Christian Forums

Quote from: the_last_gunslinger on Wed Mar 13, 2013 - 15:35:18

QuoteOf 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.

Quote

Quote from: 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.

Quote

Quote from: 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.

Quote

Quote from: 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.

Quote

Quote from: 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.

Quote

Quote from: 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."

Quote

Quote from: 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.

Quote

Quote from: 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.

QuoteI 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.

Quote

Quote from: 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!

Quote

Quote from: 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.

QuoteYou 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!

QuoteWhy 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.

Quote

Quote from: 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 3:18
Then you shall again discern
Between the righteous and the wicked,
Between one who serves God
And one who does not serve Him.

Quote

Quote from: 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?

Quote

Quote from: 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.

Quote

Quote from: 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.

Quote

Quote from: 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.

Quote

Quote from: 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 1:6
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."

Quote

Quote from: 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.

Quote

Quote from: 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!

Quote

Quote from: 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.

Quote

Quote from: 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.

Quote

Quote from: 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.

Quote

Quote from: 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.

QuoteAynone 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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

QuoteWorks 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?

Quote
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.

QuoteInterestingly 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.

QuoteNot 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.

Quote
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.

QuoteWhat 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.

QuoteScripture 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.

QuoteThere 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.

QuoteNo--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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

QuoteWhat 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?

QuoteJesus 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.

QuoteYou're right.

So you're admitting to a double standard.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

QuoteThat'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?

QuoteDue 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.

Quote
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.

Quote
My own local church models the New Testament church.

Really? So your church is lead by apostles?

QuoteA 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.

Quote
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?

Quote from: the_last_gunslinger on Thu Mar 14, 2013 - 07:58:07

QuoteAynone 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.

QuoteAnd for the record, Mormons are Born again Bible believing Christians.

You will receive an argument from born again Christians about that.

Quote
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?

QuoteYou 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.

Quote from: the_last_gunslinger on Thu Mar 14, 2013 - 14:19:35

Quote
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?

QuoteYou 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...

QuoteSo 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.

Quote from: the_last_gunslinger on Thu Mar 14, 2013 - 15:15:20

QuoteSo 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...

Quote from: the_last_gunslinger on Thu Mar 14, 2013 - 14:19:35

Quote
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.

Quote

Quote from: 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.

QuoteYes, 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.

Quote
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.

QuoteYour 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.

Quote from: the_last_gunslinger on Fri Mar 15, 2013 - 16:13:39

QuoteYes, 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.

QuoteYour 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.

Quote

Quote from: 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.

QuoteMy 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.

Quote

Quote from: 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 20:29-30

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

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. 

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.

Quote
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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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?

QuoteYour 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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

QuoteThis 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.

Quote from: the_last_gunslinger on 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  .  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.

QuoteI 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.

Quote from: the_last_gunslinger on 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?

Quote from: the_last_gunslinger on Tue Feb 11, 2014 - 23:10:52

QuoteI 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.

Quote from: chosenone on 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.

QuoteMay 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.

Quote from: the_last_gunslinger on Wed Feb 12, 2014 - 16:59:35

QuoteMay 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?

Quote from: raggthyme13 on Thu Feb 13, 2014 - 01:58:46

Quote from: the_last_gunslinger on Wed Feb 12, 2014 - 16:59:35

QuoteMay 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

Quote from: TonkaTim on Thu Feb 13, 2014 - 03:11:18

Quote from: raggthyme13 on Thu Feb 13, 2014 - 01:58:46

Quote from: the_last_gunslinger on Wed Feb 12, 2014 - 16:59:35

QuoteMay 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

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.

Quote from: DaveW on Wed Feb 12, 2014 - 05:40:09

Quote from: chosenone on 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.

Quote from: the_last_gunslinger on 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.

Quote
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. 

QuoteSo 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.

QuoteWow 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.

Quote

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.

QuoteNow 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?

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

QuoteAmen 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.

Quote from: the_last_gunslinger on Thu Feb 13, 2014 - 22:21:13

QuoteSo 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.

QuoteI'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.

Quote from: the_last_gunslinger on Thu Feb 13, 2014 - 22:59:51

QuoteI'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.