham? He engaged in sexual relations with more than one woman. Why do you make an allowance in his case, but not in the case of Smith? Do you believe Abraham just 'made up' this commandment to satisfy his own carnal desires? Was Paul not an apostle because he was complicit in the stoning of Stephen?
You are allowed to call me what you like, but the Bible alone is my authority. I do not believe in men who claim extra biblical 'revelations' that they claim are equal to Gods word, and who write their own 'Holy' book when the Bible forbids us from adding to His word.
But why is the Bible 'alone' your authority? As stated prior, the Bible makes no claim to being the exclusive word of God. What part of the Bible leads you to preclude any possibility that there exists additional scriptures? What about the Bible making references to other books not contained therein?
You are welcome to check my beliefs against the bible, but many beliefs of the mormons contradict Gods word in startling ways, or add to it.
I have checked your beliefs against the Bible, and I find them seriously wanting. Mormonism reflects biblical Christianity moreso than any other Christian faith out there. Anyone who conducts and honest and thorough study of the issues can see that.
Amen Chosenone~ Would the_last_gunslinger like for us to prove just how corrupt and cultist the Mormons are? They are so far from the teachings of God's infallible word that it does not take a aged saints to prove them a cult, most young believers could do so. That just how far they are from the truth. God's word is the truth, and the only measuring stick that men can use to prove who are cults, and who are not
I would like to see you TRY to prove this, since it cannot be done. Believe me, I've seen all the attacks, all the attempts at defamation. In the midst of such discussions and challenges, I see truly the fulfillment of the prophecy given by God to Joseph Smith:
The Standard of Truth has been erected; no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing; persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame, but the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished, and the Great Jehovah shall say the work is done.
: the_last_gunslinger Thu Feb 13, 2014 - 22:21:13
So would the Bible, in and of itself, be insufficient?
Let me ask you a question. Do you believe that a book that has caused thousands of competing religious philosophies to spring into existence, a book that no one can seem to agree on regarding some of its most basic tenets is sufficient? A book that didn't even exist in its current state until voted upon over four hundred years after the death of Christ? How can such a book be completely sufficient if there is so much confusion and uncertainty surrounding it? God is not the author of confusion.
I trust the scriptures contained in the Bible. I find them in agreement.
I've read the LDS books, I don't find them in agreement with the Bible. I find that they are books of confusion & contradiction to the real scriptures. I can say you are right about one thing; "God is not the author of confusion." But depraved man is. The prophet Jeremiah told us - "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" and that is what is the author of confusion, false & designing men, liars, & false prophets.
Jesus & the Apostles warned us emphatically about such. You & I had a conversation about this a couple of years ago.
I've read the LDS books, I don't find them in agreement with the Bible. I find that they are books of confusion & contradiction to the real scriptures. I can say you are right about one thing; "God is not the author of confusion." But depraved man is. The prophet Jeremiah told us - "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" and that is what is the author of confusion, false & designing men, liars, & false prophets.
We clearly disagree about there being disagreements between the Bible and "LDS Scriptures." If I may inquire, what exactly do you find counter to what the Bible teaches?
Yes, God is not the author of confusion. That being established, how does one account for the rampant confusion running through most of Christendom? Two thousand years of study, debate and examination has not brought us any closer to unanimity regarding biblical interpretation. That's why I find Mormonism so appealing. Modern revelation (both through prophets and personal revelation) clarifies things that simple study cannot.
: the_last_gunslinger Thu Feb 13, 2014 - 22:59:51
I've read the LDS books, I don't find them in agreement with the Bible. I find that they are books of confusion & contradiction to the real scriptures. I can say you are right about one thing; "God is not the author of confusion." But depraved man is. The prophet Jeremiah told us - "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" and that is what is the author of confusion, false & designing men, liars, & false prophets.
We clearly disagree about there being disagreements between the Bible and "LDS Scriptures." If I may inquire, what exactly do you find counter to what the Bible teaches?
Yes, God is not the author of confusion. That being established, how does one account for the rampant confusion running through most of Christendom? Two thousand years of study, debate and examination has not brought us any closer to unanimity regarding biblical interpretation. That's why I find Mormonism so appealing. Modern revelation (both through prophets and personal revelation) clarifies things that simple study cannot.
Pre-conceived idea from doctrines of men.
Where we are now with all the silliness is fulfillment of prophecy since we are in the age of apostasy: "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;" It was foretold. It is why I quoted Jeremiah about the deceitful heart because the true Scriptures are not corrupt because it is the designing hearts of false teachers & their ideas that are.
And yes simple sincere prayerful study can & does lead to the truth in the Scriptures.
Pre-conceived idea from doctrines of men.
Where we are now with all the silliness is fulfillment of prophecy since we are in the age of apostasy: "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;" It was foretold. It is why I quoted Jeremiah about the deceitful heart because the true Scriptures are not corrupt because it is the designing hearts of false teachers & their ideas that are.
I agree with this prophecy of the end times. We are indeed living in an age where many are deceived, departing from the true faith. The question, though, is who's being deceived here?
And yes simple sincere prayerful study can & does lead to the truth in the Scriptures.
I specifically left out 'prayerful study' for a reason. The moment one begins to approach God, seeking answers, we enter the realm of personal revelation, which CAN lead to an understanding of the truth. That's how I knew that Mormonism was true. I studies, prayed, and simply asked God if these things were true. And his response, in no uncertain terms, was a most emphatic 'yes.'
I'm curious what you make of the many interpretations that people derive from the Bible. Everyone on this board believes that he or she has prayerfully studied the Bible. How do you account for all of these earnest seekers failing to come to a unanimous agreement on every point of doctrine?
: the_last_gunslinger Thu Feb 13, 2014 - 23:33:14
Pre-conceived idea from doctrines of men.
Where we are now with all the silliness is fulfillment of prophecy since we are in the age of apostasy: "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;" It was foretold. It is why I quoted Jeremiah about the deceitful heart because the true Scriptures are not corrupt because it is the designing hearts of false teachers & their ideas that are.
I agree with this prophecy of the end times. We are indeed living in an age where many are deceived, departing from the true faith. The question, though, is who's being deceived here?
And yes simple sincere prayerful study can & does lead to the truth in the Scriptures.
I specifically left out 'prayerful study' for a reason. The moment one begins to approach God, seeking answers, we enter the realm of personal revelation, which CAN lead to an understanding of the truth. That's how I knew that Mormonism was true. I studies, prayed, and simply asked God if these things were true. And his response, in no uncertain terms, was a most emphatic 'yes.'
I'm curious what you make of the many interpretations that people derive from the Bible. Everyone on this board believes that he or she has prayerfully studied the Bible. How do you account for all of these earnest seekers failing to come to a unanimous agreement on every point of doctrine?
The same way as you. They were indoctrinated by extra-biblical teachings (pre-conceived idea). It's why I have a common theme in my discussion, all here know I am a constant advocate of pure Bible reading & study. I tell folks all the time to throw away the books of the prophecy pimps & read the Bible.
When a teacher of doctrine tells one they believe the Bible but puts extra-biblical texts in ones hand as a supplement, that is the first sign there is a problem.
The same way as you. They were indoctrinated by extra-biblical teachings (pre-conceived idea). It's why I have a common theme in my discussion, all here know I am a constant advocate of pure Bible reading & study. I tell folks all the time to throw away the books of the prophecy pimps & read the Bible.
So am I to understand that you are immune from indoctrination or pre-conceived ideas? What assurances do you have that you have reached the correct conclusions? Perhaps you are reading your own notions into the text. Basically, I'm asking how you know that you are right in your interpretation, that you are gleaning from it truth, unsullied by the wisdom of man?
How do you also respond to claims such as mine that God revealed to me the truth of Mormonism?
: the_last_gunslinger Thu Feb 13, 2014 - 23:41:54
The same way as you. They were indoctrinated by extra-biblical teachings (pre-conceived idea). It's why I have a common theme in my discussion, all here know I am a constant advocate of pure Bible reading & study. I tell folks all the time to throw away the books of the prophecy pimps & read the Bible.
So am I to understand that you are immune from indoctrination or pre-conceived ideas? What assurances do you have that you have reached the correct conclusions? Perhaps you are reading your own notions into the text. Basically, I'm asking how you know that you are right in your interpretation, that you are gleaning from it truth, unsullied by the wisdom of man?
How do you also respond to claims such as mine that God revealed to me the truth of Mormonism?
I state publicly I don't want anyone to believe me.
I've stated that on this forum several times.
I want folks to believe Him.
It is why I advocate pure Bible study.
: the_last_gunslinger Thu Feb 13, 2014 - 23:41:54
How do you also respond to claims such as mine that God revealed to me the truth of Mormonism?
Like so many others, you've been deceived. It is like when I showed you how Joseph Smith proved he himself was a false prophet by his own testimony, but you refuse to believe that specific testimony of Joseph Smith because it was inconvenient to your pre-conceived indoctrination.
I state publicly I don't want anyone to believe me.
I've stated that on this forum several times.
I still begs the question, though. How do you know that You are right? What assurance do you have? Is it conceivable that you are in error and that your 'pure Bible study' has suffered due to your own ideas of what you THINK the text says?
I want folks to believe Him.
And I do.
My question is...do you?
It is why I advocate pure Bible study.
Would you care to elaborate further on your beliefs concerning pure Bible study? I am eager to compare your method of study to my own.
Like so many others, you've been deceived. It is like when I showed you how Joseph Smith proved he himself was a false prophet by his own testimony, but you refuse to believe that specific testimony of Joseph Smith because it was inconvenient to your pre-conceived indoctrination.
How to you believe deception was wrought upon me? When God tells me that Mormonism is right, how am I being deceived and who is behind it? Keep in mind, I am speaking of direct revelation and confirmation from God.
I don't recall you ever proving Smith false by his own words. You only showed that he was flawed.
: the_last_gunslinger Fri Feb 14, 2014 - 00:01:25
I don't recall you ever proving Smith false by his own words.
Let's review that conversation then. Re-read post #199 it is quite clear.
http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/lds-forum-%28mormonism%29/negatives-of-mormanism/msg1054743146/#msg1054743146 (http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/lds-forum-%28mormonism%29/negatives-of-mormanism/msg1054743146/#msg1054743146)
: the_last_gunslinger Thu Feb 13, 2014 - 22:21:13
So would the Bible, in and of itself, be insufficient?
How can such a book be completely sufficient if there is so much confusion and uncertainty surrounding it? God is not the author of confusion.
Well, thank you for being honest. I have several Mormon acquaintances and I was not aware that this is how they viewed the Holy Bible.
I do believe the message that God would have all mankind to hear is perfect and complete in those 66 books that He has preserved for us, all proclaiming Jesus Christ, even though there is much disagreement on interpretation. God is most definitely
not the author of such confusion, but if He is the inspiration behind everything from Genesis to Revelation, and it was His intent that the Holy Scriptures be put into print in a Book we call the Bible, how then can anything he does be inadequate?
Does
the Bible create confusion, or is it men who have misunderstood and misused it?
Since you believe the word of God includes much more than the Bible, how is one to differentiate between what comes from the Father of lights and what comes from the father of lies?
The Standard of Truth has been erected; no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing; persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame, but the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished, and the Great Jehovah shall say the work is done.
Joseph Smith was a false prophet, and the corrupt religion that he started, can easily be proven false and under God's curse. The above quote, has "sound bites" from the holy scriptures from Nehemiah the prophet, and a great man of God. Joseph Smith and his cult followers, are not much different than Islam~ Both religions/cults have taken Christianity and the teaching of the holy scriptures and mixed it with heathenism and served it to their followers, given them a sense of being correct and following God. I will be back.
: TonkaTim Thu Feb 13, 2014 - 23:51:32
: the_last_gunslinger Thu Feb 13, 2014 - 23:41:54
How do you also respond to claims such as mine that God revealed to me the truth of Mormonism?
Like so many others, you've been deceived. It is like when I showed you how Joseph Smith proved he himself was a false prophet by his own testimony, but you refuse to believe that specific testimony of Joseph Smith because it was inconvenient to your pre-conceived indoctrination.
2 Corinthians 11:14-15
14 And it is no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light;
1 Peter5v8
8 Be self-controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.
: the_last_gunslinger Thu Feb 13, 2014 - 23:41:54
The same way as you. They were indoctrinated by extra-biblical teachings (pre-conceived idea). It's why I have a common theme in my discussion, all here know I am a constant advocate of pure Bible reading & study. I tell folks all the time to throw away the books of the prophecy pimps & read the Bible.
So am I to understand that you are immune from indoctrination or pre-conceived ideas? What assurances do you have that you have reached the correct conclusions? Perhaps you are reading your own notions into the text. Basically, I'm asking how you know that you are right in your interpretation, that you are gleaning from it truth, unsullied by the wisdom of man?
How do you also respond to claims such as mine that God revealed to me the truth of Mormonism?
Whenever I hear something said that I am not sure about, I read for myself what Gods word says, and I listen to what anointed Christian teachers say on the subject. I don't take everything I hear as gospel truth. I was bought up in a church that I left because I felt that there were errors(not major ones) and I will only go to churches that I see as teaching the truth. The mormon church has so many glaring and extreme errors, and I feel so sorry for those caught up in its grip.
: the_last_gunslinger Thu Feb 13, 2014 - 23:33:14
Pre-conceived idea from doctrines of men.
Where we are now with all the silliness is fulfillment of prophecy since we are in the age of apostasy: "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;" It was foretold. It is why I quoted Jeremiah about the deceitful heart because the true Scriptures are not corrupt because it is the designing hearts of false teachers & their ideas that are.
I agree with this prophecy of the end times. We are indeed living in an age where many are deceived, departing from the true faith. The question, though, is who's being deceived here?
And yes simple sincere prayerful study can & does lead to the truth in the Scriptures.
I specifically left out 'prayerful study' for a reason. The moment one begins to approach God, seeking answers, we enter the realm of personal revelation, which CAN lead to an understanding of the truth. That's how I knew that Mormonism was true. I studies, prayed, and simply asked God if these things were true. And his response, in no uncertain terms, was a most emphatic 'yes.'
I'm curious what you make of the many interpretations that people derive from the Bible. Everyone on this board believes that he or she has prayerfully studied the Bible. How do you account for all of these earnest seekers failing to come to a unanimous agreement on every point of doctrine?
We agree on the main and most vital points of doctrine.
: the_last_gunslinger Thu Feb 13, 2014 - 23:33:14I'm curious what you make of the many interpretations that people derive from the Bible. Everyone on this board believes that he or she has prayerfully studied the Bible. How do you account for all of these earnest seekers failing to come to a unanimous agreement on every point of doctrine?
Where is it written that there is only one "unanimous agreement on every point of doctrine," that everyone must ascribe to? Our home group bible study is currently going thru Hebrews. THis week was chapter 8. I have been reading from a Messianic commentary on the book by Dr. Stuart Sacks called "Hebrews through a Hebrew's Eyes." In chapter 9 he writes this:
Pertaining to Biblical studies, the saying, shiv'im panim la-torah, "The Law has seventy faces," is a reminder that the Torah can be interpreted many ways.
For those who undertake the study of more than five centuries of rabbinical thought - the Talmud - an other maxim applies: elu va-elu divrey Elohim khayim ("both are the words of the Living God"). This means that interpretations that are contrary to one another may both be acceptable.
ETA:
That does not mean there are not limits on interpretation. IMO, Mormonism goes way past those limits in preaching another Jesus and not affirming that God is one.
Let's review that conversation then. Re-read post #199 it is quite clear.
I see nothing in that discussion that proves Smith a false prophet. Part of your argument relied on assuming that much of what he taught was wrong. I contend that they were not. Other than that, you rely on Smith's own words to condemn him, his claims to being a divine servant, persecution ceasing, etc. These things mean only that Smith was flawed and said some things of his own volition that may or may not be true. Prophets aren't perfect. The Bible speaks about testing a prophet by judging whether or not the things they say came true. Since many biblical prophets said things that were wrong or made false prophecies, are you then willing to renounce the prophets of the Bible? If not, you are applying a double standard, and falling into the same trap you accused me of, namely, holding to a pre-conceived idea of Smith's prophethood based on your own narrow prejudices.
Well, thank you for being honest. I have several Mormon acquaintances and I was not aware that this is how they viewed the Holy Bible.
For the record, I'd like to state that I am typically not fond of such conversations because I feel like I'm put into a position where I must denigrate the Bible. Truth be told, Mormons revere the Bible as the Word of God, and devote two years out of four to studying it in Sunday School. Nor do we believe that the Bible is fraught with all sorts of error. Much of the error, we do believe, is derived from the loss of its true interpretation, rather than from mistakes in the actual text.
I do believe the message that God would have all mankind to hear is perfect and complete in those 66 books that He has preserved for us, all proclaiming Jesus Christ, even though there is much disagreement on interpretation. God is most definitely not the author of such confusion, but if He is the inspiration behind everything from Genesis to Revelation, and it was His intent that the Holy Scriptures be put into print in a Book we call the Bible, how then can anything he does be inadequate?
But why do you believe that the 66 book Bible is all there is? The Bible itself never makes such a claim, and in fact, mentions other books that the Biblical writers considered authoritative, but are not in our current canon.
Does the Bible create confusion, or is it men who have misunderstood and misused it?
Men, most certainly. And it was Man who translated the Bible, and it was Man who decided which books to include and which ones not to. Did you know that the very first attempt to compile the New Testament occurred in Rome around the year 200, and it excluded 2nd and 3rd John, both epistles of Peter and the Book of Hebrews? Was that book inspired by God? If so, why were these books excluded? And if it wasn't inspired, why did God wait four centuries after Christ before giving us the Bible in its current format?
Since you believe the word of God includes much more than the Bible, how is one to differentiate between what comes from the Father of lights and what comes from the father of lies?
By following the Biblical admonition of James 1:5. I simply ask God. The Holy Spirit testifies of truth. I bear witness that any earnest seeker of truth may have his or her prayers answered and confirmed through the Spirit. When I talk about knowing that the Book of Mormon is true, I don't do so lightly. I don't just think it's true, nor was I 'indoctrinated,' into thinking it was true, as some on here have insinuated. I know because of personal and powerful revelation directly from God.
: the_last_gunslinger Fri Feb 14, 2014 - 07:25:27
Let's review that conversation then. Re-read post #199 it is quite clear.
I see nothing in that discussion that proves Smith a false prophet. Part of your argument relied on assuming that much of what he taught was wrong. I contend that they were not. Other than that, you rely on Smith's own words to condemn him, his claims to being a divine servant, persecution ceasing, etc. These things mean only that Smith was flawed and said some things of his own volition that may or may not be true. Prophets aren't perfect. The Bible speaks about testing a prophet by judging whether or not the things they say came true. Since many biblical prophets said things that were wrong or made false prophecies, are you then willing to renounce the prophets of the Bible? If not, you are applying a double standard, and falling into the same trap you accused me of, namely, holding to a pre-conceived idea of Smith's prophethood based on your own narrow prejudices.
No narrow prejudices, just his words:
: Joseph Smithif I am bringing you to a knowledge of Him, all persecutions against me ought to cease. You will then know that I am His servant; for I speak as one having authority.
: Joseph SmithYou will then know that I am His servant; for I speak as one having authority.
: Joseph SmithBut if I fail to do it, it becomes my duty to renounce all further pretensions to revelations and inspirations, or to be a prophet; and I should be like the rest of the world—a false teacher
No double standards, because it is his words.
: Joseph SmithYou will then know that I am His servant; for I speak as one having authority.
He told all the sign to look for so:
: Joseph SmithYou will then know that I am His servant;
What was the sign to know he was the servant of God?
: Joseph Smithall persecutions against me ought to cease.
Did they? No. He was shot to death two months later.
No narrow prejudices, just his words, No double standards just the facts.
: Joseph Smith all persecutions against me ought to cease. You will then know that I am His servant
: Joseph SmithBut if I fail to do it, it becomes my duty to renounce all further pretensions to revelations and inspirations, or to be a prophet; and I should be like the rest of the world—a false teacher
I'm not pointing out the testimony of Joseph Smith to be mean or to prove an agenda.
I'm doing it because I want you to live.
I want you to know the true Christ.
Not the other christ the LDS prophets declare:
: Gordon B. HinckleyThe traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak.
I honestly believe if someone like you came to the Truth, God could use someone like you to save countless souls. Someone like you could become a powerful force for the true Christ once the true Christ is revealed to someone like you.
That is my prayer for you and all of yours, that the Truth will be revealed and you can become a powerful witness for Him - The One True God. That you & all of yours will be my brothers & sisters in Eternity.
: the_last_gunslinger Fri Feb 14, 2014 - 07:44:34
Well, thank you for being honest. I have several Mormon acquaintances and I was not aware that this is how they viewed the Holy Bible.
For the record, I'd like to state that I am typically not fond of such conversations because I feel like I'm put into a position where I must denigrate the Bible. Truth be told, Mormons revere the Bible as the Word of God, and devote two years out of four to studying it in Sunday School. Nor do we believe that the Bible is fraught with all sorts of error. Much of the error, we do believe, is derived from the loss of its true interpretation, rather than from mistakes in the actual text.
I do believe the message that God would have all mankind to hear is perfect and complete in those 66 books that He has preserved for us, all proclaiming Jesus Christ, even though there is much disagreement on interpretation. God is most definitely not the author of such confusion, but if He is the inspiration behind everything from Genesis to Revelation, and it was His intent that the Holy Scriptures be put into print in a Book we call the Bible, how then can anything he does be inadequate?
But why do you believe that the 66 book Bible is all there is? The Bible itself never makes such a claim, and in fact, mentions other books that the Biblical writers considered authoritative, but are not in our current canon.
Does the Bible create confusion, or is it men who have misunderstood and misused it?
Men, most certainly. And it was Man who translated the Bible, and it was Man who decided which books to include and which ones not to. Did you know that the very first attempt to compile the New Testament occurred in Rome around the year 200, and it excluded 2nd and 3rd John, both epistles of Peter and the Book of Hebrews? Was that book inspired by God? If so, why were these books excluded? And if it wasn't inspired, why did God wait four centuries after Christ before giving us the Bible in its current format?
Since you believe the word of God includes much more than the Bible, how is one to differentiate between what comes from the Father of lights and what comes from the father of lies?
By following the Biblical admonition of James 1:5. I simply ask God. The Holy Spirit testifies of truth. I bear witness that any earnest seeker of truth may have his or her prayers answered and confirmed through the Spirit. When I talk about knowing that the Book of Mormon is true, I don't do so lightly. I don't just think it's true, nor was I 'indoctrinated,' into thinking it was true, as some on here have insinuated. I know because of personal and powerful revelation directly from God.
For me it's really a matter of faith in God, believing that He is fully capable of making sure the right and complete number of books were included.
Yes, men compiled it, and men may have had their own agendas.
But God is sovereign after all! What ended up there, I believe, is exactly what He intended. And what He does is never inadequate.
Over (nearly) the last two millennia this one Book has gone out to the ends of the earth, testifying to the Truth. If your estimation of it were accurate, multitudes of men would have lived and died with an
incomplete message.
I do not believe the Bible is lacking.. not one bit. It's men whose
understanding is lacking.. or swayed by some extra-biblical source.
But concerning personal revelations.. according to Mormon teaching, was it not
Satan who answered when Adam prayed to God for knowledge after being thrust out of the garden?
I for one understand the root of the many denominations that are in existence, they begin with "I"m right and you're wrong and I'll never change my mind, but I do tend to agree with TonkaTim, the Bible is my pure source of God, man can help teach me but at the end of the day it MUST line up with what is contained with the 66 (yes 66) books.
Now, something that was pointed out in Bible school that was quite interesting. Within the 66 books we never see scripture point to books that do not exist, NEVER!
: TonkaTim Fri Feb 14, 2014 - 11:50:42
I'm not pointing out the testimony of Joseph Smith to be mean or to prove an agenda.
I'm doing it because I want you to live.
I want you to know the true Christ.
Not the other christ the LDS prophets declare:
: Gordon B. HinckleyThe traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak.
I honestly believe if someone like you came to the Truth, God could use someone like you to save countless souls. Someone like you could become a powerful force for the true Christ once the true Christ is revealed to someone like you.
That is my prayer for you and all of yours, that the Truth will be revealed and you can become a powerful witness for Him - The One True God. That you & all of yours will be my brothers & sisters in Eternity.
Amen, just think of how many mormons could be saved by a few ex mormons who came to know the true God.
: raggthyme13 Fri Feb 14, 2014 - 13:19:19
: the_last_gunslinger Fri Feb 14, 2014 - 07:44:34
Well, thank you for being honest. I have several Mormon acquaintances and I was not aware that this is how they viewed the Holy Bible.
For the record, I'd like to state that I am typically not fond of such conversations because I feel like I'm put into a position where I must denigrate the Bible. Truth be told, Mormons revere the Bible as the Word of God, and devote two years out of four to studying it in Sunday School. Nor do we believe that the Bible is fraught with all sorts of error. Much of the error, we do believe, is derived from the loss of its true interpretation, rather than from mistakes in the actual text.
I do believe the message that God would have all mankind to hear is perfect and complete in those 66 books that He has preserved for us, all proclaiming Jesus Christ, even though there is much disagreement on interpretation. God is most definitely not the author of such confusion, but if He is the inspiration behind everything from Genesis to Revelation, and it was His intent that the Holy Scriptures be put into print in a Book we call the Bible, how then can anything he does be inadequate?
But why do you believe that the 66 book Bible is all there is? The Bible itself never makes such a claim, and in fact, mentions other books that the Biblical writers considered authoritative, but are not in our current canon.
Does the Bible create confusion, or is it men who have misunderstood and misused it?
Men, most certainly. And it was Man who translated the Bible, and it was Man who decided which books to include and which ones not to. Did you know that the very first attempt to compile the New Testament occurred in Rome around the year 200, and it excluded 2nd and 3rd John, both epistles of Peter and the Book of Hebrews? Was that book inspired by God? If so, why were these books excluded? And if it wasn't inspired, why did God wait four centuries after Christ before giving us the Bible in its current format?
Since you believe the word of God includes much more than the Bible, how is one to differentiate between what comes from the Father of lights and what comes from the father of lies?
By following the Biblical admonition of James 1:5. I simply ask God. The Holy Spirit testifies of truth. I bear witness that any earnest seeker of truth may have his or her prayers answered and confirmed through the Spirit. When I talk about knowing that the Book of Mormon is true, I don't do so lightly. I don't just think it's true, nor was I 'indoctrinated,' into thinking it was true, as some on here have insinuated. I know because of personal and powerful revelation directly from God.
For me it's really a matter of faith in God, believing that He is fully capable of making sure the right and complete number of books were included.
Yes, men compiled it, and men may have had their own agendas. But God is sovereign after all! What ended up there, I believe, is exactly what He intended. And what He does is never inadequate.
Over (nearly) the last two millennia this one Book has gone out to the ends of the earth, testifying to the Truth. If your estimation of it were accurate, multitudes of men would have lived and died with an incomplete message.
I do not believe the Bible is lacking.. not one bit. It's men whose understanding is lacking.. or swayed by some extra-biblical source.
But concerning personal revelations.. according to Mormon teaching, was it not Satan who answered when Adam prayed to God for knowledge after being thrust out of the garden?
I agree with this. God is perfectly capable of making sure that what is the Bible was what he wanted there. Any extra Biblical 'revelations' that have been received and often made into a book, or reputed to have the same importance as the Word of God, need to be totally rejected as false.
Did they? No. He was shot to death two months later.
No narrow prejudices, just his words, No double standards just the facts.
No, those aren't the facts as you've completely misread that quote. From the King Follett sermon, we read:
I will prove that the world is wrong, by showing what God is. I am going to inquire after God; for I want you all to know Him, and to be familiar with Him; and if I am bringing you to a knowledge of Him, all persecutions against me ought to cease. You will then know that I am His servant; for I speak as one having authority
.
The part you chose to focus on was Joseph's words that all persecution ought to cease, then you erroneously took his final statement regarding knowing him to be a servant of God as contingent on persecution ceasing. A close reading of the text doesn't bear this out, however. Read the line right before that. "for I want you all to know him, and to be familiar with him,
and if I am bringing you to a knowledge of him... all persecutions against me ought to cease." Notice the bold part. He's saying that if he brings you to a knowledge of the truth, then persecution should cease,
amongst those who he has led to the truth. Clearly those who killed him were not led to a knowledge of the truth. The final line, "You will then know that I am his servant," is meant to illustrate the reason for why persecution would cease amongst those who have learned the truth. They will know that Joseph is a servant of God and has authority.
Joseph Smith's words are correct here and there is nothing in his statement to discredit him as a prophet.
: the_last_gunslinger Fri Feb 14, 2014 - 17:55:01
Did they? No. He was shot to death two months later.
No narrow prejudices, just his words, No double standards just the facts.
No, those aren't the facts as you've completely misread that quote. From the King Follett sermon, we read:
I will prove that the world is wrong, by showing what God is. I am going to inquire after God; for I want you all to know Him, and to be familiar with Him; and if I am bringing you to a knowledge of Him, all persecutions against me ought to cease. You will then know that I am His servant; for I speak as one having authority
.
The part you chose to focus on was Joseph's words that all persecution ought to cease, then you erroneously took his final statement regarding knowing him to be a servant of God as contingent on persecution ceasing. A close reading of the text doesn't bear this out, however. Read the line right before that. "for I want you all to know him, and to be familiar with him, and if I am bringing you to a knowledge of him... all persecutions against me ought to cease." Notice the bold part. He's saying that if he brings you to a knowledge of the truth, then persecution should cease, amongst those who he has led to the truth. Clearly those who killed him were not led to a knowledge of the truth. The final line, "You will then know that I am his servant," is meant to illustrate the reason for why persecution would cease amongst those who have learned the truth. They will know that Joseph is a servant of God and has authority.
Joseph Smith's words are correct here and there is nothing in his statement to discredit him as a prophet.
: Joseph Smithpersecutions against me
persecutions against me
You're not listening to what I'm saying here. I am not disputing that Smith said persecution against him ought to cease. But he never said persecution from everyone ought to cease. He specifically said that all persecution against him ought to cease by those who have been led to a knowledge of the truth. Those that continued to persecute him, including those who killed him were not led to a true knowledge of God.
Your point is still invalid.
I haven't read the thread much except for this "persecution ought to cease" bit. But that whole idea seems contraindicated by history and the Bible. All prophets are persecuted. But yet those who believed don't persecute the prophets, so why would be waffle and say "ought to" cease. If he is speaking about believers then he could have been bolder and said it "will" cease. Why would any believer persecute him? Why would there be any doubt at all?
For me it's really a matter of faith in God, believing that He is fully capable of making sure the right and complete number of books were included.
Yes, men compiled it, and men may have had their own agendas. But God is sovereign after all! What ended up there, I believe, is exactly what He intended. And what He does is never inadequate.
I also believe that God's word is never inadequate. The flaw I see in other Christian denominations, though, is equating the Holy Bible alone as God's word when there is nothing to support that notion. I also believe that God gave us all we need, which includes the Bible, yes, but additional scriptures as well. God's word is complete, it just may not all be contained within a single volume.
Over (nearly) the last two millennia this one Book has gone out to the ends of the earth, testifying to the Truth. If your estimation of it were accurate, multitudes of men would have lived and died with an incomplete message.
I won't dispute this. I think it's pretty well established that Man was living without a complete message for a good portion of the last two thousand years. That era was called the Great Apostasy where the earth had not the gospel in its fulness, but also lacked the necessary Priesthood authority to organize the church or perform any ordinances or acts in the name of Christ. This state of being was not God's doing, but man's. It was the world that rejected the testimony of the prophets, that sought the wisdom of the world rather than the wisdom of God. Just like the ancient Israelites were unprepared to live by the higher law as administered by Moses, so God gave them the lesser law, the priesthood of Aaron. So too was the world unprepared or unwilling to live by everything the fulness of the gospel entailed. So God gave them what they needed at that time and what the world was willing to accept. With the calling of the Prophet Joseph Smith, the long night of apostasy had come to an end, and conditions were ripe for the gospel to stand forever, unimpeded, never to be taken from the earth again.
But concerning personal revelations.. according to Mormon teaching, was it not Satan who answered when Adam prayed to God for knowledge after being thrust out of the garden?
Not that I'm aware of, but I could be in error. Do you have anything in particular you are referencing here?
What are your thought about asking God for wisdom and gaining personal revelation and insights?
I haven't read the thread much except for this "persecution ought to cease" bit. But that whole idea seems contraindicated by history and the Bible. All prophets are persecuted. But yet those who believed don't persecute the prophets, so why would be waffle and say "ought to" cease. If he is speaking about believers then he could have been bolder and said it "will" cease. Why would any believer persecute him? Why would there be any doubt at all?
A couple things to keep in mind. When he spoke of persecution ceasing, he was referring to those who might have persecuted him at first, but once they came to a true knowledge of God (and of Smith's authority) they would naturally no longer seek to persecute him. Think of it in terms of Paul's conversion. He persecuted the Saints, the apostles and the ardent followers of Christ until he gained a knowledge of the truthfulness of Christianity. Once that happened, he no longer sought to persecute Christians. That would have been the vein in which Joseph Smith would have been speaking.
Another thing to consider is that he spoke this at a funeral, not an official church gathering, and it was never intended as a revelation. More than likely, Smith was speaking ironically, something that gets lost when words are translated to print. Smith and his listeners knew full well that the church's most ardent opponents had no desire whatsoever of learning the truth. It can be seen, then, as good old-fashioned 19th century humor.
: the_last_gunslinger Fri Feb 14, 2014 - 18:06:07
persecutions against me
You're not listening to what I'm saying here. I am not disputing that Smith said persecution against him ought to cease. But he never said persecution from everyone ought to cease. He specifically said that all persecution against him ought to cease by those who have been led to a knowledge of the truth. Those that continued to persecute him, including those who killed him were not led to a true knowledge of God.
Your point is still invalid.
The full quote:
: Joseph SmithThe Privilege of Religious Freedom But meddle not with any man for his religion: all governments ought to permit every man to enjoy his religion unmolested. No man is authorized to take away life in consequence of difference of religion, which all laws and governments ought to tolerate and protect, right or wrong. Every man has a natural, and, in our country, a constitutional right to be a false prophet, as well as a true prophet. If I show, verily, that I have the truth of God, and show that ninety-nine out of every hundred professing religious ministers are false teachers, having no authority, while they pretend to hold the keys of God's kingdom on earth, and was to kill them because they are false teachers, it would deluge the whole world with blood.
I will prove that the world is wrong, by showing what God is. I am going to inquire after God; for I want you all to know Him, and to be familiar with Him; and if I am bringing you to a knowledge of Him, all persecutions against me ought to cease. You will then know that I am His servant; for I speak as one having authority.
It's perfectly clear what he said. It was said in plain English, it was recorded by Mormon scribes in plain English.
The man was making an audacious claim that he was the prophet of God and all others were false. And the verification of his claim - the sign of the proof...was the end of persecution against him specifically.
Anyone who can read plain English can plainly understand what the man said.
I don't have to listen to or understand anyone else, all I have to do is read the words. They are clear & in my native language.
It's perfectly clear what he said. It was said in plain English, it was recorded by Mormon scribes in plain English.
The man was making an audacious claim that he was the prophet of God and all others were false. And the verification of his claim - the sign of the proof...was the end of persecution against him specifically.
Anyone who can read plain English can plainly understand what the man said.
I don't have to listen to or understand anyone else, all I have to do is read the words. They are clear & in my native language.
Yes, it is clear. That's why I can't figure out how you can be so wrong on what it says. For your interpretation to hold water, you'd have to completely ignore his comments about leading people to a true knowledge of God. He wasn't saying all persecution would cease against him as proof of his prophethood. His words were clearly referencing all persecution ceasing from those who now know the truth. Then in a completely separate clause, he stated that 'you will then know that I am his servant." The 'then knowing' part is not in reference to all persecution ceasing, but to persecution ceasing because they know the truth. It's plain as day.
But even if we assume for a moment that you are right, that hardly proves that he's not a prophet. He wasn't making a prophetic statement, or acting in any way in any official light. He uttered these comments at a funeral address, an address for which we cannot judge his tone or demeanor (as I've pointed out, the statement was made in an ironic way and was not meant to be taken as divine utterance.)
All these word games aside, who's right and who's wrong is still irrelevant. I know he was a prophet of God, and every day I thank God that He has revealed this truth to me.
Although I don't agree with Mormon teaching, I think with regard to what Mr. Smith said here, it could easily be that gunslinger is correct. There is no such thin as reading a document like these and saying that it is "plain English". When the author was speaking he could easily have used inflection in his voice. Every written document requires an interpreter. And any written document can be read incorrectly without one.
: the_last_gunslinger Fri Feb 14, 2014 - 19:08:10
I also believe that God gave us all we need, which includes the Bible, yes, but additional scriptures as well. God's word is complete, it just may not all be contained within a single volume.
I won't dispute this. I think it's pretty well established that Man was living without a complete message for a good portion of the last two thousand years.
Why would God purposefully give the world an
incomplete message... one He knew would be relied upon for the faith of the saints for centuries
prior to these "additional scriptures" you attest to?
Not that I'm aware of, but I could be in error. Do you have anything in particular you are referencing here?
I believe the temple endowment speaks of Adam building an altar to God and praying for further light and knowledge, when Lucifer answers. He asks him who he is. Lucifer says that he is the god of this world. Is this accurate?
What are your thought about asking God for wisdom and gaining personal revelation and insights?
I believe it is necessary to ask God for wisdom in life and (what my Jehovah Witness friends might call) "true and accurate knowledge" of God and His word (when I say word I mean the Bible alone, of course). I believe He gives generously to those who search for Him as hidden treasure, but personal revelation is only ever in complete agreement with Biblical revelation.. never extra-biblical or
new "truths".
: Catholica Fri Feb 14, 2014 - 21:19:13
Every written document requires an interpreter.
That would sure muddy everything up. Nobody would know what anything really means. It would be like everything is written in a foreign language. That's just silly.
: the_last_gunslinger Fri Feb 14, 2014 - 20:36:31
It's plain as day.
Yup.
I know you probably don't think I do, but I love you. I love you for your zeal. If didn't I wouldn't take the time to talk truth with you. To paraphrase the old hymm - I want to see you in that number. I truly do.
: TonkaTim Fri Feb 14, 2014 - 22:22:00
: Catholica Fri Feb 14, 2014 - 21:19:13
Every written document requires an interpreter.
That would sure muddy everything up. Nobody would know what anything really means. It would be like everything is written in a foreign language. That's just silly.
Only to a certain extent of course. That is why, for example, we have a court system such as the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution and Bill of Rights.
And you are right, it does muddle stuff up. That is why groups who believe in sola scriptura are always arguing and believing conflicting things.
Why would God purposefully give the world an incomplete message... one He knew would be relied upon for the faith of the saints for centuries prior to these "additional scriptures" you attest to?
The best reason I can think of is that God affords all men their agency, and if they choose of their own volition to reject God's Word, God won't force them through compulsive means to accept Him. Alma 29:8 (from the Book of Mormon) sheds some light on this as well. It reads as such:
"For behold, the Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word, yea, in wisdom, all that he seeth fit that they should have; therefore we see that the Lord doth counsel in wisdom, according to that which is just and true."From this, we see that the Lord gives His truth in just large enough portions to propel people towards him without forcing them to receive His truth, only as people are prepared to receive it. Evidently, during the period known as the Great Apostasy, the people rebelled against God in such mass quantities that He saw fit to withdraw His Priesthood authority, allowing a lesser portion of the truth to persist, just enough for the people to come unto Him fitting their desires and according to that which they are prepared to receive.
You ask why God would give some people an incomplete message. To that, I will turn the question towards you. At that time, there were many other peoples, other races, other nations that had not any of the gospel, and didn't even know who Jesus Christ is. Why would God leave them with NONE of His word? Did not God have the power to bestow the gospel upon second century Australian Aborigines? Clearly, He does, but in His wisdom, He dispenses His truth in whatever quantities He knows is best for a particular people.
I believe the temple endowment speaks of Adam building an altar to God and praying for further light and knowledge, when Lucifer answers. He asks him who he is. Lucifer says that he is the god of this world. Is this accurate?
This sounds kind of familiar, and I don't think there is an issue with it. I believe the scriptures do speak of Satan attempting to 'intercept' prayers with subtle conniving. It is also true that Lucifer is the god of this world, which means in essence, that the world is so wicked that Lucifer has essentially become "god" to all those who reject the true God of Israel because they pay veneration to Lucifer through their evil acts. The Apostle Paul refers to Satan as such in 2nd Corinthians 4:4, indicating that Satan is currently shaping the goals, ideals and ambitions of Man at this current time.
Regarding your final statement, I again am curious as to how you've come to the idea that the Holy Bible is all that is ever intended or all that God has given us. Such a doctrine, ironically, is not even found in the Bible.
On another note, regarding personal revelation, how do you believe this process works and have you ever experienced it before?
I know you probably don't think I do, but I love you. I love you for your zeal. If didn't I wouldn't take the time to talk truth with you. To paraphrase the old hymm - I want to see you in that number. I truly do.
Actually, it might surprise you to know that I believe you, and know that your intents and goals are genuine. I am well aware of the feelings you have regarding this issue. You clearly cherish your faith and it is your ardent wish that all men everywhere could see it as you do. Trust me, I am overcome with sadness and grief whenever I see another individual suffering somehow, knowing that the gospel of Jesus Christ would prove to be the healing balm of whatever ails them. I become deeply frustrated and saddened at my own inadequacies when I attempt to teach others the things I know, and they reject them.
That being said, when I make claims to knowing the LDS church and its tenets are true, I am not just blowing smoke. Accepting the church was not something I took lightly, and I have sought the guidance and counsel of God every step of the way until He bestowed upon me, through revelation and other sacred and personal experiences a knowledge of the truth. That is the reason for my zeal, because I have experienced these things. I don't know if I'll ever be able to convince anyone of the truthfulness of my church (and I definitely don't expect to convert anyone on a message forum such as this). I still feel duty bound to share what I have learned and can do nothing other than simply bear testimony of these things. All the debating and word games, all the finer points of philosophy and theology aside, I can simply say that I know. I know God is my Father in Heaven. I know that Jesus Christ is the only Begotten Son of God, my Savior and the only means by which we may be saved from death, both physical and spiritual. And yes, I know that Joseph Smith was a Prophet, that the Book of Mormon is true.
I mean no offense in the things I say, but I nevertheless feel compelled to say them. I only hope that my beliefs may be respected, and that we can all come to the realization that Christianity is a broad umbrella that encompasses many faiths and traditions, yours and mine included. When all is said and done, regardless of our religious affiliations, you and I are both beloved sons of God, and I find that to be a most profound and overwhelming notion.
: the_last_gunslinger Sat Feb 15, 2014 - 22:30:26
Why would God purposefully give the world an incomplete message... one He knew would be relied upon for the faith of the saints for centuries prior to these "additional scriptures" you attest to?
The best reason I can think of is that God affords all men their agency, and if they choose of their own volition to reject God's Word, God won't force them through compulsive means to accept Him. Alma 29:8 (from the Book of Mormon) sheds some light on this as well. It reads as such:
"For behold, the Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word, yea, in wisdom, all that he seeth fit that they should have; therefore we see that the Lord doth counsel in wisdom, according to that which is just and true."
From this, we see that the Lord gives His truth in just large enough portions to propel people towards him without forcing them to receive His truth, only as people are prepared to receive it. Evidently, during the period known as the Great Apostasy, the people rebelled against God in such mass quantities that He saw fit to withdraw His Priesthood authority, allowing a lesser portion of the truth to persist, just enough for the people to come unto Him fitting their desires and according to that which they are prepared to receive.
Are you essentially saying that God went through the trouble to make sure the books of the Bible were compiled and put into print and sent to the ends of the earth.. knowing it was not the whole truth? And somehow this is for the purpose of allowing men freedom of choice so as not to force truth upon them? This makes no sense.. or am I misunderstanding you?
All those years (prior to the Mormon scriptures which you trust) believers in Jesus Christ were reading what we call God's holy word and were building their lives on it's principles and promises, all along God knowing that He'd kept much truth from them... It seems a bizarre thought to me.
You ask why God would give some people an incomplete message. To that, I will turn the question towards you. At that time, there were many other peoples, other races, other nations that had not any of the gospel, and didn't even know who Jesus Christ is. Why would God leave them with NONE of His word? Did not God have the power to bestow the gospel upon second century Australian Aborigines? Clearly, He does, but in His wisdom, He dispenses His truth in whatever quantities He knows is best for a particular people.
True, in His perfect wisdom and for reasons unknown to us, He has chosen certain men to hear Bible truth and from others He has withheld it. His judgment is always just. But this idea that for centuries He would purposefully put a
half-truth out there as the
only published
witness to the world of His Son is not even comparable to that! It is just nonsensical. I say that as kindly as I can. The one book that God intended for men to read (for
centuries, mind you) which would lead them to Jesus and guide them in His truth was actually an
inadequate witness? I'm sorry, we will just have to agree to disagree on this.
I believe the temple endowment speaks of Adam building an altar to God and praying for further light and knowledge, when Lucifer answers. He asks him who he is. Lucifer says that he is the god of this world. Is this accurate?
you said:
This sounds kind of familiar, and I don't think there is an issue with it. I believe the scriptures do speak of Satan attempting to 'intercept' prayers with subtle conniving. It is also true that Lucifer is the god of this world, which means in essence, that the world is so wicked that Lucifer has essentially become "god" to all those who reject the true God of Israel because they pay veneration to Lucifer through their evil acts. The Apostle Paul refers to Satan as such in 2nd Corinthians 4:4, indicating that Satan is currently shaping the goals, ideals and ambitions of Man at this current time.
Ok, I understand about Satan being the god of this world. What I wonder is that if he was actually able to answer Adam when Adam was praying
to God for light and knowledge (and Adam
did not know who he was).. how is it that
you are able to tell who is answering when
you pray? And how is it that men like Joseph Smith (or any extra-biblical "prophet of God" for that matter) were able to tell who it is who was giving the "truth" and "revelation"? Is it not Satan's nature to deceive? Consider what you said here:
: the_last_gunslinger Sat Feb 15, 2014 - 22:42:10
That being said, when I make claims to knowing the LDS church and its tenets are true, I am not just blowing smoke. Accepting the church was not something I took lightly, and I have sought the guidance and counsel of God every step of the way until He bestowed upon me, through revelation and other sacred and personal experiences a knowledge of the truth. That is the reason for my zeal, because I have experienced these things.
If Adam received word from Lucifer when it should have come from God alone, and he had to ask, "Who are you?" it is evident that he had not the ability to distinguish between the voice of truth and the propagator of the lie. What makes you (or any other man open to
new revelations) different in this regard?
Regarding your final statement, I again am curious as to how you've come to the idea that the Holy Bible is all that is ever intended or all that God has given us. Such a doctrine, ironically, is not even found in the Bible.
God knows it is the devil's business to spread falsehood. How easy is it for him to do when people believe in new and extra-biblical revelations... but if the Bible is the fullness of His truth to man and the final authority.. it is much harder for Satan to do his work.. unless men are unbelieving or willing to follow "another's" voice. (John 10:27) Honorable men will test all things against the fullness of truth
revealed in the Bible. Again, we may just have to agree to disagree.
On another note, regarding personal revelation, how do you believe this process works and have you ever experienced it before?
Just ask, with a heart to receive. Give attention to His word (the Bible) and do not look to other sources outside of it. No personal revelation is
new revelation.. just confirmation of the truth already written from Genesis to Revelation. :) Yes, God has revealed truth to me at times.. things I did not understand before when reading.. but not as often as I'd like because I do not always position myself to receive of Him.. busyness of life and all. But He is always ready and willing, and faithful to do what He says.
Proverbs 2:4
Are you essentially saying that God went through the trouble to make sure the books of the Bible were compiled and put into print and sent to the ends of the earth.. knowing it was not the whole truth? And somehow this is for the purpose of allowing men freedom of choice so as not to force truth upon them? This makes no sense.. or am I misunderstanding you?
I think you are partly misunderstanding me. Mormons believe that the Holy Bible, as originally penned by ancient prophets according to the spirit of revelation, was perfect and complete. It was only through the interpolations of men that the Bible became confusing, where truths were lost. Think back to the very beginning of Holy Scriptures, envisioning the original writers of that Holy Bible. It started perfect and undefiled. Now consider the wickedness of man. Imagine a scenario where nearly everyone (at least those in positions of power) altered or changed true Christianity to suit their own agendas. The only way for God to stop this would be to revoke their free will, to make it so they couldn't do that. This, of course, would not be in accordance with God's laws. He will not make us do something we do not want to. God merely allowed the apostasy to happen so as to allow Man their freedom to act and choose wrong.
All those years (prior to the Mormon scriptures which you trust) believers in Jesus Christ were reading what we call God's holy word and were building their lives on it's principles and promises, all along God knowing that He'd kept much truth from them... It seems a bizarre thought to me.
One minor correction again, God did not intentionally keep truth from them. God gave them truth unfiltered, and it was rejected, altered or otherwise perverted. The people of the 1st and 2nd centuries were not ready or willing to embrace the fulness of the gospel at that time.
That aside for a moment, why is it so hard to believe in a universal falling away? The Bible predicts it. 2nd Thessalonians, 2:1-3 speaks of Christ's second coming, but that this day wouldn't happen unless there was first a 'falling away,' or apostasy. Amos 8:11 speaks very plainly about this when it is declared that a day comes when the Lord will send a famine throughout the land, not a famine of bread and water, but a famine of hearing the word of the Lord. People will seek to and fro, and will not be able to find it.
Not only was an apostasy predicted in the Bible, but the New Testament is evidence that the apostasy was already taking place during the days of the Apostles. Consider the epistles written by Paul, Peter, James, John, etc. They were not written to non-members, but to the church and its adherents, correcting them on matters of doctrine and practice. Why else do you think Paul spent so much time writing to answer question and persuade local church leaders to change the way they were doing things? The apostasy was something the apostles struggled with for the entirety of their ministry, combating false teachings, false prophets and those claiming to have authority falsely. The apostles were tasked with keeping the church true and error free, to be the keepers of pure, undefiled doctrine. Problem is, the world rejected the testimony of the apostles and killed them off one by one. Now if the apostasy was already taking hold amongst the church while the apostles were yet alive and able to safeguard it somewhat, how much worse would it have gotten once the apostles were no more?
True, in His perfect wisdom and for reasons unknown to us, He has chosen certain men to hear Bible truth and from others He has withheld it. His judgment is always just. But this idea that for centuries He would purposefully put a half-truth out there as the only published witness to the world of His Son is not even comparable to that! It is just nonsensical. I say that as kindly as I can. The one book that God intended for men to read (for centuries, mind you) which would lead them to Jesus and guide them in His truth was actually an inadequate witness? I'm sorry, we will just have to agree to disagree on this.
I think your response here is something I would agree with and must be based off of the erroneous way I described the apostasy earlier. Again, I reiterate. God did not willingly and purposefully give Man half-truths and incorrect doctrines to guide them. God, for reasons only He knows, merely allowed Man to make a mistake regarding His church, and being all-knowing, he warned his followers of this departure from truth and provided a way by which the fulness of the gospel may be restored for the benefit and blessing of all mankind.
Ok, I understand about Satan being the god of this world. What I wonder is that if he was actually able to answer Adam when Adam was praying to God for light and knowledge (and Adam did not know who he was).. how is it that you are able to tell who is answering when you pray? And how is it that men like Joseph Smith (or any extra-biblical "prophet of God" for that matter) were able to tell who it is who was giving the "truth" and "revelation"? Is it not Satan's nature to deceive? Consider what you said here:
Offhand, I can't remember exactly the Adam account, so I can't address that directly, only to say that one need not take it as Adam literally not knowing or recognizing Satan. (After all, he did partake of the forbidden fruit, so he did gain a knowledge of good and evil, giving him the power to discern between the two). The message that can be learned from this is that one must always strive to recognize God's voice, and that one may be deceived by the wicked one if he is not living in such a way as to invite the Spirit of the Lord into his live to help guide and direct his actions.
You raise a good point about knowing from which source we are receiving answers. But the challenge is somewhat flawed in that I can just as easily reflect it back upon you. How do you know that God actually led you to your current faith system? Maybe God wants you to be a Mormon but Satan has attempted to make sure that does not happen. To muddy things up even further, how can we even be sure that the biblical prophets were truly led by God and weren't deceived themselves? Here we are entering a philosophical realm where we contemplate whether or not we can trust anything, if there even is such a thing as absolute truth. For me, it comes down to faith, trusting that God will not lead me astray, the peace and reassurance I get from Him when I am taken up in prayer.
God knows it is the devil's business to spread falsehood. How easy is it for him to do when people believe in new and extra-biblical revelations... but if the Bible is the fullness of His truth to man and the final authority.. it is much harder for Satan to do his work.. unless men are unbelieving or willing to follow "another's" voice. (John 10:27) Honorable men will test all things against the fullness of truth revealed in the Bible. Again, we may just have to agree to disagree.
But who determines that the Holy Bible is the fullness of his truth to man and the final authority. The Bible, again, never makes such a claim, and does, in fact, contain strong evidence that this is not the case (such as referencing books not found in the Bible.) I disagree also that Satan is confounded when one limits his authority to one book, especially one as ambiguous as the Bible. Satan will then seek to confuse those as to what the Bible says, and he's done a rather good job of that, judging by the lack of consensus amongst Christians.
There is one final authority, and it's not the Bible, it's not the Book of Mormon, it's not just one single volume of scripture. God is that final authority, and he reveals his will through scriptures, through revelation and through the teachings of living prophets and apostles, whom he has anointed, as in ancient days, to defend, to propagate and to proclaim His glorious gospel.
: the_last_gunslinger Wed Feb 19, 2014 - 14:20:51
Are you essentially saying that God went through the trouble to make sure the books of the Bible were compiled and put into print and sent to the ends of the earth.. knowing it was not the whole truth? And somehow this is for the purpose of allowing men freedom of choice so as not to force truth upon them? This makes no sense.. or am I misunderstanding you?
I think you are partly misunderstanding me. Mormons believe that the Holy Bible, as originally penned by ancient prophets according to the spirit of revelation, was perfect and complete. It was only through the interpolations of men that the Bible became confusing, where truths were lost. Think back to the very beginning of Holy Scriptures, envisioning the original writers of that Holy Bible. It started perfect and undefiled. Now consider the wickedness of man. Imagine a scenario where nearly everyone (at least those in positions of power) altered or changed true Christianity to suit their own agendas. The only way for God to stop this would be to revoke their free will, to make it so they couldn't do that. This, of course, would not be in accordance with God's laws. He will not make us do something we do not want to. God merely allowed the apostasy to happen so as to allow Man their freedom to act and choose wrong.
All those years (prior to the Mormon scriptures which you trust) believers in Jesus Christ were reading what we call God's holy word and were building their lives on it's principles and promises, all along God knowing that He'd kept much truth from them... It seems a bizarre thought to me.
One minor correction again, God did not intentionally keep truth from them. God gave them truth unfiltered, and it was rejected, altered or otherwise perverted. The people of the 1st and 2nd centuries were not ready or willing to embrace the fulness of the gospel at that time.
That aside for a moment, why is it so hard to believe in a universal falling away? The Bible predicts it. 2nd Thessalonians, 2:1-3 speaks of Christ's second coming, but that this day wouldn't happen unless there was first a 'falling away,' or apostasy. Amos 8:11 speaks very plainly about this when it is declared that a day comes when the Lord will send a famine throughout the land, not a famine of bread and water, but a famine of hearing the word of the Lord. People will seek to and fro, and will not be able to find it.
Not only was an apostasy predicted in the Bible, but the New Testament is evidence that the apostasy was already taking place during the days of the Apostles. Consider the epistles written by Paul, Peter, James, John, etc. They were not written to non-members, but to the church and its adherents, correcting them on matters of doctrine and practice. Why else do you think Paul spent so much time writing to answer question and persuade local church leaders to change the way they were doing things? The apostasy was something the apostles struggled with for the entirety of their ministry, combating false teachings, false prophets and those claiming to have authority falsely. The apostles were tasked with keeping the church true and error free, to be the keepers of pure, undefiled doctrine. Problem is, the world rejected the testimony of the apostles and killed them off one by one. Now if the apostasy was already taking hold amongst the church while the apostles were yet alive and able to safeguard it somewhat, how much worse would it have gotten once the apostles were no more?
True, in His perfect wisdom and for reasons unknown to us, He has chosen certain men to hear Bible truth and from others He has withheld it. His judgment is always just. But this idea that for centuries He would purposefully put a half-truth out there as the only published witness to the world of His Son is not even comparable to that! It is just nonsensical. I say that as kindly as I can. The one book that God intended for men to read (for centuries, mind you) which would lead them to Jesus and guide them in His truth was actually an inadequate witness? I'm sorry, we will just have to agree to disagree on this.
I think your response here is something I would agree with and must be based off of the erroneous way I described the apostasy earlier. Again, I reiterate. God did not willingly and purposefully give Man half-truths and incorrect doctrines to guide them. God, for reasons only He knows, merely allowed Man to make a mistake regarding His church, and being all-knowing, he warned his followers of this departure from truth and provided a way by which the fulness of the gospel may be restored for the benefit and blessing of all mankind.
Ok, I understand about Satan being the god of this world. What I wonder is that if he was actually able to answer Adam when Adam was praying to God for light and knowledge (and Adam did not know who he was).. how is it that you are able to tell who is answering when you pray? And how is it that men like Joseph Smith (or any extra-biblical "prophet of God" for that matter) were able to tell who it is who was giving the "truth" and "revelation"? Is it not Satan's nature to deceive? Consider what you said here:
Offhand, I can't remember exactly the Adam account, so I can't address that directly, only to say that one need not take it as Adam literally not knowing or recognizing Satan. (After all, he did partake of the forbidden fruit, so he did gain a knowledge of good and evil, giving him the power to discern between the two). The message that can be learned from this is that one must always strive to recognize God's voice, and that one may be deceived by the wicked one if he is not living in such a way as to invite the Spirit of the Lord into his live to help guide and direct his actions.
You raise a good point about knowing from which source we are receiving answers. But the challenge is somewhat flawed in that I can just as easily reflect it back upon you. How do you know that God actually led you to your current faith system? Maybe God wants you to be a Mormon but Satan has attempted to make sure that does not happen. To muddy things up even further, how can we even be sure that the biblical prophets were truly led by God and weren't deceived themselves? Here we are entering a philosophical realm where we contemplate whether or not we can trust anything, if there even is such a thing as absolute truth. For me, it comes down to faith, trusting that God will not lead me astray, the peace and reassurance I get from Him when I am taken up in prayer.
God knows it is the devil's business to spread falsehood. How easy is it for him to do when people believe in new and extra-biblical revelations... but if the Bible is the fullness of His truth to man and the final authority.. it is much harder for Satan to do his work.. unless men are unbelieving or willing to follow "another's" voice. (John 10:27) Honorable men will test all things against the fullness of truth revealed in the Bible. Again, we may just have to agree to disagree.
But who determines that the Holy Bible is the fullness of his truth to man and the final authority. The Bible, again, never makes such a claim, and does, in fact, contain strong evidence that this is not the case (such as referencing books not found in the Bible.) I disagree also that Satan is confounded when one limits his authority to one book, especially one as ambiguous as the Bible. Satan will then seek to confuse those as to what the Bible says, and he's done a rather good job of that, judging by the lack of consensus amongst Christians.
There is one final authority, and it's not the Bible, it's not the Book of Mormon, it's not just one single volume of scripture. God is that final authority, and he reveals his will through scriptures, through revelation and through the teachings of living prophets and apostles, whom he has anointed, as in ancient days, to defend, to propagate and to proclaim His glorious gospel.
First, I want to thank you for such a thoughtful reply. I can tell you took some time to think and write.. it's much appreciated. I do, however, have to disagree with you still.
I do not see any evidence that indicates the Bible has been corrupted.. or why you would say it is ambiguous. The message of it is quite clear to me. As far as people misinterpreting the scriptures.. men either allow them to say exactly what they say, or their reading of them is swayed by some outside influence. Unfortunately, outside influence is almost impossible to avoid. But one should seek to set all preconceived ideas aside and let the word speak for and interpret itself. That should be the aim of every Bible student.
As to the apostasy, I believe Hebrews speaks to it as well, and it had to do with those who were turning away from faith in Christ back to seeking righteousness by the Mosaic Law. Paul dealt with the same in his epistle to the Galatians.
The Bible says that God magnifies His word above His name. Surely He is able to preserve a single book, as a testimony of His sovereign hand in the midst of the schemes of men. And surely He is able to lead the humble heart to understand the Bible accurately. Factions are abundant because men follow men rather than God's word. I am not in a fellowship right now, haven't been for several years. Once I began reading the Bible on my own, I began seeing how much I actually disagreed with the things my pastor had taught me over the years. I had once just accepted them because I trusted he had all the answers. Being a new believer, I was fascinated with his Bible knowledge... but later I saw that the scriptures actually contradicted what I had been taught.
you said:
"To muddy things up even further, how can we even be sure that the biblical prophets were truly led by God and weren't deceived themselves? Here we are entering a philosophical realm where we contemplate whether or not we can trust anything, if there even is such a thing as absolute truth. For me, it comes down to faith, trusting that God will not lead me astray, the peace and reassurance I get from Him when I am taken up in prayer."It comes down to faith for me as well, trusting that God will not let me be led astray, so long as I abide in His word (the Bible) and do not seek
outside revelations.
I maintain that the Bible is completely sufficient, in and of itself. I suppose this is just something that we will not see eye to eye on.
But may God bless you in your pursuit of Him. :)
-ragg-