Exclusively MORMON thread [Archive] - Theology Forum

View Full Version : Exclusively MORMON thread

Pages : [1] 2 3

King David

January 17th, 2004, 12:21 AM

This thread is exclusively for those who are Mormons, i.e., those who believe Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God, that he translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God, and that he died as a martyr.

One may be 'LDS', 'RLDS' (or now, 'Community of Christ'), as well as even any 'sect' of 'Mormonism', including any of a number of what 'mainstream LDS' may consider apostate, those of any polygamist groups.

Give your interests regarding 'Mormonism' (but, again, ONLY if you truly consider yourself to be 'Mormon' according to the definition given in the first paragraph above.

Welcome,

--KING DAVID

Tye Porter

January 17th, 2004, 12:23 AM

:darwinsm:
I saw the title of this post on the Active Page and thought it read, "Exclusively Moron Thread". :chuckle:

rajuncajun

January 17th, 2004, 12:35 AM

:kookoo:

SOTK

January 17th, 2004, 12:36 AM

I'm willing to not post in this thread, KD. However, you should know that moderators or the administrator are probably the only ones who can really start a forum of this nature and then enforce it. Also, I imagine this thread will be pretty boring. Other than you and Mustard Seed, I don't believe there are many mormons here. What are you gonna do, argue with yourself?

rajuncajun

January 17th, 2004, 12:37 AM

Berean Todd

January 17th, 2004, 12:38 AM

Originally posted by Tye Porter

:darwinsm:
I saw the title of this post on the Active Page and thought it read, "Exclusively Moron Thread". :chuckle:

That probably should be the title of it ... you wouldn't have rights to edit posts and thread titles would you? :chuckle:

King David

January 17th, 2004, 01:11 AM

Your mocking of me and this thread is part of the reason, (though not the only), why I started it. I wanted you to see how your 'Exclusively Christian' thread comes across to me as being so stupidly ridiculous. I've noticed how boring it has become (no one has apparently posted since rules that would ostensibly allow the likes of me to post in it). So, there, no one argues or discusses with no one. Its like the U.S, where the average, (presumably mostly 'traditional Christian') white woman bears 1.71 children per lifetime. And, in 'Christian' Europe, the rates are far, far lower. At the current rate, Christianity won't last too long -- at least not as we know it. Western Civilization is dying, and you guys are arguing about stuff that won't matter in a century or two, (or far less) at present depopulating rates.

My father-in-law, the oldest boy in a family of nine children of parents that immigrated from Denmark in the early 1900's. He has more posterity than ALL of his Lutheran siblings combined. (Yes, my father-in-law is a convert to 'Mormonism'). He has 12 children, 61 grandchildren (soon 62), and 19 (soon 20) great-grand children.

--KING DAVID

rajuncajun

January 17th, 2004, 01:17 AM

King David

January 17th, 2004, 01:27 AM

Originally posted by kcajunmiller

christianity will last till Jesus returns for us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:D

I am Christian. Will your "race" last until Christ comes? Depending how long that actually is, it may not -- not at rates of 1 to 1.7 children per lifetime. That doesn't even replace the population.

--KING DAVID

rajuncajun

January 17th, 2004, 01:29 AM

nobody said anything about race,i also have had 4 kids thank you.

Leo Volont

January 17th, 2004, 02:03 AM

Originally posted by King David

This thread is exclusively for those who are Mormons, i.e., those who believe Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God, that he translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God, and that he died as a martyr.

One may be 'LDS', 'RLDS' (or now, 'Community of Christ'), as well as even any 'sect' of 'Mormonism', including any of a number of what 'mainstream LDS' may consider apostate, those of any polygamist groups.

Give your interests regarding 'Mormonism' (but, again, ONLY if you truly consider yourself to be 'Mormon' according to the definition given in the first paragraph above.

Welcome,

--KING DAVID

Of course you mean everyone who wants to get a decent job in Utah -- if it were not for that motivation, do you really think there would be anybody pretending to believe that fiction?

A Religion without Mysticism or Miracles. I think that anybody who says they believe that stuff is definitely earning their pay -- that executive position in some Salt Lake City Corporation which represents the Promise of their Religion. They earn each cent just like lawyers earn money by lying, or prostitutes by doing what they do. But I wouldn't trade with them.

As for the Mormon's who are 'sincere'. Duh? Is there anything you DON'T believe?

SOTK

January 17th, 2004, 02:33 AM

Tye Porter

January 17th, 2004, 03:40 AM

:taoist:

Leo Volont

January 17th, 2004, 03:43 AM

Originally posted by SOTK4ever

Get over it! I can't believe you are still crying like a :baby: over the Exclusively Christian Theology forum thing? I'm tired of seeing your posts about this. Either let it go or leave. I seriously doubt that it's gonna change. You are never gonna convince any Christian here that mormonism is Christianity! It is not. Period!

Yeah, but in Salt Lake City he'll get a career that pays in 6 figures by the time he's 40, and you'd be lucky to get a job washing dishes unless you pretend to only speak Spanish (their 'slaves' are allowed to be Catholic).

Tye Porter

January 17th, 2004, 03:51 AM

Originally posted by Leo Volont

Yeah, but in Salt Lake City he'll get a career that pays in 6 figures by the time he's 40, and you'd be lucky to get a job washing dishes unless you pretend to only speak Spanish (their 'slaves' are allowed to be Catholic).
Yeah, but when he dies he'll go to hell and when SOTK passes on, he's going to spend Eternity Praising Jesus!

Leo Volont

January 17th, 2004, 03:54 AM

Originally posted by Tye Porter

Yeah, but when he dies he'll go to hell and when SOTK passes on, he's going to spend Eternity Praising Jesus!

Oh! Well, if hating Mormons is all it takes to get into Heaven, then more people will make it then I ever hoped to imagine.

Tye Porter

January 17th, 2004, 04:15 AM

Originally posted by Leo Volont

Oh! Well, if hating Mormons is all it takes to get into Heaven, then more people will make it then I ever hoped to imagine.
Christians do not hate mormons.
You know better than that.
We do hate the lies and false religions of the mormons and the catholics, but we don't hate the mormons and the catholics.
You know better than that.

SOTK

January 17th, 2004, 04:48 AM

Originally posted by Tye Porter

Christians do not hate mormons.
You know better than that.
We do hate the lies and false religions of the mormons and the catholics, but we don't hate the mormons and the catholics.
You know better than that.

:thumb:

I despise mormons or any other cult which would decieve unbelievers by telling them they are Christian. It's deception pure and simple!

SOTK

January 17th, 2004, 04:50 AM

Originally posted by Tye Porter

Yeah, but when he dies he'll go to hell and when SOTK passes on, he's going to spend Eternity Praising Jesus!

:bannana: :bannana: :bannana: :bannana:

Leo Volont

January 17th, 2004, 05:15 AM

Originally posted by Tye Porter

Christians do not hate mormons.
You know better than that.
We do hate the lies and false religions of the mormons and the catholics, but we don't hate the mormons and the catholics.
You know better than that.

It is not 'ideas' God will toss into Hell. It will be Souls. Protestant Souls.

1John4:1

January 17th, 2004, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by Leo Volont

It is not 'ideas' God will toss into Hell. It will be Souls. Protestant Souls.

I beg to differ, Leo.
Do you really think we are so incompatible?
I started a new thread on this issue:

Catholicism Vs. Protestantism... Reformation Revisited (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12133)

Granite

January 17th, 2004, 08:48 AM

Well this is great. A thread for gods-in-training. Can you imagine universes created and ruled by these white bread polygamists?

In the meantime, to our LDS friends: Don't go crazy, guys! Don't get carried away with having your own exclusive thread. I wouldn't want you going off the deep end and getting into hard drinks, like Coke or coffee...

Chileice

January 17th, 2004, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by King David

Your mocking of me and this thread is part of the reason, (though not the only), why I started it. I wanted you to see how your 'Exclusively Christian' thread comes across to me as being so stupidly ridiculous. I've noticed how boring it has become (no one has apparently posted since rules that would ostensibly allow the likes of me to post in it). So, there, no one argues or discusses with no one. Its like the U.S, where the average, (presumably mostly 'traditional Christian') white woman bears 1.71 children per lifetime. And, in 'Christian' Europe, the rates are far, far lower. At the current rate, Christianity won't last too long -- at least not as we know it. Western Civilization is dying, and you guys are arguing about stuff that won't matter in a century or two, (or far less) at present depopulating rates.

My father-in-law, the oldest boy in a family of nine children of parents that immigrated from Denmark in the early 1900's. He has more posterity than ALL of his Lutheran siblings combined. (Yes, my father-in-law is a convert to 'Mormonism'). He has 12 children, 61 grandchildren (soon 62), and 19 (soon 20) great-grand children.

--KING DAVID

GOOO Polygamy!! Wow, you guys should be proud of yourselves. Really pumping those Spirit babies out. KD, this is the most absurd thing I've seen yet. Chrisitianity, unlike Mormonism, does not depend on biological growth. Mormonism is like Islam. Once you are born into a closed system like that, escape is virtually impossible. I mean it IS a good method to ensure that there will be Mormons in 2150... but what is the point? You get a bunch of Jack Mormons who despise the church but are afraid of going anywhere else for fear of being cut off. You get a bunch of unhappy people with a marginal relationship to a church and NO relationship with Christ.

Each person must make their own decision. And while you are having babies, I will be trying to share Christ's message with those born into a world of shortage because their parents have 8 or 10 kids. Sorry to butt in on your thread, but I guess it's what you wanted. Have fun having kids. Hope they have fun being trapped in a mormon "paradise".

King David

January 17th, 2004, 09:13 PM

Originally posted by Chileice

GOOO Polygamy!! Wow, you guys should be proud of yourselves. Really pumping those Spirit babies out. KD, this is the most absurd thing I've seen yet. Chrisitianity, unlike Mormonism, does not depend on biological growth. Mormonism is like Islam. Once you are born into a closed system like that, escape is virtually impossible. I mean it IS a good method to ensure that there will be Mormons in 2150... but what is the point? You get a bunch of Jack Mormons who despise the church but are afraid of going anywhere else for fear of being cut off. You get a bunch of unhappy people with a marginal relationship to a church and NO relationship with Christ.

Each person must make their own decision. And while you are having babies, I will be trying to share Christ's message with those born into a world of shortage because their parents have 8 or 10 kids. Sorry to butt in on your thread, but I guess it's what you wanted. Have fun having kids. Hope they have fun being trapped in a mormon "paradise".

Hey folks, its "Joni "Chileice" Mitchell" singing--

BIG YELLOW TAXI

(Chorus)Trapped in paradise, in the LDS church parking lot
(strum, strum, strum, strum)
(Chorus)With a polygamous-sized family, and a nursery that's the real hottttt-spot,
(strum, strum, strum)
(Solo high soprano voice)Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know how many they've got, til they're gone
(Chorus)Trapped in paradise, in the LDS church parking lot

Shooooh, bop bop bop, bop
Shooooh, bop bop bop, bop....

(etc.)

I didn't realize that YOU are a Jack Mormon too! Wow, we have a couple of those here, it seems.

I'm sorry you don't have trust in a God that plans ahead-- and have faith to try to keep his commandments, despite the "wisdom of the world"--

...The earth is full, and there is enough and to spare; yea, I prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to be agents unto themselves.

18 Therefore, if any man shall take of the abundance which I have made, and impart not his portion, according to the law of my gospel, unto the poor and the needy, he shall, with the wicked, lift up his eyes in hell, being in torment.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 104:17 - 18)

I agree with Jesus when he declared--

13 And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them (into the world?).

14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come....and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child (or, for that matter, receive "little children" themselves--even babies), he shall not (himself or herself) enter therein.

16 And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them (for of such are indeed, the kingdom of heaven -- and how can we have more of heaven but to welcome young children, even babies into our homes and our families).

(New Testament | Mark 10:13 - 16)

I am sorry to see that you believe in the old sectarian and Malthusian myth, like some Ebenezer Scrooge, or one of many college professors I had who tried to teach the same godless secular doctrine to me and my fellow Mormons (and, unfortunately, have succeeded with far too many, to too great a degree)!

God knew all things BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD. He knew how many children would come (or could come), how much land, food, resources, even parents there would be. It is not the high cost of living that is so difficult, my friend to afford, as it is rather the cost of HIGH LIVING!!! I will put any and all of my many children in comparison to your few, whether individually, or as a group. I feel comfortable they will stack up favorably against yours in most any given area, including receiving due love, instruction, in behavior, in attitude, etc. They are not only CHEAPER by the dozen, they're BETTER by the dozen. Quantity AND Quality can and do go hand in hand! I say this not pridefully, but as a matter of experience in raising them (and I've grown up much more with more of them to help raise me, too)!

--KING DAVID

"...The wisdom of their wise men shall perish..."

(Old Testament | Isaiah 29:14)

King David

January 17th, 2004, 09:15 PM

Originally posted by granite1010

Well this is great. A thread for gods-in-training. Can you imagine universes created and ruled by these white bread polygamists?

In the meantime, to our LDS friends: Don't go crazy, guys! Don't get carried away with having your own exclusive thread. I wouldn't want you going off the deep end and getting into hard drinks, like Coke or coffee...

Or MOUNTAIN DEW!!!

--KING DAVID

ebenz47037

January 17th, 2004, 09:27 PM

Originally posted by King David

Or MOUNTAIN DEW!!!

--KING DAVID

Didn't you know that Mountain Dew has caffeine in it, King David?

From the Mountain Dew website (http://mountaindew.com/about_dew/product_info/index.php)

MOUNTAIN DEW
Doing the "Dew" is like no other soft drink experience because of its daring, high-energy, high-intensity, active, extreme citrus taste.

Regular (8 fl. oz)
Contains: Carbonated water, high fructose corn syrup and/or sugar, concentrated orange juice and other natural flavors, citric acid, sodium benzoate (preserves freshness), caffeine, sodium citrate, gum arabic, yellow 5, erythorbic acid (preserves freshness), calcium disodium EDTA (to protect flavor) and brominated vegetable oil.

Calories 110
Total Fats (g) 0
Sodium (mg) 50
Potassium (mg) 0
Total Carbohydrates (g) 31
Sugars (g) 31
Protein (g) 0
Caffeine (mg) 37

King David

January 17th, 2004, 09:38 PM

I did & do (or dew), THAT's why I listed it (like coffee or colas) -- among MANY things that are bad for us!

--KING DAVID

P.S. I don't "dew" - never even tasted it.

ebenz47037

January 17th, 2004, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by King David

I did & do (or dew), THAT's why I listed it (like coffee or colas) -- among MANY things that are bad for us!

--KING DAVID

P.S. I don't "dew" - never even tasted it.

Sorry about that. I know that other Mormons I know have told me that they're not supposed to have caffeine. That's the only reason I said anything.

Tye Porter

January 17th, 2004, 10:02 PM

Originally posted by King David
Your mocking of me
Of course we are, you idiot.
You are teaching a religion of the devil.
You lead people away from Jesus Christ.
You beg a good mocking.

Life is easy.
Repent and come to Christ.

Tye Porter

January 17th, 2004, 10:08 PM

Originally posted by King David

Or MOUNTAIN DEW!!!

--KING DAVID
I knew there was a reason that moronism was of the devil.
You just proved it.
Only satan would keep his worshippers off the Dew!

wholearmor

January 17th, 2004, 10:41 PM

Exclusively MORMON information. (http://www.irr.org/mit/jsfalpro.html)

Tye Porter

January 17th, 2004, 11:19 PM

:thumb:

SOTK

January 17th, 2004, 11:21 PM

Originally posted by wholearmor

Exclusively MORMON information. (http://www.irr.org/mit/jsfalpro.html)

:chuckle:

godrulz

January 17th, 2004, 11:32 PM

KD is a guest on an evangelical board. I do not thing he deserves derision. Rather, speak the truth in love.

I think it is presumptious for him to set an area apart for Mormons when evangelicals are funding this board to honor and glorify their God (not the Mormon religion). If I went to an LDS funded board, I would feel I was a guest and have the integrity to not hijack it or make the rules.

The 'word of wisdom' on caffeine strikes me as legalistic. Small amounts of caffeine are innocuous and have some physiological benefit. The sugar and dyes in soda pop are probably more deleterious.

wholearmor

January 17th, 2004, 11:47 PM

Originally posted by godrulz
The sugar and dyes in soda pop are probably more deleterious.

...and they could be harmful.

Tye Porter

January 17th, 2004, 11:49 PM

Originally posted by godrulz
KD is a guest on an evangelical board. I do not thing he deserves derision. Rather, speak the truth in love.

Ok.

God loves you, KD, in spite of your religion.
But unless you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour, you'll burn in hell.

Does the mormon religion even believe in hell?

Tye Porter

January 17th, 2004, 11:50 PM

Originally posted by wholearmor

...and they could be harmful.
:chuckle:
Are they bad for you too?

wholearmor

January 17th, 2004, 11:57 PM

Originally posted by Tye Porter

:chuckle:
Are they bad for you too?

:shocked: Maybe! I hadn't thought of that! :eek:

Tye Porter

January 18th, 2004, 12:34 AM

Originally posted by wholearmor

:shocked: Maybe! I hadn't thought of that! :eek:
You think you may not have considered it?

godrulz

January 18th, 2004, 12:49 AM

Thesaurus...synonyms...OK, I get the point.:rolleyes:

King David

January 19th, 2004, 12:23 AM

I would like to welcome all you folks as MORMONS! Since this is the "Exclusively Mormon thread", you've all posted here, which is evidence that you apparently consider yourselves to be Mormon! Glad to have you (even Leo)! Of course, I think you'll all need to be taught by our missionaries, be baptized as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, etc., to be considered genuine "Mormons". Go ahead, send me a Private Message with your name and address, and I'll get the missionaries lined up to bring you a copy of The Book of Mormon (or, for $20 or so, you can buy a replica of the First edition like Freak got)!

--KING DAVID

p.s. Tye, I 'dew' like soda pop in moderation (once every couple of months or so in small quantities).

godrulz

January 19th, 2004, 11:14 AM

At what point is this considered proseltyzing and contrary to TOL rules?

Should a moderator consider banning KD, lest a searching individual or weak Christian be deceived?

This responsibility must be balanced with freedom of speech.

King David

January 19th, 2004, 11:50 PM

SOTK

January 20th, 2004, 12:25 AM

wholearmor

January 20th, 2004, 01:01 AM

Tye Porter

January 20th, 2004, 01:04 AM

Originally posted by wholearmor

This is a privately owned message board. There is no freedom of speech other than that deemed by Sir Knight.
Let just say even that is a narrow focus...-----><------

wholearmor

January 20th, 2004, 01:05 AM

wholearmor

January 20th, 2004, 01:08 AM

Originally posted by Tye Porter

Let just say even that is a narrow focus...-----><------

Not let's...you.

Tye Porter

January 20th, 2004, 01:13 AM

Yeah, I said that.
I'll be banned by the morning.
Nice knowing you, Sir.

Tye Porter

January 20th, 2004, 01:14 AM

Originally posted by wholearmor
:yawn: You're just another boring, angry, mixed up Mormon. :p
Please tell me you've not just figured this out?

wholearmor

January 20th, 2004, 01:16 AM

Originally posted by Tye Porter

Please tell me you've not just figured this out?

No, but I just uttered it. :D

Tye Porter

January 20th, 2004, 01:17 AM

Originally posted by wholearmor

No, but I just uttered it. :D
COWabunga, dude!

wholearmor

January 20th, 2004, 01:27 AM

Originally posted by Tye Porter

COWabunga, dude!

Tye Porter

January 20th, 2004, 01:29 AM

And which one is your favourite?

"Heros in a half-shell!"

wholearmor

January 20th, 2004, 01:31 AM

Originally posted by Tye Porter

And which one is your favourite?

"Heros in a half-shell!"

Which ever one isn't homosexual so I don't hold out much hope.

Tye Porter

January 20th, 2004, 01:32 AM

Originally posted by wholearmor

Which ever one isn't homosexual so I don't hold out much hope.
So the rumours are true?
These guys and the Teletubbies? :eek:

That explains the matching/corresponding colours!

wholearmor

January 20th, 2004, 01:38 AM

Originally posted by Tye Porter

So the rumours are true?
These guys and the Teletubbies? :eek:

That explains the matching/corresponding colours!

It would seem most parents don't have much discernment when it comes to what they allow their children to watch on T.V.

Tye Porter

January 20th, 2004, 01:46 AM

What's T.V.?

wholearmor

January 20th, 2004, 01:48 AM

Originally posted by Tye Porter

What's T.V.?

Thoughtless Visions?

Tye Porter

January 20th, 2004, 01:52 AM

Originally posted by wholearmor

Thoughtless Visions?
Whoops.
I'm sorry, we're talking about catholics?

Well, aren't their preists T.V.'s?

wholearmor

January 20th, 2004, 01:53 AM

Originally posted by Tye Porter

Whoops.
I'm sorry, we're talking about catholics?

Well, aren't their preists T.V.'s?

That'd be one way to describe 'em.

Tye Porter

January 20th, 2004, 01:54 AM

Originally posted by wholearmor

That'd be one way to describe 'em.
There are other ways?

wholearmor

January 20th, 2004, 01:55 AM

Originally posted by Tye Porter

There are other ways?

Pedophiles comes to mind.

Tye Porter

January 20th, 2004, 01:59 AM

Originally posted by wholearmor

Pedophiles comes to mind.
They're homosexuals too, right?
All liberals are homos, right?

wholearmor

January 20th, 2004, 02:01 AM

Originally posted by Tye Porter

They're homosexuals too, right?
All liberals are homos, right?

As the teacher said in the movie (I wish I could remember which movie), "All of them."

Tye Porter

January 20th, 2004, 02:03 AM

Originally posted by wholearmor

As the teacher said in the movie (I wish I could remember which movie), "All of them."
Was that Jim Belushi?
"How much for the women?
All of them!"
That would be Blues Brothers.

wholearmor

January 20th, 2004, 02:07 AM

Originally posted by Tye Porter

Was that Jim Belushi?
"How much for the women?
All of them!"
That would be Blues Brothers.

No, some kids were acting up and the lead role asked the teacher something like, "All of them?" and the teacher replied, in a very disgusted voice, "All of them."

godrulz

January 20th, 2004, 02:07 AM

Originally posted by King David

'rulz,

Great, NOW you would have ME banned from the Exclusively Mormon thread! What, so YOU can proselytize your weak 'traditional Christian' brothers and sisters into YOUR brand of 'Mormonism'? What's this world coming to, when Mormons can't be Mormons even in their own thread?

How many times have I been invited to abandon my "Mormon" beliefs and become "Christian"? (Many). Is not THAT proselytizing? I suppose even JESUS would be banned from this whole FORUM, for He would certainly proselytize!!!

I fear God more than man. Go ahead, ban me, if you will (I can see OEJ, chomping at the bit to do so, I believe).

But, if you do, I guarantee, this forum will die!!!

--KING DAVID

p.s. 'rulz really fears me and what I may do. It is most interesting.

If this was a Mormon sponsored, and Mormon paid for board your whining would be valid. Your Mormon thread could be used to proselytize. You would not be banned from a thread that you really have no right to post; you would be banned from a board that is for edification and evangelism, not a platform for every false religion to hijack. I would expect censure if I went to Mormon boards and did what you do here. There are many Christian boards that have explicit rules against members of false religions creating confusion and controversy. If you do not abide by their responsible rules, you forfeit the right to be there. Who are you to stake out territory and rebuke us for expressing concern about your overt attempt to get missionaries to the door (cf. signing a guest book at the temple in Hawaii or requesting a free book of mormon)?

As you know, I am not a moderator and have no power or desire to ban you. Darkness runs from light, and not the other way around.

It is an evangelical board with responsibility before God to not provide a platform that may deceive the uninformed. We have a responsibility and right as an explicitly evangelical ministry to proselytize you. You do not have to be here. We pay for the board and offer it up as a tool for the Holy Spirit. It is not your tool to convert us anymore than a Satanist should come here and expect a platform of persuasion. You have your own LDS boards if you insist on breaking the spirit of an evangelical board. Man, are you presumptious to have your feathers ruffled when you are in the wrong and assume this is a labor for every wing nut to deceive people. Those people should start their own sites like the PINK UNICORN church did (at their expense, with their own rules of what has integrity or not).

This forum, since God is in it with hundreds of believers, will continue to post after you leave. Perhaps you meant the thread will die on Mormonism. That would make sense since Mormonism is only of academic interest if there is not a soul to win for Christ in the dialogue.

Please do not bully us. You are a guest on a Christian board, not the moderator of an LDS board. If I went to your LDS boards to persuade people, I would abide by the rules and walk softly rather than demand rights I do not have.

I too fear God. There is a reason the LDS church is a comparitively small group in light of hundreds of millions of evangelical believers. You are not on the winning team.

You are making this personal again. Remember your stress levels and stewardship of time.

Chileice

January 20th, 2004, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by godrulz

At what point is this considered proseltyzing and contrary to TOL rules?

Should a moderator consider banning KD, lest a searching individual or weak Christian be deceived?

This responsibility must be balanced with freedom of speech.

What diff would there be in banning KD. I think that would be a cowardly move. Wickwoman proselytyzes, Purex does in his own weird way. We almost all do in one sense or another. Let him stay. It would be wonderful if he could come to a saving knowledge of Christ from being here. I doubt that will happen as we all (me included) have a hard time not using ridicule when we read some of his outrageous posts. But what we don't understand is that to him they make perfect sense. When you are born into a closed system, it is very hard to understand anything that comes from outside your box. Really it is a thinking error. Christians can do it too. We just dismiss any info that does not fit our already pre-constructed world. It is a Velcro-Teflon paradox. That which reinforces our belief system sticks like Velcro and that which challenges it slides off like Teflon. It is just that good mormons have been taught that ANYTHING outside the stake-house should slide off like Teflon and all Mormon stuff will stick like glue.

Facts like the inability for any non-mormon archaeologist to find any of the cities in the Book of Mormon just slides off, because they have an highly developed auto-immune system that sees even listening to such an idea dangerous. So they will believe 10 mormon "scholars" and reject the entire rest of the world's evidence and it will seem logical to do so. That is how KD, day after day can be bombarded on this forum by information that to a normal person would raise some doubts, and yet he can go on pumping out mountains of the "Velcro" stuff... the mormon stuff wherewith he was programmed from childhood.

Many of us Christians can fall into the same trap. We can think that if a mormon said it... it must be wrong and have it slide off like Teflon. Many Mormons have said and done many good things which are not invalidated by their religious blindness. I'm sure KD has done many virtous things, stuff we could all be proud of... but his worldview is so different from ours that we will never meet in the middle.

He cannot see how he is NOT christian because he has been taught he is, in spite of the fact that there is so much contrary evidence. The contrary evidence slides off. And our rejection of him sticks like glue reinforcing the thought that HE is the Christian and we are all apostates. We can't see how he can't see the differences and that the difference are broad. Somehow serving Joseph Smith as prophet, having to be married and sealed in the temple, serving in a religion with multiple gods where even the believer can become a god all seems normal and "christian" to him because of the closed environment in which he lives and the thinking error that has developed.

I'm sure KD will see my post as some kind of an attack, and it too will slide off like off of Teflon. I really honestly wish KD could understand the grace offered by the real Jesus (Who I know he thinks he serves). I think deep down he is a sincere person trying to serve God in the only way he knows, in the only way his upbringing will allow him to entertain as possible. In the future I hope I will treat him with more respect and try not to poke fun even when I find the posts hard to swallow.

KD, I still hope someday you will become a Christian. You would be a powerful force on the team. Blessings,
Chileice

Poly

January 20th, 2004, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by wholearmor

This is a privately owned message board. There is no freedom of speech other than that deemed by Sir Knight.
:chuckle:

King David

January 20th, 2004, 08:12 PM

Thanks, Chileice!

Its heart warming to have someone stand up for you, even if they think you're wrong. It helps to have a Gamaliel here or there.

--KING DAVID

Chileice

January 20th, 2004, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by King David

Thanks, Chileice!

Its heart warming to have someone stand up for you, even if they think you're wrong. It helps to have a Gamaliel here or there.

--KING DAVID

No problem:)

King David

January 20th, 2004, 08:35 PM

To All of My Mormon Friends,

Listen to this talk, entitled THE GRANDEUR OF GOD, by Elder Jeffrey R. Holland in the last General Conference, I find it to be a true scriptural classic. Here, he speaks of the --

It is the grand truth that in all that Jesus came to say and do, including and especially in His atoning suffering and sacrifice, He was showing us who and what God our Eternal Father is like, how completely devoted He is to His children in every age and nation. In word and in deed Jesus was trying to reveal and make personal to us the true nature of His Father, our Father in Heaven.

http://www.lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,49-1-401-21,00.html

You can also listen to the audio of the talk at this site. I would like to have input from any and all of my "Mormon" friends who may visit TOL regarding this talk.

--KING DAVID

Mustard Seed

January 20th, 2004, 09:51 PM

This needs to be repeated for all -especially us 'Mormons' <especially me>-

REPENT YE! REPENT YE!

(see there's plenty for us to talk about on an 'exclusivley 'Mormon'' thread like this!)

wholearmor

January 21st, 2004, 08:51 PM

Originally posted by Mustard Seed

This needs to be repeated for all -especially us 'Mormons' <especially me>-

REPENT YE! REPENT YE!

(see there's plenty for us to talk about on an 'exclusivley 'Mormon'' thread like this!)

So have you?

Tye Porter

January 21st, 2004, 08:54 PM

Will they?

wholearmor

January 21st, 2004, 09:01 PM

You could start a new poll with that question, I guess.

Tye Porter

January 21st, 2004, 09:07 PM

Originally posted by wholearmor

You could start a new poll with that question, I guess.
It would not help.
If I "totem" once, I "totem" a hundred times, mormonism is a false religion.

wholearmor

January 21st, 2004, 09:38 PM

Originally posted by Tye Porter

It would not help.
If I "totem" once, I "totem" a hundred times, mormonism is a false religion.

Aren't all religions false?

godrulz

January 22nd, 2004, 01:25 AM

Originally posted by Chileice

No problem:)

Chileice has spoken the truth in love, as we all endeavor to do.

Sincerity does not create truth, KD. No one doubts your sincerity or integrity. One of us is sincerely wrong.

I have always argued that KD should be allowed to remain. My rebuke comes when he is presumptious about his rights here, rebuking our rights (as well as a legit concern to not be a platform for overt proselytizing...i.e. soliciting responses in order to send a missionary to TOL people's door...more than one true believer has forfeited their salvation to a cult due to lack of discernment or the shepherds not looking out for the flock).

There are good, secular studies on the nature of religious indoctrination, brainwashing, and mind-control. A Mormon will see it in a JWs life, and yet be blind to it in his own life.

godrulz

January 22nd, 2004, 01:30 AM

Remember Herbert W. Armstrong's Worldwide Radio Church of God had a huge doctrinal shift from heresy to orthodoxy (they still retained some sectish control tendencies)?

I hope I see the day when thousands of Mormons and JWs come to saving faith in Christ as their kingdom of the cults crumbles, error by error.

King David

January 23rd, 2004, 09:50 PM

'rulz claims no one needs a church. He denies Jesus' work by doing so, for Jesus most definitely organized a church.

Of course he would say that a church is not necessary (though a Bible is), because he's Protestant. If he said a church is necessary, then he would have to concede to the Catholics.

We are looking forward to the day when many more Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, pagans, and Jews are all part of the fold of God, otherwise known as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Come, all ye heavy laden, and Christ can and will truly give you rest, for his yoke is easy, and his burden is light.

--KING DAVID

OMEGA

January 23rd, 2004, 09:52 PM

Hebrews 10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together.

godrulz

January 24th, 2004, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by King David

'rulz claims no one needs a church. He denies Jesus' work by doing so, for Jesus most definitely organized a church.

Of course he would say that a church is not necessary (though a Bible is), because he's Protestant. If he said a church is necessary, then he would have to concede to the Catholics.

We are looking forward to the day when many more Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, pagans, and Jews are all part of the fold of God, otherwise known as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Come, all ye heavy laden, and Christ can and will truly give you rest, for his yoke is easy, and his burden is light.

--KING DAVID

Thread and post where I claimed that "no one needs a church"? I will renounce that view, repent, and edit the post for clarification. Surely this is your misunderstanding of my ecclesiology (universal vs local church). There are no "Lone Ranger" Christians (although the thief on the cross went to paradise before he could be baptized or join a church). The 'mother church' does not save anyone, but it is assumed if you are in vertical relationship with God that you will also be in horizontal relationship with His people (Eph.; I Cor.; I Jn., etc.). We are saved by faith in a person (Jn. 14:6; Acts 4:12), and not by joining a church. There are many members of the LDS church, Catholic church, etc. who outwardly are good church goers, but inwardly do not know or submit to God ("Sunday Christians"...live like the devil the rest of the week).

A true believer will be part of the universal, invisible Body of Christ that crosses denominational walls. They will also identify with a local expression of the Body (I suspect that Mormon scholars would also concur with my distinction...all Mormons worldwide are part of the mother organization, and yet congregate in specific buildings around the world forming a sub-congregation).

King David

January 26th, 2004, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by godrulz

Thread and post where I claimed that "no one needs a church"? I will renounce that view, repent, and edit the post for clarification. Surely this is your misunderstanding of my ecclesiology (universal vs local church). There are no "Lone Ranger" Christians (although the thief on the cross went to paradise before he could be baptized or join a church). The 'mother church' does not save anyone, but it is assumed if you are in vertical relationship with God that you will also be in horizontal relationship with His people (Eph.; I Cor.; I Jn., etc.). We are saved by faith in a person (Jn. 14:6; Acts 4:12), and not by joining a church. There are many members of the LDS church, Catholic church, etc. who outwardly are good church goers, but inwardly do not know or submit to God ("Sunday Christians"...live like the devil the rest of the week).

So, you DO FINALLY agree that Jesus was and is an individual! Of course, Jesus established ONE church (meaning ONE organization, with local congregations). And, you are saying that membership in that ONE organization is NOT 'salvifically' essential.

It is quite clear that one became a member of his church when baptized (which baptism was NOT only symbollic for the person being baptized, as far as their acceptance of the gospel, and showing them making a covenant with God, but it was ALSO an indication that the ONE Church (again, with many local congragations) ACCEPTED that person into the ONE Church. Hence, membership IS important. This is why John the Baptist declared to the pharisees, "Matthew 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance."

Hence, since you deny the NEED of membership for SALVIFIC reasons, you are denying the need for church membership.

Any repentance, clarification, or other back tracking then on YOUR part here?

A true believer will be part of the universal, invisible Body of Christ that crosses denominational walls. They will also identify with a local expression of the Body (I suspect that Mormon scholars would also concur with my distinction...all Mormons worldwide are part of the mother organization, and yet congregate in specific buildings around the world forming a sub-congregation).

There is ONE church, with MANY local congregations.

--KING DAVID

godrulz

January 27th, 2004, 02:33 AM

There is one universal, invisible Body of Christ (Church) with many local congregations of various cultural and historical backgrounds (denominations, fellowships, independant congregations).
Repentance and faith in Christ places one in the Church. We then should identify with a local expression of the family and army of God.

The Roman Catholic or Church of Jesus Christ LDS or Watchtower organization are not the true Church.

Chileice

January 27th, 2004, 07:48 AM

Originally posted by King David

It is quite clear that one became a member of his church when baptized (which baptism was NOT only symbollic for the person being baptized, as far as their acceptance of the gospel, and showing them making a covenant with God, but it was ALSO an indication that the ONE Church (again, with many local congragations) ACCEPTED that person into the ONE Church. Hence, membership IS important. This is why John the Baptist declared to the pharisees, "Matthew 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance."

--KING DAVID

I do NOT think this is abundantly clear. What church did the ethiopian eunuch become a member of when he was baptized? This idea of church membership is a much later development that all of us take far beyond what a First Century understanding would have been. The LDS have taken it even further. Equating their church with the Christ. We ARE baptized into Christ but I do not see that there is a necessary equation of being baptized into an organization. The organization, no matter what it is or how good it is is run by fallible humans. We are IN Christ if we truly repent and accept Him by faith and we are baptized into his true (some might say, mystical) body. We are also encouraged to participate in a physical manifestation of that body in a local congregation. I think the more organized and top-down controlled that congregation is... the less likely it is to be a true reflection of the true body of Christ and the more likely it is to become a yes-man support group for the institution which controls it.

LightSon

January 27th, 2004, 12:10 PM

godrulz

The sugar and dyes in soda pop are probably more deleterious.

wholearmor

...and they could be harmful.

LightSon
Thanks allot Gilligan :D

King David

January 27th, 2004, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by Chileice

I do NOT think this is abundantly clear. What church did the ethiopian eunuch become a member of when he was baptized?

Of course, the Ethiopian Eunuch (and others) had been baptized by John the Baptist (or by his disciples). Jesus himself, of course, was baptized by John the Baptist.

Who did John receive his authority from? Of course, he received it from God. And, since God is a king, both were baptized into the 'Kingdom of God', which is another name for the Church of Jesus Christ.

Of course, later, Christ (that is, his disciples) baptized more than John the Baptist (that is he and his disciples) did. And, again, John the Baptist himself had declared that he must decrease, while Jesus increased. They were both (John the Baptist and Jesus Christ) of the same organization. John the Baptist, of course, was a preparer for Christ. And, his baptism of water was a preparatory ordinance for the baptism by fire (of the Holy Ghost), which keys John the Baptist did not have, but Christ and his disciples did.

This idea of church membership is a much later development that all of us take far beyond what a First Century understanding would have been. The LDS have taken it even further. Equating their church with the Christ.

To the contrary. That there were those who were admitted into the church, and requirements made of them before they were (including producing "fruits worthy of baptism", i.e., "real and full repentance"), as well as requirements to stay in (or be "cast out", of membership).

Jesus' parable of cutting off or out "offending members" was not where one would poke one's own eye out (literally and bodily), but it was symbollic of removing "offending (church) members", since the body of Christ (his Church) was to be purged, as and when needed, of those who would, like cancer, consume the whole body if allowed to remain.

We ARE baptized into Christ but I do not see that there is a necessary equation of being baptized into an organization.

Show me in scripture where the dychotomy you are making is made between Christ and his "body" (church).

The organization, no matter what it is or how good it is is run by fallible humans. We are IN Christ if we truly repent and accept Him by faith and we are baptized into his true (some might say, mystical) body. We are also encouraged to participate in a physical manifestation of that body in a local congregation.

Many of Christ's parables talk about "being in him". Being "in him" (Christ) MEANS to be in his organization, his Church. The true vine parable, again, is another one equating "branches" (whether individuals, households, or whole ecclisiastical congregations, must remain "in Christ" (as part of his larger Church) to be connected to the vine, the giver of life to the branches.

[/QUOTE] I think the more organized and top-down controlled that congregation is... the less likely it is to be a true reflection of the true body of Christ and the more likely it is to become a yes-man support group for the institution which controls it. [/QUOTE]

Notice how when Ananias and his wife Sapphira withheld part of the payment they received of the sale of a possession from the church (for they then lived the "united order", or had "all" in common), not only did they lose their church member -- but also their very lives!

You want to talk about CONTROL???

God will do with those in his kingdom or church as He will. Whether it is by God's voice, or by the voice of his servants, IT IS THE SAME!

When God confered the keys of authority to his apostles, that was to bind in heaven what they bound on earth, and likewise, to loose. They were given full authority, and were the ultimate arbitrators, as long as they lived, of who should be allowed into the church, who should remain, and who should be cast out, or excommunicated. The Lord, by his servants, will indeed regulate his church, for His (God's) house is not a house of confusion, but one of order.

--KING DAVID

King David

January 29th, 2004, 12:10 AM

No one has responded to my last post, because they cannot, by the scriptures, counter my argument.

--KING DAVID

rajuncajun

January 29th, 2004, 12:15 AM

Originally posted by King David

No one has responded to my last post, because they cannot, by the scriptures, counter my argument.

--KING DAVID Well don't you feel big and bad!!!:ha: :ha:

King David

January 29th, 2004, 12:55 AM

Originally posted by kcajunmiller

Well don't you feel big and bad!!!:ha: :ha:

Care to rebut my "strong reasons", kcajunmiller?

--KING DAVID

CryTears

January 29th, 2004, 05:50 AM

godrulz

January 29th, 2004, 11:06 AM

KD has consistently rejected cogent Scriptural arguments and assumes his ramblings are irrefutable or defensible. I would not assume that we cannot answer your concerns. It is you who has not responded many times to the information we give you.

Give me a specific verse (s) from the Bible to support LDS teaching, and I will share what the normative understanding of it is (or alternate possibilities so we can wrestle with the interpretation) based on evangelical Christianity or counter-cult ministry (this may take research of Greek of commentaries...we do have different understandings of some verses in our circles, but so do LDS scholars). My contention is that the Mormon or JW understanding of many verses in eisogesis with a pre-conceived theology, rather than exegesis with the grammatical, historical, contextual, biblical, literal understanding of verses.

Quoting LDS works do not add credibility, because one has to assume they are true (the older revelation of the Bible is the standard by which we compare modern revelation if there is a contradiction). The classic escape clause will be to say the Bible is mistranslated if it contradicts LDS views.

rajuncajun

January 29th, 2004, 02:24 PM

I have read a book titled Christianity,Cults&Religions.This is what is said about the LDS belief:
about God;He was once a man,but become God,He has a physical body and a wife.And that oneday men may become gods.
Jesus:He was created by God and His wife,the eldest brother of all men,He was married,His death on the cross does not provide full atonement for all sin,but does provide everyone with resurrection.
Holy Spirit:That is a fluid like substance by which the Father exerciseshis influence.
Salvation:resurrected by grace,but saved by works,Mormon baptism,tithing,ordination,marriage,secret temple rituals,no eternal life without Mormon membership.
Death:everyone goes to one of three separate heavenly"kingdoms"with some achieving godhood,Apostates and murderers go to outer darkness.
To me this is disturbing to read.It's crazy.KD is this true what this book is saying about mormons??????

godrulz

January 29th, 2004, 04:37 PM

Those who have the genuine can spot a counterfeit without knowing all the details of doctrine. The average Mormon or JW does not know much of the history or beliefs of their movements. Those who do, rationalize away the conflicts due to the high cost of admitting that one has been deceived. Ignorance is not excuse in light of the wealth of information available.

The greater challenge is to help believers and seekers know what and why they believe. "Cults are the unpaid bills of the church". It is easier to keep someone from a false group than to extricate them once they are in it.

rajuncajun

January 29th, 2004, 05:06 PM

Well I do not believe their teachings,I believe in the teachings of Christ(The Holy Bible).You would think that they would see that this is so far fetched that they will turn away.It just don't make sense to me.

Chileice

January 29th, 2004, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by King David

Of course, the Ethiopian Eunuch (and others) had been baptized by John the Baptist (or by his disciples). Jesus himself, of course, was baptized by John the Baptist.

Who did John receive his authority from? Of course, he received it from God. And, since God is a king, both were baptized into the 'Kingdom of God', which is another name for the Church of Jesus Christ.

Of course, later, Christ (that is, his disciples) baptized more than John the Baptist (that is he and his disciples) did. And, again, John the Baptist himself had declared that he must decrease, while Jesus increased. They were both (John the Baptist and Jesus Christ) of the same organization. John the Baptist, of course, was a preparer for Christ. And, his baptism of water was a preparatory ordinance for the baptism by fire (of the Holy Ghost), which keys John the Baptist did not have, but Christ and his disciples did.

To the contrary. That there were those who were admitted into the church, and requirements made of them before they were (including producing "fruits worthy of baptism", i.e., "real and full repentance"), as well as requirements to stay in (or be "cast out", of membership).

First of all the Ethiopian Eunuch was baptized by Phillip, not by one of John's disciples but rather by one of the church's first deacons. So your entire earlier argument makes no sense.

Originally posted by King David
Show me in scripture where the dychotomy you are making is made between Christ and his "body" (church).

The Bible speaks of Christ and the Bride of Christ in Revelation. The Bride is his body and is obviously sparate from Christ himself.

[/QUOTE] I think the more organized and top-down controlled that congregation is... the less likely it is to be a true reflection of the true body of Christ and the more likely it is to become a yes-man support group for the institution which controls it. [/QUOTE]

Originally posted by King David
Notice how when Ananias and his wife Sapphira withheld part of the payment they received of the sale of a possession from the church (for they then lived the "united order", or had "all" in common), not only did they lose their church member -- but also their very lives!

They weren't disloyal to a church organization, they lied to the Holy Spirit.

--KING DAVID [/QUOTE]

CryTears

January 30th, 2004, 09:19 AM

so Mormons do not believe Jesus was the Son of the Father?
The every day Mormon, what do they learn in church?

King David

January 31st, 2004, 01:10 AM

Originally posted by crytahvn

so Mormons do not believe Jesus was the Son of the Father?
The every day Mormon, what do they learn in church?

Quite to the contrary. Mormons DO believe that Jesus was and is the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD THE FATHER BUT ONLY IN THE FLESH.

We believe that ALL mankind, male and female, are literally the spirit sons and daughters of God. This in no way distracts from Jesus' position. In fact, it enhances it, since he is our "big brother" who is doing for us what we cannot do for ourselves.

Jesus was the First Born of God the Father of all spirits. He was and is the only one with the integrity to do what he did -- to be the Savior, and to have wrought the atonement for us.

This is what "every day Mormons" are taught in church.

--KING DAVID

CryTears

January 31st, 2004, 06:04 AM

Originally posted by King David

Quite to the contrary. Mormons DO believe that Jesus was and is the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD THE FATHER BUT ONLY IN THE FLESH.

We believe that ALL mankind, male and female, are literally the spirit sons and daughters of God. This in no way distracts from Jesus' position. In fact, it enhances it, since he is our "big brother" who is doing for us what we cannot do for ourselves.

Jesus was the First Born of God the Father of all spirits. He was and is the only one with the integrity to do what he did -- to be the Savior, and to have wrought the atonement for us.

This is what "every day Mormons" are taught in church.

--KING DAVID

okay, thanks. I think I understand. When you say only in the flesh, but then say was the Father of all spirits it sort of confuses me.
I can also see all of us being spirit sons and daughters of God, but what about the spirits of the people prior to Jesus? They had to have spirits, right?

King David

January 31st, 2004, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by crytahvn

okay, thanks. I think I understand. When you say only in the flesh, but then say was the Father of all spirits it sort of confuses me.
I can also see all of us being spirit sons and daughters of God, but what about the spirits of the people prior to Jesus? They had to have spirits, right?

God the Father (aka 'Heavenly Father', 'Father of Spirits', 'Elohim', 'the Most High God'), He is the Father of ALL the spirits of men (and women) from Adam and Eve to the last baby at the end of the great Millennium of peace and rest. He WAS (and IS) ALSO the literal father of Jesus' Christ's body, just as I am the literal father of two sons and seven daughters, and God the Father is the father of Jesus' physical body ONLY (that is, God the Father did not beget any children on this earth IN THE FLESH. All others were the physical offspring of other mortals ('mortals', of course, means those who will die, as in 'mort' French/Latin for 'death').

Of course, Jesus died. But then because his father was immortal, he had the power within himself to take up his own body again (to self-resurrect). Being perfect in thought, word and behavior proved the integrity of his word before the world was made, that he could and would perform the duty of a Savior or Redeemer, which He has done. Nobody else could do what He (Jesus) did. And it is ONLY by the grace made possible by his atonement that any and all who WILL be saved CAN be saved, if they manifest they are willing to repent and keep God's commandments.

--KING DAVID

CryTears

January 31st, 2004, 03:11 PM

okay I can go along with that.:thumb:

so what is with all the mormon bashing around here?

godrulz

January 31st, 2004, 05:20 PM

You must watch semantics. Mormons use similar words, but redefine them.

They believe we pre-existed as spirit children before coming to earth. This is contrary to the reality that we become individuals at conception.

KDs view on the relationship between the Father and Son is radically different than historical, biblical Christianity.

It is not Mormon bashing to defend the biblical, historical, orthodox Christianity once for all entrusted to the saints (Jude 3). It is an act of love to share truth and oppose error. The Mormons, under Joseph Smith, also were the first to attack the Christian churches saying they are of the devil and need to be replaced with a so-called 'restored gospel.'

Their angel Moroni is an angel of light and Joseph Smith is a false prophet (Gal. 1:6-10; 2 Cor. 11:4). We need discernment because there is a different gospel/Jesus being preached that is a counterfeit.

Mormonism is polytheistic (plurality of gods). Judeo-Christianity has always been monotheistic. On this note alone, Mormonism is not worthy of spiritual investigation.

CryTears

January 31st, 2004, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by godrulz

You must watch semantics. Mormons use similar words, but redefine them.

They believe we pre-existed as spirit children before coming to earth. This is contrary to the reality that we become individuals at creation.

KDs view on the relationship between the Father and Son is radically different than historical, biblical Christianity.

It is not Mormon bashing to defend the biblical, historical, orthodox Christianity once for all entrusted to the saints (Jude 3). It is an act of love to share truth and oppose error. The Mormons, under Joseph Smith, also were the first to attack the Christian churches saying they are of the devil and need to be replaced with a so-called 'restored gospel.'

Their angel Moroni is an angel of light and Joseph Smith is a false prophet (Gal. 1:6-10; 2 Cor. 11:4). We need discernment because there is a different gospel/Jesus being preached that is a counterfeit.

Mormonism is polytheistic (plurality of gods). Judeo-Christianity has always been monotheistic. On this note alone, Mormonism is not worthy of spiritual investigation.

1. :help: okay I will keep that in mind.
2. ?
3.Okay, I can see that.
4. How do you know they were false prophets?
5. ? and I don't believe in the term "judeo-Christianity"

I can see where some people might think we were spirits first and then got assigned bodies at the time of conception.
Maybe that is why we are not born 'talking'?
I can see where discussions could take place, but I don't see any malfunction in regard to their belief, thus far.
I went to this site.http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,104-1-3-1,FF.html

godrulz

January 31st, 2004, 09:22 PM

www.utlm.org (for the other side)

Oops..I meant to type we become individuals at CONCEPTION, not creation or eternally pre-existing as spirit children.

What is your background? Are you searching or do you identify with Mormons? If you go to their site, it will look credible and persuasive, but you are opening yourself up to a spirit of deception. Mormonism is not biblical Christianity, but a modern day cult started by Joseph Smith.

There is a battle for your soul, and I pray you will have wisdom and discernment. Salvation is in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Almighty God, risen from the dead...not in an organization started by a controversial individual (despite the many good qualities and people in that organization).

CryTears

February 1st, 2004, 07:22 AM

Originally posted by godrulz

www.utlm.org (for the other side)

Oops..I meant to type we become individuals at CONCEPTION, not creation or eternally pre-existing as spirit children.

What is your background? Are you searching or do you identify with Mormons? If you go to their site, it will look credible and persuasive, but you are opening yourself up to a spirit of deception. Mormonism is not biblical Christianity, but a modern day cult started by Joseph Smith.

There is a battle for your soul, and I pray you will have wisdom and discernment. Salvation is in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Almighty God, risen from the dead...not in an organization started by a controversial individual (despite the many good qualities and people in that organization).
This thread is the totality of my "mormon" upbringing.;) I truly didn't know anything about them except going to the site looking up my genealogy, and hearing a few things here and there of a conspiracy, and the girl in my class at school who was mormon. She was a bit of an outcast because she did not wear make up or drink coffee or tea, you know how kids are, mean. Besides that she was homely. Then I heard along time ago about how the minister rubbed some oil on the body of the bride naked. That was about it for me at that time, I was VERY modest.:)
But I didn't realize that many people disagree with Mormons until I came to TOL.
My parents were United Methodist, my father mostly, he had protestant values and lived by them but did not really go to church, okay he never went to church, after I was about 6yrs old,
my mother was anti religion, still is, she rolls her eyes at the thought of going to church.
My sister is not speaking to me because she said I have turned into a 'religious' nut.
I baptised as catholic at 15yrs old, and if I go to church it is to a catholic church but I don't agree with the church anymore so much. The last church I went to was Orthodox Christian, the problem with that is I don't sing very well.:) but I like all the imagery. And they don't let you get communion unless you are a member of the church.
I probably agree with the belief's of Orthodox Jewry the most but then I can't worship Christ.
There is Quaker but....... I am a bit too too for that.
I church hop:D maybe it is better than a bar hop?
The only reason I find it interesting about the Mormon thought that we were spirits before is that my 'death experience' I talked about on another thread, it seemed like I new where I was, that I had been there before.
I am going to go check out the site you gave me and see what it says.

BillyBob

February 1st, 2004, 07:24 AM

How is TOL's favorite Jew Hater this morning, Cryt?

CryTears

February 1st, 2004, 07:47 AM

Originally posted by BillyBob

How is TOL's favorite Jew Hater this morning, Cryt?

I am fine thanks, arab hater.:D but I am ready to go back to my comfort zone, this mormon stuff is confusing.

CryTears

February 1st, 2004, 07:51 AM

Okay, I read through the Mormon site you gave me.
I did not read the entire thing, but about four or five pages completely.
I would not join a church that does not allow me to wear a cross. Or that I would need a trial to leave. I have committment phobia.:)
nor do I want my name listed in a book of books:noid:
That isn't my calling, but if other people think it is theirs, well, sort of like smoking, no I don't but don't mind if you do.
God gave me a calling, and I am off to do it!

:D

godrulz

February 1st, 2004, 09:52 AM

Where do you live? Russia? What you are seeking is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Try finding an evangelical, Bible-believing Church that teaches the Word of God and knows and loves Jesus. All the best in your spiritual journey.

CryTears

February 1st, 2004, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by godrulz

Where do you live? Russia? What you are seeking is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Try finding an evangelical, Bible-believing Church that teaches the Word of God and knows and loves Jesus. All the best in your spiritual journey.

:D LOL @ Russia.
okay, I am thinking mennonite, got any scoop on them?

godrulz

February 1st, 2004, 06:01 PM

Mennonites are a Protestant denomination started hundreds of years ago by Simon Mennos (?). They are part of the Anabaptist tradition. Like any church, some Mennonites have a heart relationship with God, while others are merely religious and cultural (nominal..in name only). There are varieties of Mennonites. Find a group that loves God, honors His Word, and preaches the Gospel of Christ crucified and risen from the dead.

CryTears

February 1st, 2004, 06:05 PM

Originally posted by godrulz

Mennonites are a Protestant denomination started hundreds of years ago by Simon Mennos (?). They are part of the Anabaptist tradition. Like any church, some Mennonites have a heart relationship with God, while others are merely religious and cultural (nominal..in name only). There are varieties of Mennonites. Find a group that loves God, honors His Word, and preaches the Gospel of Christ crucified and risen from the dead. :thumb:

Granite

February 3rd, 2004, 06:56 PM

Cry should try the Christian Identity Movement. Right up her alley...

godrulz

February 3rd, 2004, 07:27 PM

Originally posted by granite1010

Cry should try the Christian Identity Movement. Right up her alley...

CIM...KKK...anti-Jewish...did I miss something? Does Cry have an anti-semetic history here?

CryTears

February 4th, 2004, 04:46 AM

Originally posted by granite1010

Cry should try the Christian Identity Movement. Right up her alley...
I am surprised you don't drop your membership from the JDL while you claim to be a Christian granite.

CryTears

February 4th, 2004, 04:49 AM

Originally posted by godrulz

CIM...KKK...anti-Jewish...did I miss something? Does Cry have an anti-semetic history here?

granite is a truth hater, they are mentioned in the bible
he also accused my parents of being fundamentalists, bigots, and members of the Christian right movement.
which is REALLY strange considering my mother is an artist and could careless about Christianity or the bible.
my sister is about as liberal as you can get as a stevie nix wannabe
my father died, granite would probably gloat at that.

crunchie

February 4th, 2004, 07:36 AM

I thought this was a 'christian' forum??

newway2bhuman

February 4th, 2004, 08:07 AM

Originally posted by crunchie

I thought this was a 'christian' forum??

Yeah, you can't tell by the way people act around here.

crunchie

February 4th, 2004, 08:13 AM

Originally posted by newway2bhuman

Yeah, you can't tell by the way people act around here.

I meant it in reference to the mormon thread.:)

CryTears

February 4th, 2004, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by crunchie

I meant it in reference to the mormon thread.:)

:D

Granite

February 4th, 2004, 11:00 AM

Actually I never accused cry's parents of being bigots; I asked if they were to see if there was some explanation for why cry thinks Jews eat infants, shot JFK, and started every war in history.

I'm not a member of the JDL and that's cry's typically lame attempt at humor.

CryTears

February 4th, 2004, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by granite1010

Actually I never accused cry's parents of being bigots; I asked if they were to see if there was some explanation for why cry thinks Jews eat infants, shot JFK, and started every war in history.

I'm not a member of the JDL and that's cry's typically lame attempt at humor.

actually you did too, you said I was raised by fundamentalist right winged racist bigots
and you are too a member of the JDL,
and a liar, you keep saying I said Jews eat infants A BLATANT LIE!
or guilty mind one of the two

I tried to be friends with you and help you celebrate Fridays but noooooooo ohhhhhhhh ohhhhhhhh
but all of this got me thinking of Brian David Mitchell :)

http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2002/01/31/JewishWorld/JewishWorld.42658.html

CryTears

February 4th, 2004, 11:39 AM

I should tell my mother you are calling her a 'fundy'
she would slap you.

Granite

February 4th, 2004, 11:49 AM

"actually you did too, you said I was raised by fundamentalist right winged racist bigots"

No, I didn't. I'm not going to keep going back and forth on this like a fifth grader.

"and you are too a member of the JDL"

Oh, I see. Is this your version of sarcasm or do you have my name and a membership list?

"and a liar, you keep saying I said Jews eat infants A BLATANT LIE"

You refuse to call the blood libel cults what they are: libel and lies. You've wondered if there's truth behind them. What else is there to say? You speculate that Jews might sacrifice infants. Or at the very least, that they did, at one point.

godrulz

February 4th, 2004, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by crunchie

I meant it in reference to the mormon thread.:)

Two Mormons are posting on our Christian forum. It is not an LDS forum.

CryTears

February 4th, 2004, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by granite1010

"actually you did too, you said I was raised by fundamentalist right winged racist bigots"

No, I didn't. I'm not going to keep going back and forth on this like a fifth grader.

"and you are too a member of the JDL"

Oh, I see. Is this your version of sarcasm or do you have my name and a membership list?

"and a liar, you keep saying I said Jews eat infants A BLATANT LIE"

You refuse to call the blood libel cults what they are: libel and lies. You've wondered if there's truth behind them. What else is there to say? You speculate that Jews might sacrifice infants. Or at the very least, that they did, at one point.
funny you should be claiming that in an islamic ritual thread LOL
but now that you mention it, the man that took that little girl was the same coloring, built, and had a blue uniform that looked similar to those phoney israeli moving scam artists in florida.
take a look! (http://www.movingadvocateteam.com/id29.htm)

CryTears

February 4th, 2004, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by godrulz

Two Mormons are posting on our Christian forum. It is not an LDS forum.

I think we are on the wrong thread, it says exclusively mormon.
I was just checking it out, but I am finished I think.
byeeeee

Mustard Seed

May 20th, 2004, 02:10 AM

I hereby reclaim this thread for us Mormons! Down with the anti-Mormon propeganda and lies!

Mustard Seed

May 20th, 2004, 02:13 AM

Originally posted by wholearmor

So have you?

Working on it constantly.

LightSon

May 20th, 2004, 02:24 AM

Questions for Mormons, eg. MS or KD (any other LDS on TOL?).

1. Do any men get condemned to the Lake of Fire or do we all go to one of the three (celestial type) places?

2. Do you consider yourselves to be Christian? and if so

3. do you consider Christians to (unwittingly) be Mormon?

4. Are there any specific punishments for me, if I reject Joseph Smith as a prophet?

5. Why was polygamy okay (God's will) at the outset of the LDS church, but not today?

6. Have you ever seen a person return from the dead to witness his or her proxy baptism? or have you ever heard reports of this?

Mustard Seed

May 20th, 2004, 10:21 AM

Originally posted by LightSon

Questions for Mormons, eg. MS or KD (any other LDS on TOL?).

1. Do any men get condemned to the Lake of Fire or do we all go to one of the three (celestial type) places?

Yes men and even some who belong to our church can and will get condemned to the "Lake of Fire" for a time. We believe, however that all save sons of perdition will receive one of the heavenly glories come the end of the millenium and hence once they have 'paid the uttermost farthing'. Essentialy we believe that all those but those who sin against a sure witness of the Holy Ghost.

...except those sons of perdition who deny the Son after the Father has revealed him.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 76:43)

That however is not an easy condition to procure.

2. Do you consider yourselves to be Christian? and if so

Yes.

3. do you consider Christians to (unwittingly) be Mormon?

Interesting question. Well we believe that a great many live by a great many principles of truth and in that way they could be considered to, I guess, in someways to be 'closer' to Mormonism than others. Technicaly they are not members of the church but I have seen some 'dry members', those who have yet to make the decision to get baptized, that might consider themselves 'Mormon'. From the early days of the church the title 'jack-Mormon' was used to refer to those sympathetic with but not aligned with Mormonism. However today it has a slightly differrent connotation

4. Are there any specific punishments for me, if I reject Joseph Smith as a prophet?

The degree of salvation would be limited. The highest conceivable glory you could acheive would be the Terrestrial Kingdom. If you were abiding the ten commandments and Christ were to come we believe that you would survive the second comming and enjoy millenial glory. As would all the faithfull of all relgions that adhere to basic principals such as those found in the ten commandments.

5. Why was polygamy okay (God's will) at the outset of the LDS church, but not today?

Yes.

6. Have you ever seen a person return from the dead to witness his or her proxy baptism? or have you ever heard reports of this?

No and 'kind of'. I've heared reports of people knowing that the baptism was accepted. However I have not heard of a specific visual confermation. However that does not mean it has or hasn't or could not happen.

Servo

May 20th, 2004, 10:27 AM

Have the Mormons made any attempt to test the DNA of any of the Indians living here in the US to see if they are actually of Jewish decent?

On Fire

May 20th, 2004, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by Mustard Seed
5. Why was polygamy okay (God's will) at the outset of the LDS church, but not today?

Yes.

Ummm.....did you read the question?

Knight

May 20th, 2004, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by Shimei

Have the Mormons made any attempt to test the DNA of any of the Indians living here in the US to see if they are actually of Jewish decent? :chuckle:

Swordsman

May 20th, 2004, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by Shimei

Have the Mormons made any attempt to test the DNA of any of the Indians living here in the US to see if they are actually of Jewish decent?

Now that was a low blow. Doubt you get an answer on that one.

Mustard Seed

May 20th, 2004, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by AtheistsSuck

Ummm.....did you read the question?

Sorry. I misread that. The reason for it being unacceptable at the moment is the same reason that God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son despite the fact that child sacrifice was not permited. Whatever God tells a prophet is correct at any given time is correct. Normaly it is not correct to kill but God commanded Israel to carry out genocide on more than one nation. I do not know why exactly God does such things. I trust his omniscient view understands everything and knows the corolaries of all things.

Swordsman

May 20th, 2004, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by Mustard Seed
Sorry. I misread that. The reason for it being unacceptable at the moment is the same reason that God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son despite the fact that child sacrifice was not permited. Whatever God tells a prophet is correct at any given time is correct. Normaly it is not correct to kill but God commanded Israel to carry out genocide on more than one nation. I do not know why exactly God does such things. I trust his omniscient view understands everything and knows the corolaries of all things.

Now that's a Calvinistic statement if I've ever heard one. That is the one thing I agree with the Mormons on.

Mustard Seed

May 20th, 2004, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by Swordsman

Now that was a low blow. Doubt you get an answer on that one.

To the contrary.

DNA tests, despite what mormonchallenge.com would have you believe are inconclusive as to proving one way or the other because the only DNA that has been tested up to now is not the DNA that is in the nucleus of the cells. It is Mitochondrial DNA. That is it is passed only through the matriarchal line. Thus several plausible scenerios could have cut off these lines completely. Untill you have a comprehensive tests on the DNA that is found in the nucleus of the cells you cannot, on a scientificaly credible level, state that there is no DNA link.

This is just part of the rebutal. There are many other items that are ignored in the overly simplistic accusations claiming DNA proof against the Book of Mormon. There are some really good refutations though I doubt any of you will take the time to read them. Let's see if any of you can refute these.

Several links can be found on this page to articles refuting claims like those made by mormonchallenge.com (http://www.lds.org/newsroom/mistakes/0,15331,3885-1-18078,00.html)

The movie on the mormonchallenge website is quite entertaining. The 'Christians' end their message with a stance that counters their entire anti-Mormon argument. They, for most of the movie, appeal to science. Yet at the end they do not even attempt to address the problems the scientific community has with their faith. They conveniently ignore that the scientific community has as many crosshairs on them as they would like to see on us.

Mustard Seed

May 20th, 2004, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by Knight

:chuckle:

Read the articles Knight. Then we'll see if it's so :chuckle: !

Granite

May 20th, 2004, 02:59 PM

Just for the heck of it...

Why was the decision to allow blacks into the priesthood made at a time when it was politically expedient to do so?

Swordsman

May 20th, 2004, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by Mustard Seed

To the contrary.

DNA tests, despite what mormonchallenge.com would have you believe are inconclusive as to proving one way or the other because the only DNA that has been tested up to now is not the DNA that is in the nucleus of the cells. It is Mitochondrial DNA. That is it is passed only through the matriarchal line. Thus several plausible scenerios could have cut off these lines completely. Untill you have a comprehensive tests on the DNA that is found in the nucleus of the cells you cannot, on a scientificaly credible level, state that there is no DNA link.

There's a flip side to the coin. On a scientificaly credible level, one, as of yet, has ever been able to prove that there IS a DNA link. And I quote from the article you provided a link (http://www.lds.org/newsroom/files/Whiting_DNA.pdf) to.

Originally posted by Michael F. Whiting
No research program thus far has been designed to specifically test the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

Back to your post.......

This is just part of the rebutal. There are many other items that are ignored in the overly simplistic accusations claiming DNA proof against the Book of Mormon. There are some really good refutations though I doubt any of you will take the time to read them. Let's see if any of you can refute these.

Several links can be found on this page to articles refuting claims like those made by mormonchallenge.com (http://www.lds.org/newsroom/mistakes/0,15331,3885-1-18078,00.html)

I've read one of them. :)

Mustard Seed

May 20th, 2004, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by Swordsman

There's a flip side to the coin. On a scientificaly credible level, one, as of yet, has ever been able to prove that there IS a DNA link. And I quote from the article you provided a link (http://www.lds.org/newsroom/files/Whiting_DNA.pdf) to.

True. The same that can be said for the much of biblicaly related archeology. In most instances the key aspects of the bible have neither been disproven nor proven. I have no problem with that.

Back to your post.......

I've read one of them. :)

Excellent! I'd encourage you to read more!

b-baggins

May 20th, 2004, 09:51 PM

1. Do any men get condemned to the Lake of Fire or do we all go to one of the three (celestial type) places?

The Lake of Fire has three meanings in LDS theology. It can mean the time of anguish between death and the resurrection of the unjust. It can mean final consignment to the Telestial kingdom which is the least of the kingdoms of glory, where the individual is eternally separated from the Father and the Son and which glory Paul likened to the brightness of the stars. Finally, it can mean consignment to outer darkness with Satan and his angels.

This last is typically what Protestants consider when they think of hell. In order for an individual to be consigned to outer darkness, he must be a baptized Mormon who has received an absolute witness and surety as to the living reality of Christ, who then turns and tells the world that there is no Christ. Joseph Smith likened it to a man telling people there is no sun while it is shining in his face. Such individuals commit the unpardonable sin and crucify the Lord afresh.

Just as a side note, many ex-Mormons will take some sort of perverse pride in claiming that Mormon theology considers them Sons of Perdition for leaving the church. This is most likely not true, since it is doubtful any of them had such a sure witness of the reality of Christ before denying him. However, they will surely suffer judgement for the things they preach about the LDS faith which, as former members, they know to be patently false.

2. Do you consider yourselves to be Christian? and if so

Of course. Any one who follows Christ is a Christian, by definition and notwithstanding certain individuals and groups who maintain their own particular interpretation of scripture is the only "true" Christianity.

3. do you consider Christians to (unwittingly) be Mormon?

No. You are not a Mormon until you receive baptism, by the proper authority, into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

4. Are there any specific punishments for me, if I reject Joseph Smith as a prophet?

Joseph Smith is considered a prophet like Moses, and an Apostle like Peter. I will answer your question with a question: Do you think there will be specific punishments for you if you reject Moses as a prophet and Peter as an Apostle?

5. Why was polygamy okay (God's will) at the outset of the LDS church, but not today?

Because the purpose of polygamy is the creation of posterity and permission is only given by special commandment of the Lord. This is pretty clear from reading the Old Testament. Polygamy is the exception not the rule. The Book of Mormon states this doctrine quite clearly in Jacob. Plural marriage is only permitted when specifically commanded by God for the specific purpose of raising up posterity. In all other cases, the practice is a sin.

6. Have you ever seen a person return from the dead to witness his or her proxy baptism? or have you ever heard reports of this?

I have heard accounts from two people on two instances who saw the dead sitting in the temple witnessing proxy baptisms on their behalf.

I, myself, have not personally had that particular spiritual experience, but I have had related experiences of a similar nature. I will not go into specifics here because of the mocking and scornful attitude of members of this thread.

b-baggins

May 20th, 2004, 10:13 PM

Have the Mormons made any attempt to test the DNA of any of the Indians living here in the US to see if they are actually of Jewish decent?

Not that I'm aware of. Others have done so, though and the answers are inconclusive. Determining ancestry by DNA is an extremely imprecise and unreliable measurement.

Much more interesting are the legends of a great white bearded god who visited anciently and promised to return again which is prevalent among South American Indians (it's one of the reasons Cortez was able to conquer the Aztecs and Incas so easily; they thought he was this returning god.).

There are also some fascinating archeological finds in Meso-america as well.

And, just to forestall the argument, the "mormon" scholars who discovered them are recognized experts in their professional fields. They are not quack researchers. Many of them have done work on the Dead Sea Scrolls as well as ancient Middle-Eastern archeaology and are nationally recognized for their works.

Don't fall for the implication from critics that all the archaeological finds supporting the Book of Mormon in meso-america are done by uneducated religious fanatics. These men are well respected in their fields.

Here are some names:

Carl W. Griffin, resident scholar at the Institue for the Study and Preservation of Ancient Religious Texts, Brigham Young University, is working toward a Ph.D. in early Christian studies at the Catholic University of America. He graduated summa *** laude with a bachelor's degree in Near Eastern studies and classics from BYU in 1995 and he received a master's degree in early Christian studies from the Catholic University of America in 2000.
------
Kristian Heal, resident scholar at the Institute for the Study and Preservation of Ancient Religious Texts, Brigham Young University, is working toward a Ph.D. in Syriac studies from the University of Birmingham. His dissertaion is on the figure of the Old Testament Patriarch Joseph in Syriac literature. Heal received a bachelor's degree in Jewish history and Hebrew from University College, London, and a master of studies in Syriac studies from Oxford University.

Heal currently works as the associate editor of the Institute's Eastern Christian Texts series and as a principal investigator for the Eastern Christian Digitizing Initiative. He is a member of the North American Patristic Society and the Society for the Study of Christian Spirituality.
---------

John Gee, the William "Bill" Gay Research Chair and assistant research professor of Egyptology at Brigham Young University, received a bachelor's degree in Near Eastern studies with a minor in mathematics from BYU in 1988. He received a master of arts in Near Eastern studies from the University of California at Berkeley in 1991 and a master of philosophy from Yale in 1998. Gee earned his Ph.D. in 1998 from Yale in Egyptology with the dissertation, "The Requirements of Ritual Purity in Ancient Egypt."

In addition to his research assignments within the Institute for the Study and Preservation of Ancient Religious Texts, Gee also serves as a member of the board of directors for the Aziz S. Atiya Fund for Coptic Studies at the University of Utah. He has published many articles and books, including "Towards an Interpretation of Hypocephali," Mélanges offerts à Edith Varga, Bulletin du Musée Hongrois des Beaux-Arts Supplément-2001 (Budapest: Musée Hongrois des Beaux-Arts, 2001), 325-34; "Notes on Egyptian Marriage: P. BM 10416 Reconsidered," Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar 15 (2001): 17-25; Traditions about the Early Life of Abraham, John A Tvedtnes, Brian Hauglid, and John Gee, eds. (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2001); "Aramaic Funerary Practices in Egypt," coauthored with Bezalel Porten, in World of the Aramaeans II: Studies in History and Archaeology in Honour of Paul-Eugène Dion, ed. P. M. Michèle Daviau, John W. Weavers, and Michael Weigl, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 325 (Sheffield: Sheffield Press, 2001), 270-307; and A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2000).

So, the next time you hear a critic of the LDS church use the phrase "Mormon Scholar" in a mocking and dismissive manner, ask yourself who is doing the deceiving.

b-baggins

May 20th, 2004, 10:21 PM

Why was the decision to allow blacks into the priesthood made at a time when it was politically expedient to do so?

It wasn't.

That revelation came in 1978. By that time, most of the political heat against the Church had faded.

The actual concern was the growing number of members in Brazil with mixed ancestry. The church wished to build a temple there and so petitioned the Lord if the time had come for the priesthood to be extended.

It was during the Civil Rights movement in the late 1960s that tremendous political and social and economic pressure was brought against the LDS church for its positions on blacks and the priesthood. By the end of the 1970s, the issue had pretty much faded from the public and political spotlight.

In fact, many people were stunned by the announcement at the time since it seemed to come entirely out of the blue.

SOTK

May 20th, 2004, 10:59 PM

Welcome to TOL, B-Baggins (Bilbo :) )! :wave:

Looks like we have another LOTR fan!! :thumb:

Are you Mormon, B-Baggins? Just curious.

Again, welcome!

SOTK

Mustard Seed

May 21st, 2004, 12:12 AM

Originally posted by SOTK4ever
Are you Mormon, B-Baggins? Just curious.

Again, welcome!

SOTK

Amen to the welcome and if he isn't Mormon he's still a darn good apologist. It's good to have some assistance is such an enviroment! Such an occasion merits a bouncing green ball guy thing whatever-you-call-it!

__________________:jump:_____________________

godrulz

May 21st, 2004, 01:37 AM

Originally posted by Mustard Seed

I hereby reclaim this thread for us Mormons! Down with the anti-Mormon propeganda and lies!

Your are on an evangelical bulletin board that is gracious to tolerate your deceptions. You are not paying for this ministry. You may want to claim an LDS board. I would not presume to claim your boards since you have a right to control them and set the rules.

rene

May 21st, 2004, 02:23 AM

I am not sure if you were alive during this time period - - but I was, as an adult. Racial tensions were not as you suggest but were indeed still very much an issue.

Even today, such has not faded from the political spotlight. So while I am sure you have a reason for making the statments that you have - I more than question the accuracy of them because of personal experience.

Rene

Originally posted by b-baggins

It wasn't.

That revelation came in 1978. By that time, most of the political heat against the Church had faded.

The actual concern was the growing number of members in Brazil with mixed ancestry. The church wished to build a temple there and so petitioned the Lord if the time had come for the priesthood to be extended.

It was during the Civil Rights movement in the late 1960s that tremendous political and social and economic pressure was brought against the LDS church for its positions on blacks and the priesthood. By the end of the 1970s, the issue had pretty much faded from the public and political spotlight.

In fact, many people were stunned by the announcement at the time since it seemed to come entirely out of the blue.

SOTK

May 21st, 2004, 02:34 AM

Originally posted by godrulz

Your are on an evangelical bulletin board that is gracious to tolerate your deceptions. You are not paying for this ministry. You may want to claim an LDS board. I would not presume to claim your boards since you have a right to control them and set the rules.

That's a great and reasonable point godrulz! :up:

Whether you like it or not MustardSeed, he has a point. The fact of the matter is that TOL is operated, moderated, and owned by Christians and the majority, if not all of the Christians here, feel that mormons are not Christians. No one is asking you to leave but you certainly have no right to claim anything here. You are a guest and your mormonism is tolerated. I also would not presume to claim anything on a mormon board. I would consider myself to be a guest and not act like I had anything coming to me as you seem to act from time to time.

Something to think about.

SOTK

Granite

May 21st, 2004, 06:50 AM

"The actual concern was the growing number of members in Brazil with mixed ancestry. The church wished to build a temple there and so petitioned the Lord if the time had come for the priesthood to be extended."

So you're saying instead of political expediency, the real factor was money: extending the church's missions throughout South and Central America.

Not sure which one is worse.

Chileice

May 21st, 2004, 08:00 AM

Originally posted by SOTK4ever

That's a great and reasonable point godrulz! :up:

Whether you like it or not MustardSeed, he has a point. The fact of the matter is that TOL is operated, moderated, and owned by Christians and the majority, if not all of the Christians here, feel that mormons are not Christians. No one is asking you to leave but you certainly have no right to claim anything here. You are a guest and your mormonism is tolerated. I also would not presume to claim anything on a mormon board. I would consider myself to be a guest and not act like I had anything coming to me as you seem to act from time to time.

Something to think about.

SOTK

If Mustard is over 35 he will remember when the LDS church was still quite explicitly teaching that they were NOT Christians but rather, Latter Day Saints. Now it is expedient for the church to change that tune in order to make more inroads into the society. Notice that in the las few years the churches have become The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints. In Latin America the name Jesus Christ is in big bold letters while the rest is very small. They are trying to call the church just "La Iglesia de Jesucristo". I find this is certainly a benefit to "modern-day revelation" and "living prophets". They can just change course as the wind blows, rewrite history, bury old doctrines and write new ones. I don't know how honest it is but it certainly is expedient.

Mustard Seed

May 21st, 2004, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by SOTK4ever

That's a great and reasonable point godrulz! :up:

Whether you like it or not MustardSeed, he has a point. The fact of the matter is that TOL is operated, moderated, and owned by Christians and the majority, if not all of the Christians here, feel that mormons are not Christians. No one is asking you to leave but you certainly have no right to claim anything here. You are a guest and your mormonism is tolerated. I also would not presume to claim anything on a mormon board. I would consider myself to be a guest and not act like I had anything coming to me as you seem to act from time to time.

Something to think about.

SOTK

If you haven't noticed I lack any powers of moderation on these boards. The whole "Exclusively Mormon Thread" was placed by King David to mock the superiority complex of many of the 'Traditional Christians' on this board. If I claim anything on this board it is out of jest and as a sort of jab at the rib of those who claim the ability to righteously discern who is and who isn't Christian based on some other defiinition than that present in the Bible.

If you all want to edit the name of this thread I am certain that it is not out of the reach of your moderators. And if it's so important to you to micromanage those things said by one or two mormons then I say go for it. I sure can't stop you. I would hope you would all remember, however, the claimed purpose of this forum. Last I recall (unless they've changed it) this forums claim was to being an open place for ALL to debate theology. I have neither posted anything inapropriate or, in my view, blasphemous. I would hope that you would be true to the claimed objectives despite your corrolaries claiming the right to unexcused absolute fiat by your moderators. To use such fiat withour discrimination would be most detrimental to the relatively open atmosphere her at TOL.

Mustard Seed

May 21st, 2004, 11:20 AM

Originally posted by granite1010

"The actual concern was the growing number of members in Brazil with mixed ancestry. The church wished to build a temple there and so petitioned the Lord if the time had come for the priesthood to be extended."

So you're saying instead of political expediency, the real factor was money: extending the church's missions throughout South and Central America.

Not sure which one is worse.

That's assuming the worse. Quite frankly I believe that in many cases we are at a financial loss in many areas in South America. Money is not the issue. If it was, we (the church), would have pulled out long ago from 'financialy unproductive' areas (of which there are several) in our Missionary work.

Do you forget the scripture in Revelations?

6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and [b]people[b/],

(New Testament | Revelation 14:6)

But true to form you must assume the worst intentions and motives of those whose belief does not coincide exactly with your own.

Mustard Seed

May 21st, 2004, 11:27 AM

Originally posted by Chileice

If Mustard is over 35 he will remember when the LDS church was still quite explicitly teaching that they were NOT Christians but rather, Latter Day Saints. Now it is expedient for the church to change that tune in order to make more inroads into the society. Notice that in the las few years the churches have become The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints. In Latin America the name Jesus Christ is in big bold letters while the rest is very small. They are trying to call the church just "La Iglesia de Jesucristo". I find this is certainly a benefit to "modern-day revelation" and "living prophets". They can just change course as the wind blows, rewrite history, bury old doctrines and write new ones. I don't know how honest it is but it certainly is expedient.

How 'honest' was it for Moses to give the 'convenient' command to carry out genocide? How 'honest' is it for you to apparently embrace the one use of the acception and dismiss the other as implicitly 'dishonest'? How convenient that you through your own weird rational grant your belief that right to honor the exceptions to the rule provided by divine command yet if some other group in contradiction to your faith believes the same thing you can, without a second thought, cast it in the worse possible light.

Now with regards to our Church saying that it was not Christian I would like you to present some proof of this as I have yet to see it (and I've read quite a few of our earlier church publications). The only distinction I've seen is seperating us from 'TRADITIONAL Christianity' NOT Christianity itself. I would be happy to see your evidence of such claims.

Granite

May 21st, 2004, 11:31 AM

Originally posted by Mustard Seed

That's assuming the worse. Quite frankly I believe that in many cases we are at a financial loss in many areas in South America. Money is not the issue. If it was, we (the church), would have pulled out long ago from 'financialy unproductive' areas (of which there are several) in our Missionary work.

Do you forget the scripture in Revelations?

6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and [b]people[b/],

(New Testament | Revelation 14:6)

But true to form you must assume the worst intentions and motives of those whose belief does not coincide exactly with your own.

Sorry, given the Mormonistic track record (multiple marriage, defiance of federal law, the unfortunate massacres and disgusting racial bigotry) I suppose it's natural to assume the worst.

Mustard Seed

May 21st, 2004, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by godrulz
...You are not paying for this ministry...

Oh but I am! Every time I link on a sponsers banner I contribute! (and I do!) So if Vonage has some theological agenda they have a right to control specifics of what goes on here? They can then direct the theological debate? I somehow doubt me subscribing financialy to this site would get me my own forum within this forum.

Mustard Seed

May 21st, 2004, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by granite1010

Sorry, given the Mormonistic track record (multiple marriage, defiance of federal law, the unfortunate massacres and disgusting racial bigotry) I suppose it's natural to assume the worst.

The Bible has the same 'track record' plus genocide.

godrulz

May 21st, 2004, 09:13 PM

Originally posted by Mustard Seed

Oh but I am! Every time I link on a sponsers banner I contribute! (and I do!) So if Vonage has some theological agenda they have a right to control specifics of what goes on here? They can then direct the theological debate? I somehow doubt me subscribing financialy to this site would get me my own forum within this forum.

I support freedom of speech and think we all appreciate diversity here. I support your right to be here balanced with a responsibility to guard seekers and young sheep from false teaching.

Joseph Smith attacked traditional churches and said they were all an abomination to the Lord. We are responding by defending the faith once for all entrusted to the saints (Jude). We love the Mormon people and admire many things about them. Mormons like to be identified as Christian for credibility. No one wants to be perceived as a cult or persecuted. The issue is that the Gospel was not lost and certainly was not restored by Smith.

We are happy to learn about your perspectives, but our goal is to speak the truth in love hoping that God will grant you repentance and freedom from the snare of the enemy of our souls (2 Tim. 2:25,26).

Mustard Seed

May 21st, 2004, 10:02 PM

Originally posted by godrulz

I support freedom of speech and think we all appreciate diversity here. I support your right to be here balanced with a responsibility to guard seekers and young sheep from false teaching.

Tell me godrulz what is it that scares you so much? You feel a need to 'guard seekers and young sheep' from our message. You know what would happen if we tried to do that? You would claim boldly that we were trying to 'brainwash' you would claim that we were afraid that, what you would term, 'our fraud' would be revealed for the 'sham' you claim it is. You would use such information that us doing so would be propaganda and I would not doubt, because such has been done, that we are using the tactics of Nazi's or the Kremlin. So why can you 'guard seekers and young sheep' while we must lay it all out. When you ask why we don't tell every little thing that you think is questionable or 'scandelous' of our religion and we reply with things like...

2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.

(New Testament | 1 Corinthians 3:2)

You dismiss it as a 'ploy' or as a 'misaplication' of the scriptures.

Do you know the definition of a hypocrite? A pretender. You pretend to protect. If you have the truth why don't you have faith in it and the ability of your 'young sheep' to discern it? I was always taught that the truth had the advantage of standing regardless of what lies and slander were mounted against it. This is part of the reason I am not afraid to participate here. If your 'young sheep' cannot stand the test of passing the test of discerning the truth then I would sugest that they are not safe in ANY online forum (even your most closely guarded 'Christian' theological forum) would not be safe enough for them. I was taught that if you always pray and heed and study daily the word of God that you have nothing to fear from those that would deceive.

Joseph Smith attacked traditional churches and said they were all an abomination to the Lord.

EVERY church that is created is the implicit rejection of all others. Whenever a new Christian church has been organized it is implying (in as direct a way possible without actually vocalizing it) that all others have at least something wrong with them and sufficiently wrong to merit the establishment of a new church. You will try and claim some 'invisible' 'universal' body of Christ. Unfortunatly such a claim lacks the visible "Apostles, Prophets, Pastors, Teachers, Evangelests and so forth" that were clearly a part of the visible body of Christ that is mentioned in the Bible.

We are responding by defending the faith once for all entrusted to the saints (Jude).

I have no problems with responding but when you censor us it does nothing to help your cause. Rather it casts seeds of doubt as to your messages ability to stand on it's own.

We love the Mormon people and admire many things about them.

I say the same of you and 'traditional Christianity'!

Mormons like to be identified as Christian for credibility.

No because it's the truth. We like to promulgate the truth. That is why we fight lies like that.

No one wants to be perceived as a cult or persecuted.

True with regard to the 'cult' label but I thought all Christians expect and in that way want persecution.

The issue is that the Gospel was not lost and certainly was not restored by Smith.

Then why the reformation. Are you saying all the Church did was maybe crack it a little? The line of authority was cut. Restoration from God is the only thing that can restore God's key's. They were lost. If you claim they weren't then why aren't you part of the Catholic Church?

We are happy to learn about your perspectives, but our goal is to speak the truth in love hoping that God will grant you repentance and freedom from the snare of the enemy of our souls (2 Tim. 2:25,26).

We hope the same for you.

b-baggins

May 21st, 2004, 10:06 PM

Are you Mormon, B-Baggins? Just curious.

I'm an Atlantan Mormon, and a LOTR BOOK fanatic, and despiser of the movies (but that's another controversy entirely).

I am also a theological hobbyist, especially the various Protestant theologies, thus my habit of lurking sites such as these.

b-baggins

May 21st, 2004, 10:21 PM

The issue is that the Gospel was not lost and certainly was not restored by Smith.

That really is the heart of the issue, but you had best be careful in categorically claiming that the gospel was not lost and had no need of restoration unless you are Roman Catholic or Orthodox.

The entire Protestant movement is based in the concept that an apostacy had occurred, and that there needed to be a restoration of correct teachings and principles.

The Protestant movement thought this apostacy was relatively minor and could be corrected through reformation. in other words, Rome had corrupted true Christian teaching, but had not totally obliterated it.

The Protestant vs. LDS position on the loss of the gospel is simply one of degree, not essential substance.

godrulz

May 21st, 2004, 10:23 PM

Error runs from truth, not vice versa. Pastors/shepherds have a Christ and Pauline basis to guard the flock from false teachers and wolves in sheep's clothing. We are bold in His authority and do not fear outsiders. The reality is that people who do not know what they believe and why they believe it have left Christian churches to join non-Christian groups. We have a responsibility to proclaim and defend the faith (apologetics), and to reason from the Scriptures as Paul did with unbelievers. Timothy was to preach the Word and guard the flock of God. Young Christians and seekers who are not grounded in Scripture are vulnerable. It is loving and commanded for true believers to look out for them. Satan is deceptive and there is a spirit energizing false, counterfeit religion. We are in a spiritual warfare so do not be surprised at resistance to an overt or covert attempt to proseltyze here. I am sure it is more than an academic exercise. You have that right and responsibility to share your beliefs, but they will be challenged.

rene

May 21st, 2004, 11:06 PM

What I see within what you write here is a reply to someone with nowhere near the compassion shown to you.

That you act 'shocked' because people don't agree with you on an area that in no way supports your views makes me wonder. What shocked me is the tone of your reply to "godrules" and the lack of reflection of any compassion.

I can't speak for the rest of the people here, but can tell you that when those of your belief have knocked on my door - I let them in and listened to them with one requirement - I get equal time to reply with no interruptions from them.

I am proud to say that several came back to my home - not to tell what they usually attempt to pass off - but about the bible and what was shown to them.

Those of your belief are not only not adding numbers - they got defections within their ranks.

Not that I think that your going to believe any of this - - and SURE that you are going to be able to find some Mormon website that is going to supposedly 'prove' otherwise - not that such changes the reality of what I write.

Yep - keep smacking away at those that reached out to you trying to be kind and show the love of God to you as "godrules" has. Know that the approach that you have taken is what has opened the doors to those within your group to come to know the freedom found within relationship to Jesus and the gospel that you don't follow or teach and seem intent upon bashing.

Rene

Originally posted by Mustard Seed

Tell me godrulz what is it that scares you so much? You feel a need to 'guard seekers and young sheep' from our message. You know what would happen if we tried to do that? You would claim boldly that we were trying to 'brainwash' you would claim that we were afraid that, what you would term, 'our fraud' would be revealed for the 'sham' you claim it is. You would use such information that us doing so would be propaganda and I would not doubt, because such has been done, that we are using the tactics of Nazi's or the Kremlin. So why can you 'guard seekers and young sheep' while we must lay it all out. When you ask why we don't tell every little thing that you think is questionable or 'scandelous' of our religion and we reply with things like...

2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.

(New Testament | 1 Corinthians 3:2)

You dismiss it as a 'ploy' or as a 'misaplication' of the scriptures.

Do you know the definition of a hypocrite? A pretender. You pretend to protect. If you have the truth why don't you have faith in it and the ability of your 'young sheep' to discern it? I was always taught that the truth had the advantage of standing regardless of what lies and slander were mounted against it. This is part of the reason I am not afraid to participate here. If your 'young sheep' cannot stand the test of passing the test of discerning the truth then I would sugest that they are not safe in ANY online forum (even your most closely guarded 'Christian' theological forum) would not be safe enough for them. I was taught that if you always pray and heed and study daily the word of God that you have nothing to fear from those that would deceive.

EVERY church that is created is the implicit rejection of all others. Whenever a new Christian church has been organized it is implying (in as direct a way possible without actually vocalizing it) that all others have at least something wrong with them and sufficiently wrong to merit the establishment of a new church. You will try and claim some 'invisible' 'universal' body of Christ. Unfortunatly such a claim lacks the visible "Apostles, Prophets, Pastors, Teachers, Evangelests and so forth" that were clearly a part of the visible body of Christ that is mentioned in the Bible.

I have no problems with responding but when you censor us it does nothing to help your cause. Rather it casts seeds of doubt as to your messages ability to stand on it's own.

I say the same of you and 'traditional Christianity'!

No because it's the truth. We like to promulgate the truth. That is why we fight lies like that.

True with regard to the 'cult' label but I thought all Christians expect and in that way want persecution.

Then why the reformation. Are you saying all the Church did was maybe crack it a little? The line of authority was cut. Restoration from God is the only thing that can restore God's key's. They were lost. If you claim they weren't then why aren't you part of the Catholic Church?

We hope the same for you.

Mustard Seed

May 22nd, 2004, 02:19 AM

Originally posted by rene

What I see within what you write here is a reply to someone with nowhere near the compassion shown to you.

I mean not harsh but try seeing our conversation in the context of my past discusions with godrulz. I suppose to the unaccustomed reader I likely do appear harsh and blunt at times. You would understand a bit more if you knew my background on this board. I would say read all I've posted but some has been deleted. The exchange between me and godrulz has a bit more in the background and I would encourage you to become aware of it as much as possible before judging.

That you act 'shocked' because people don't agree with you on an area that in no way supports your views makes me wonder.

Would you be kind enough to elaborate an example of the above phenomena. Perhaps I could better explain myself if I knew to what you were precisely refering.

What shocked me is the tone of your reply to "godrules" and the lack of reflection of any compassion.

I have a great deal of compasion for the man. I likely know more about him than you do. I care about him but that does not mean I have to beat around the bush about what I need to tell him.

I can't speak for the rest of the people here, but can tell you that when those of your belief have knocked on my door - I let them in and listened to them with one requirement - I get equal time to reply with no interruptions from them.

Then you are not ready for the Gospel at this time. Missionaries are sent out to preach, not to be preached to. If you want an equal ground then continue your questions etc. here online with a member of the Church that can do what the missionaries are not sent out to do, and that is to have indepth ongoing discussions. I appreciate your hospitality in letting them in, but I would hope you would remember that it is them, not you, who have left their home for two years to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ. They did not go out to be taught or converted by anyone, they were sent out with a calling from GOD to preach. They can answer questions and concerns about our faith but if you want to get your prostlytizing done then I suggest you devote two years of your life and come to our doors THEN you can have center stage. Otherwise I do not think it would be a beneficial use of time for you or them to sit down for countless hours as you demand equal time out of the preacher. Again I mean not to be harsh but imagine if Peter Paul etc. had abided by a similar policy with those they taught. If they had to give equal time to reply to all who they taught they wouldn't have accomplished that which God had sent them to accomplish. It was they that were sacrificing to see the people. They did not travel all over the world and sacrifice comforts and pleasures of a stable home life to be taught of those they were vising accross the Mediteranian. A scripture revealed by God in these days elaborates God's comand with regard to missionaries and their duties.

15 Again I say, hearken ye elders of my church, whom I have appointed: Ye are not sent forth to be taught, but to teach the children of men the things which I have put into your hands by the power of my Spirit;

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 43:15)

I, on my mission, had the question asked of me by a Catholic man asking if I would be willing to listen to him that evening and possibly join his faith. He took my reply of 'no' as excuse to brush me off claiming hypocrisy on my part. As I thought about it I saw more and more the flawed logic of the man. I wish now I could ask the man If he was devoted enough to his religion to devote two years (or more) of his life in some place that was foreign to him in a toungue he did not currently speak. I wonder what the mans response would have been if he was asked. I cannot say for certain but I doubt he would have marked his calandar that evening in preperation for his trip to prove his devotion to his faith.

I am proud to say that several came back to my home - not to tell what they usually attempt to pass off - but about the bible and what was shown to them.

And what was that?

Those of your belief are not only not adding numbers - they got defections within their ranks.

There have always been defections in the ranks of Christiandom. Recall Judas?

Here is what our living prophet Gorden B. Hinckly said regarding your above statement.

It is a fact that we lose some—far too many. Every organization of which I am aware does so. But I am satisfied that we retain and keep active a higher percentage of our members than does any other major church of which I know.

Not that I think that your going to believe any of this - - and SURE that you are going to be able to find some Mormon website that is going to supposedly 'prove' otherwise - not that such changes the reality of what I write.

I could say the same for you. You will always look for an anti-Mormon or a 'christian apologetic' site that does the same despite the veracity of my words. You treat this as if it were only a one way thing. I already know which side is correct and you think you know. It is highly improbable that your side will change and I will do all in my power to see that my conviction to that which I believe to be truth is not going to change. Can we have the intelectual honesty to admit that it is not just a one sided phenomena?

Yep - keep smacking away at those that reached out to you trying to be kind and show the love of God to you as "godrules" has.

I thank them for their kindness and sincerity. I would hope that you would also look past my frankness and see it for what it really is. A desire to not play with words but rather to effectively support the plausibility of my religion despite the lies and erroneous 'fact based' conclusions so many on this board and among 'traditional chritsians' claim to be 'irrefutable'.

Christ did not mince words and I am trying to be like Jesus, as per his command and invitation.

Know that the approach that you have taken is what has opened the doors to those within your group to come to know the freedom found within relationship to Jesus and the gospel that you don't follow or teach and seem intent upon bashing.

Rene

If they are offended by the word then that is their own problem. I am certain many of the Pharasies of Christ's time were realy 'put off' by his accusations of

33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

(New Testament | Matthew 23:33)

That was the LORD OUR GOD in his humility. Despite all the 'kindly' (often times patronizingly sick) 'questions' (mere questions) of the Scribes and Pharasies and the Lawyers, they were generaly so 'polite' and 'proper' with their very carefull and guarded language, 'How?' one might ask did they in their 'kind tones' deserve such a response from Christ?

Whether you believe it or not or accept it or not we love you. You make it difficult at times (as I'm sure we do for you) but please trust that we are trying our best. Please judge us, more importantly our message, with the same judgement you wish meted out upon your soul come Doom's Day.

Mustard Seed

May 22nd, 2004, 02:46 AM

Originally posted by godrulz

Truth runs from error, not vice versa.

That's why Christ ran away from demons??? Is that why Christ never hung out with sinners???

I realize I'm being sarcastic but please. What part of the Bible gives you the idea that truth runs from error? Joseph ran from Potephers wife but that was not because the truth ran but because it stood it's ground. He had determined before in his mind what was true and what was right and when presented with error/sin the truth remained firm in his rememberance and that firmness was the cause of his flight.

Pastors/shepherds have a Christ and Pauline basis to guard the flock from false teachers and wolves in sheep's clothing.

You guard the flock be preaching and exortation not by eliminating the opposition. You protect the flock by constantly reminding them of the truth NOT constantly trying to keep them from ever seeing error. If you have taught them correct principles they will see error for what it is and you will have protected them. Enhancing the ignorance of an audience is not protecting them.

We are bold in His authority and do not fear outsiders.

Well then stop trying to hint that I should be censored or that that might be an appropriate course of action.

The reality is that people who do not know what they believe and why they believe it have left Christian churches to join non-Christian groups.

The same is true in our Christian Faith. Our best defense is to try and educate and exhort as much as possible and continue to love and show that love for those with tendancies brought on by a lack of knowledge.

We have a responsibility to proclaim and defend the faith (apologetics)

As do I.

, and to reason from the Scriptures as Paul did with unbelievers. Timothy was to preach the Word and guard the flock of God. Young Christians and seekers who are not grounded in Scripture are vulnerable.

That is why we teach them. That is why we have Seminaries and Institutes all over the world. That is why many of our youth rise earlier than most to go to school before they go to school. I am aware of the dangers but the defense on an intellectual level can never be acheived by trying to enhance the ignorance of your youth.

It is loving and commanded for true believers to look out for them.

One of the greatest charges there are.

Satan is deceptive and their is a spirit energizing false, counterfeit religion.

Amen.

We are in a spiritual warfare so do not be surprised at resistance to an overt or covert attempt to proseltyze here.

If you are woried about the kids then I would suggest that they should not be on any theological sites at all at such a point in their lives.

[/quote] I am sure it is more than an academic exercise. You have that right and responsibility to share your beliefs, but they will be challenged. [/QUOTE]

I do not believe, with our history of corespondance, that you could ever claim to not trying to convert while on this site. Why is not that the hoped end of discusion to convert one if not in whole then in part to your side of the argument? If the argument is religion, as is to be expected on a theological site, would not then the stance needs be at times a particular religion?

rene

May 22nd, 2004, 03:14 AM

Originally posted by Mustard Seed

I mean not harsh but try seeing our conversation in the context of my past discusions with godrulz. I suppose to the unaccustomed reader I likely do appear harsh and blunt at times. You would understand a bit more if you knew my background on this board. I would say read all I've posted but some has been deleted. The exchange between me and godrulz has a bit more in the background and I would encourage you to become aware of it as much as possible before judging.

As to your background on this board, I find it somewhat strange that a person places themselves in a situation where they know that their views are not going to be accepted and then complain about it.

Such just plain doesn't make sense.

Would you be kind enough to elaborate an example of the above phenomena. Perhaps I could better explain myself if I knew to what you were precisely refering.[/QUOTE}

The above reply I just made can be inserted here. Your approach is like - - say a person from this list that is a Christian going onto a Muslim message area and complain there because their views were not accepted.

Do you honestly think that people are really going to leave their beliefs to follow after what can so easy to find out that the foundations of it are founded upon a mans version of questionable character, who promoted all sorts of things as if they were from God then backpeddle on those very points as if God somehow changed His mind or made a boo boo? This is what the Mormon belief presents.

[QUOTE}I have a great deal of compasion for the man. I likely know more about him than you do. I care about him but that does not mean I have to beat around the bush about what I need to tell him.

It isn't about who knows more about whom, but the general attitude that is reflected that I made comment to that is seen in many of your replies.

Then you are not ready for the Gospel at this time.

Evidently you are incorrect cause those that I have witnessed to and shared the scripture with - without even having to leave my own home but have them coming to me seemed more than interested. :D

Missionaries are sent out to preach, not to be preached to.

Missionaries are those that share the truth which is what I am doing.

If you want an equal ground then continue your questions etc. here online with a member of the Church that can do what the missionaries are not sent out to do, and that is to have indepth ongoing discussions.

Agree on one point. Those that are coming to my door are indeed not on equal ground since they are just now finding out about what the bible says and where salvation is found. Missionaries are those that are supposed to be well grounded within what it is that they are teaching. I see it as sort of - helping them along in their education which they do seem to be thankful for.

I appreciate your hospitality in letting them in, but I would hope you would remember that it is them, not you, who have left their home for two years to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I am very open to those coming to my home. It would be morally wrong for me to open my home and then allow them to go off still thinking things that I know that I can show them is error. Such would place me in a position where I would be accountable for them staying in a teaching that I know to be wrong. That I can't do.

They did not go out to be taught or converted by anyone, they were sent out with a calling from GOD to preach.

I agree with you in part - they are indeed sent out with a calling. The point were we differ is found within whom is doing the sending. As a believer in God, I am called to be ready to share the gospel with any and all. That is the calling of any that is a Christian.

They can answer questions and concerns about our faith but if you want to get your prostlytizing done then I suggest you devote two years of your life and come to our doors THEN you can have center stage.

I don't know about how you do things in your home - but in my home no one tells me what I am allowed to talk about. If what I have to say to them causes them to ask questions - I am ready to answer and show within scripture and assorted other information about the Mormon belief that I know to be true. See, in my home I own the "center stage".

Otherwise I do not think it would be a beneficial use of time for you or them to sit down for countless hours as you demand equal time out of the preacher.

I don't demand nor force anything. If they want to promote their views to me - I want equal time. Now, if they want to talk to me for hours - they know that I will indeed want as long. Usually, I don't need even as much time as they take - unless they get to asking about different points and wanting to spend time on seeing what it is that I have to show them from writings within their own group. :)

Again I mean not to be harsh but imagine if Peter Paul etc. had abided by a similar policy with those they taught. If they had to give equal time to reply to all who they taught they wouldn't have accomplished that which God had sent them to accomplish.

You need to read within the bible where time was spent in discussion about the things of God. Acts has many ref. to it. So do several other places within the bible.

Again, I force no one. But they are indeed very interested. As a Christian, to not tell them what I know to be true would be for me to turn from the truth. That is not an option for me.

It was they that were sacrificing to see the people. They did not travel all over the world and sacrifice comforts and pleasures of a stable home life to be taught of those they were vising accross the Mediteranian. A scripture revealed by God in these days elaborates God's comand with regard to missionaries and their duties.

It was myself that allowed them within my home and asked for real discussion vs them attempting to talk at me. They agree and leave to come back with more questions seeking real answers. It isn't like I am dragging them in off the streets agains their wills. :)

15 Again I say, hearken ye elders of my church, whom I have appointed: Ye are not sent forth to be taught, but to teach the children of men the things which I have put into your hands by the power of my Spirit;(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 43:15)

Yep. Beware cause there are Christians in the world that are living and more than willing to share the gospel with you and show you truth that brings eternal life thru Jesus.

Rene

Mustard Seed

May 22nd, 2004, 04:14 AM

Originally posted by rene

As to your background on this board, I find it somewhat strange that a person places themselves in a situation where they know that their views are not going to be accepted and then complain about it.

Well I was banking initially on the claims of the forum at tolerance and openness to all regardless of belief as long as they were not spewing profanity or knowingly being blasfamous. Unless their definitions of those things are way off I feel I have kept my end of the user agreement.

Such just plain doesn't make sense.

I hoped taking one at there word would make sense. Especialy when they say they are Christian.

It isn't about who knows more about whom, but the general attitude that is reflected that I made comment to that is seen in many of your replies.

Personal knowledge is requisit to truely carring about someone and showing love. The kind of love exercisable upon those with whom we are ignorant is either nihl or close to it.

Evidently you are incorrect cause those that I have witnessed to and shared the scripture with - without even having to leave my own home but have them coming to me seemed more than interested. :D

Have them read my last post and this one. Perhapse they are like I was at one point. Unaware that I was not out there to be taught. I, as I would hope you can understand, am rather sure that you would not do such a thing.

Missionaries are those that share the truth which is what I am doing.

I too am a missionary but different missionaries are called to different ministries. The Elders and Sisters that go door to door have their directives and we as 'civilians' have ours.

Agree on one point. Those that are coming to my door are indeed not on equal ground since they are just now finding out about what the bible says and where salvation is found.

They knew before hand where salvation is found. If they have forgoten it is their own faults.

Missionaries are those that are supposed to be well grounded within what it is that they are teaching.

And Jesus said to Peter after being with him (Jesus) for almost 3 years...

31 ¶ And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:
32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

(New Testament | Luke 22:31 - 32)

Evidently even three years by the side of the master doesn't necesarily make us as 'well grounded' as we need to be. Conversion and becoming 'well grounded' is an ongoing path.

I see it as sort of - helping them along in their education which they do seem to be thankful for.

I pray they see your 'education' for what it is.

I am very open to those coming to my home. It would be morally wrong for me to open my home and then allow them to go off still thinking things that I know that I can show them is error.

Like?

Such would place me in a position where I would be accountable for them staying in a teaching that I know to be wrong. That I can't do.

Then why not come to Utah? Surely if you really wanted to save us you could at the least come here for a few months and help 'save' us.

I agree with you in part - they are indeed sent out with a calling. The point were we differ is found within whom is doing the sending. As a believer in God, I am called to be ready to share the gospel with any and all. That is the calling of any that is a Christian.

I can see your position. I respect those that open there homes but I still do not see it as necesitating an equal time on your side. To demand such tit-for-tat is not what Paul or Peter would have permited to those they traveled to visit (except of course those who threw them in prisons, they were a little obliged to go by their 'rules', I pray you not take their position)

I don't know about how you do things in your home - but in my home no one tells me what I am allowed to talk about.

I hope you would also agree that when you visit ones home that you not be constrained to stay or to listen when you no longer want to listen.

If what I have to say to them causes them to ask questions - I am ready to answer and show within scripture and assorted other information about the Mormon belief that I know to be true. See, in my home I own the "center stage".

Again I sympathise with you as you have in your great politness allowed relative strangers into your home but I would also pray that you would not be an unwise or exercise unrighteous dominion in your hosting of anyone. I respect your right to control that which goes on in your own home I simply believe that to have expectations equivalent to those you previously described are not what a preacher of the Word of God should conform too unless specificaly instructed to do so by the Holy Spirit (since God can make exceptions)

I don't demand nor force anything. If they want to promote their views to me - I want equal time.

So it's an all or nothing? Again do you think the early Apostles would have succomed to your want for equal time? I do not think they would.

Now, if they want to talk to me for hours - they know that I will indeed want as long. Usually, I don't need even as much time as they take - unless they get to asking about different points and wanting to spend time on seeing what it is that I have to show them from writings within their own group. :)

I would hope they would be exercising better courtesy than to be staying in your home for hours on end. There is much to be said for moderation and I've not seen much productive come to either side from converstation that lasts that long.

You need to read within the bible where time was spent in discussion about the things of God. Acts has many ref. to it. So do several other places within the bible.

To what exactly in Acts do you refer if you would be so kind.

Again, I force no one. But they are indeed very interested.

Again I do not think the likely hood is very likely but if you have faith your argument is working see what they think of this post and my last one to you on this thread. I'm interested as to what they would say.

As a Christian, to not tell them what I know to be true would be for me to turn from the truth. That is not an option for me.

Again it is not your sharing but your expectation of equal time with which I was concerned. You must be willing to acknowledge that they have made a sizable journey to be there.

It was myself that allowed them within my home and asked for real discussion vs them attempting to talk at me.

As they should. I'm not saying preaching is a one way thing. I am simply stating that we be certain who made the call to prostlitize and who accepted the invitation to receive the prostlitization.

They agree and leave to come back with more questions seeking real answers. It isn't like I am dragging them in off the streets agains their wills. :)

I realize that. They are not, as some try to make it out, forced by anyone. They have their choice with what they feel is the best use of their time. I give them the benefit of the doubt that the inconventional methods they have been using are because they feel prompted, by God, to do so. I know a bit about missionary work as I was engaged in their work not too long ago and I realize the power of God giving agency and personal revelation and that each person will be held acountable for whether or not they have truely followed their conscience.

Yep. Beware cause there are Christians in the world that are living and more than willing to share the gospel with you and show you truth that brings eternal life thru Jesus.

Rene

And don't I know it!

Take care Rene and consider (if your not scared) sharing this with them next time they stop by.

I hope you are not still to bitter at my bluntness. I appologize if I have offended you personaly. That is NOT my intent.

rene

May 22nd, 2004, 05:56 AM

Originally posted by Mustard Seed

[QUOTE]Well I was banking initially on the claims of the forum at tolerance and openness to all regardless of belief as long as they were not spewing profanity or knowingly being blasfamous. Unless their definitions of those things are way off I feel I have kept my end of the user agreement.

Tolerance doesn't mean that one allows another to come and go against all that they believe and attempt to suggest that such is of God.

As to blasphemous comments and how such relates, blaspheme is to speak/write of the things that are false/slanderous. See, unlike a Christian that has a varied view as I may have or another Christian - you have a totally different view that includes writings that you place in higher esteem than the bible. "Pearl of Great Price" comes to mind.

Part of the reason that I even learned anything about Mormons is because it was required to know the history of the state to pass the 8th grade. Since Joseph Smith tried to set up shop in Missouri at one time - learning about your group was part of history. Not required any more from what I understand - which I find sad, cause I do believe that people need to know about the foundations of such groups as you belong to so they can be aware of its roots.

I hoped taking one at there word would make sense. Especialy when they say they are Christian.

I can't speak for those that own this area upon net. But from what I have seen, they have been more than what you seem to want to suggest that they have been.

Personal knowledge is requisit to truely carring about someone and showing love. The kind of love exercisable upon those with whom we are ignorant is either nihl or close to it.

Not if one is a Christian. We are called to walk in love, esp to those that are of the household of faith.

Have them read my last post and this one. Perhapse they are like I was at one point. Unaware that I was not out there to be taught. I, as I would hope you can understand, am rather sure that you would not do such a thing.

WHY?? One thing that I have learned from several that left your ranks of belief is that getting out isn't easy. I have written and write to several that have tried for YEARS to have their names removed from the 'roles' - only to have them find out that someone has gone and did your version of baptism for them since they won't - OR - found out that they were 'married' to someone without someone telling them. Such actions sort of make your comments a cause of concern. Not only for those that I have been witnessing to - but to what you also have been put thru - even if you are not ready to admit it at this time - yet.

There is a world out there full of people seeking truth and God. As a Christian to share such with those seeking is the responsiblity of each and every believer of the one true God.

I too am a missionary but different missionaries are called to different ministries. The Elders and Sisters that go door to door have their directives and we as 'civilians' have ours.

I guess then you could say that I am part of the 'army of God' and I get directives from Him and His word.

As to those that see fit to come to my door that have been raised within your group - they have alot of questions and are looking for honest answers.

They knew before hand where salvation is found. If they have forgoten it is their own faults.

Per what the Mormon group teaches.

My quest and the quest of other believers is to share the gospel of Jesus Christ with them and to see that they come to the knowledge that brings them to salvation.

And Jesus said to Peter after being with him (Jesus) for almost 3 years...

31 ¶ And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:
32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.
(New Testament | Luke 22:31 - 32)

Evidently even three years by the side of the master doesn't necesarily make us as 'well grounded' as we need to be. Conversion and becoming 'well grounded' is an ongoing path.

The comparison of the relationship Jesus had with Peter is not the best example of what we are talking about.

Jesus taught the will of His Father. Your group is into the teachings of Joseph Smith and others that followed after him.

I pray they see your 'education' for what it is.

Not to worry about that at all. They are and they appreciate what I have shared with them - per their words.

Like?

Like inviting someone into your home only to be rude to them is uncouth. Your assuming with such a line of thought an incorrect thought that is full of error.

Then why not come to Utah? Surely if you really wanted to save us you could at the least come here for a few months and help 'save' us.

Why? I have a steady supply coming to my front door... :D

Not to mention that it isn't *ME* that saves anyone. But such comments do make me think that maybe such a thought isn't that bad of an idea....... Anyone that thinks along lines like that needs instruction of the truth of the gospel.

I can see your position. I respect those that open there homes but I still do not see it as necesitating an equal time on your side.

You make it sound as if I all but have to hold a gun to their head - which is a far cry from what is actually happening.

To demand such tit-for-tat is not what Paul or Peter would have permited to those they traveled to visit (except of course those who threw them in prisons, they were a little obliged to go by their 'rules', I pray you not take their position)

"Demand"? Far from it. My request has always been met by those thinking that they are going to give their pre-set comments out with no give and take.

Such an approach isn't discussion - that's a lecture.

My request is that to come into my home that there are no lectures. Each must be willing to allow the other to speak and listen to what they are saying then, allowing all sides to speak and share.

It does appear that you have a problem with such an approach.

I hope you would also agree that when you visit ones home that you not be constrained to stay or to listen when you no longer want to listen.

Never said that I did nor have I suggested such.

Trust me - no handcuffs involved - tho my husband IS an ex cop.

Again I sympathise with you as you have in your great politness allowed relative strangers into your home but I would also pray that you would not be an unwise or exercise unrighteous dominion in your hosting of anyone.

HUH?? As I stated - I am not handcuffing - nor using any forms of restraint upon any one. Where in the world did you get that from?? Such comments are a def. misrepresentation of what I have clearly stated.

I respect your right to control that which goes on in your own home I simply believe that to have expectations equivalent to those you previously described are not what a preacher of the Word of God should conform too unless specificaly instructed to do so by the Holy Spirit (since God can make exceptions).

Within the bible, it teaches that believers are always to be ready to share the good news of the gospel. That would include even within your own home.

So it's an all or nothing? Again do you think the early Apostles would have succomed to your want for equal time? I do not think they would.

That I require for any discussion to take place the same respect that they are requesting within my own home - is not unreasonable.

What WOULD be unreasonable is for those that want to come within my home attempt to dictate that I am not allowed the same respect within my own home. If such is what you suggest - it is *I* that would be looking for the handcuffs hidden within your briefcase that you are trying to bring within my home vs the way you keep wanting to try to suggest that I am doing.

I would hope they would be exercising better courtesy than to be staying in your home for hours on end. There is much to be said for moderation and I've not seen much productive come to either side from converstation that lasts that long.

Doesn't bother me at all. The freedom that I have within my home when it comes to discussion is something that they seem to desire.

I don't claim to have all the answers but do have relationship with the one that does. It is the one that has those answers that I share with them.

To what exactly in Acts do you refer if you would be so kind.

Paul spent large amounts of time in the temples and synagogues. One of my all time favorites is found in Acts 17, verses 22 thru 34. Mention of it is made again in just a few verses down in 18:4. This is but two examples. Take the time and look for youself within the bible and you will find the examples I am sure.

Again I do not think the likely hood is very likely but if you have faith your argument is working see what they think of this post and my last one to you on this thread. I'm interested as to what they would say.

WHY? Why would I even consider putting before them writings from within a book that isn't the bible that is clearly evident to be a put down to them seeking answers to the real questions that they have about what they have been told to believe?

Again it is not your sharing but your expectation of equal time with which I was concerned. You must be willing to acknowledge that they have made a sizable journey to be there.['QUOTE]

Concern? Because I share with them what is found within the bible? Share with them the truth found within relationship with Jesus? As to the distance that they have come - just shows me that God works in ways that we don't always expect. You have to admit that the thought of someone coming to be a missionary to my doorstep only to have them leave what they were trying to get me into has a def. God's fingerprint on whats happening sort of statement.

Think about it - where do you think that I even got the thought to do this with those that want to knock on my door?? I'd like to think that I am creative and all but - this is one of those kind of things that only God can pull off. Amazing to say the least.

[QUOTE]As they should. I'm not saying preaching is a one way thing. I am simply stating that we be certain who made the call to prostlitize and who accepted the invitation to receive the prostlitization.

I am not out to proselytize as you seem to suggest - as in join another group. I share the gospel of Jesus the Son of God and His salvation. It is adoption into the family of God that I want to see - not membership to another group.

You also are not seeing or ignoring the fact that I honestly tell these people that I will be sharing my beliefs with them as well. Again - since you have suggested this several times in each of your replies - NO FORCE IS USED.

[QUOTE]I realize that. They are not, as some try to make it out, forced by anyone. They have their choice with what they feel is the best use of their time. I give them the benefit of the doubt that the inconventional methods they have been using are because they feel prompted, by God, to do so. I know a bit about missionary work as I was engaged in their work not too long ago and I realize the power of God giving agency and personal revelation and that each person will be held acountable for whether or not they have truely followed their conscience.

Then there is the thought that there is a time for everything and everything has it's season - - that they are not there by chance but in the right place at the right time to hear what they need to hear to have relationship with God.

Take care Rene and consider (if your not scared) sharing this with them next time they stop by.

ROFL! Not scared at all. But seen nothing productive that would come of such. Waste of time that can be better spent sharing the gospel of Jesus.

I hope you are not still to bitter at my bluntness. I appologize if I have offended you personaly. That is NOT my intent.

Not bitter. After 14 years of playing on the internet I have seen alot - much of what could have been approached in a better way vs the vicious way that many like to make their point.

One thing I learned a long time ago. When someone starts with the personal insults and cuts - they are doing nothing more than attempting to divert from the real fact that they don't know how to reply and are on shaky ground with their point.

Aside from that - it grates on me. :D

CryTears

May 22nd, 2004, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by granite1010

Sorry, given the Mormonistic track record (multiple marriage, defiance of federal law, the unfortunate massacres and disgusting racial bigotry) I suppose it's natural to assume the worst.

Don't worry with granite, he is an autobot.
He says the same thing about Christianity as a whole and Islam.
:think:

Chileice

May 22nd, 2004, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by rene

Tolerance doesn't mean that one allows another to come and go against all that they believe and attempt to suggest that such is of God.

One thing I learned a long time ago. When someone starts with the personal insults and cuts - they are doing nothing more than attempting to divert from the real fact that they don't know how to reply and are on shaky ground with their point.

Aside from that - it grates on me. :D

Two thoughts:
1. It is very typical of any religion, not just Mormonism, to be prickly when things close to the heart are attacked. What many don't see and it appears that Mustard is one of them, that tolerance is a two way street. He wants you to accept him as a Christian and be tolerant, but the minute you step on any of his pet doctrines, tolerance goes out the window. I find it interesting that Mustard and King David (who hasn't been here in some time) were quick to write on any topic related to Mormons but almost NEVER ventured off their pet threads. I give them high marks as mormons for venturing onto this forum. Isuspect they are young recently returned missionaries still zealous to promote the ways of Zion. But free thought has never been a hallmark of mormonmism. Missionaries can never be seperated. You can't invite one to dinner without the partner coming along. They are taught from a young aga all the reasons and they all make sense within the closed system they live in. We will never really understand the power of that closed system unless we became Christians out of Islam. It is a life system that dominates everything. But once completely seperated from that system (which rarely happens, they make sure of that) a mormon is really adrift. Groupthink is so ingrained that those who want to leave rarely officially leave the church. They just become Jack-mormons, or mormons in name only. To actually leave, especially in Utah, Idaho, Western Wyoming, southwest Alberta, etc. would be social suicide. Although it has gotten better in recent years, discrimination in those areas was strong against the non-mormon. The same kind or worse than Mustard was complaining about on the "back of the prayer bus" thread. He thinks he is being objective but he will never be objective until he totally lays all those beliefs on the line and admit the possibility that J.Smith, Jr. was wrong. That's unlikely to happen.

2. The last point you made is great. I always knew I was getting through to a mormon when they fell back on their "testimony". And then if I continued to share and they couldn't seem to refute my questions apologetically, they just disappeared. I wouldn't see them anymore. It was like once I was wasn't an evangelistic target, I was no longer "friend" material. That always seemed so very honest and loving.:nono: When there is no answer... admit it. But that seems real hard for a mormon to do. Instead they will try to drop something in your lap. They seem to always want to leave you with the ball in your court even if they can't answer your questions. Probably a trick from misionary training. Leaves them feeling good but leaves the listener with a bad taste in the old mouth.

godrulz

May 22nd, 2004, 11:22 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mustard Seed

That's why Christ ran away from demons??? Is that why Christ never hung out with sinners???

I realize I'm being sarcastic but please. What part of the Bible gives you the idea that truth runs from error? Joseph ran from Potephers wife but that was not because the truth ran but because it stood it's ground. He had determined before in his mind what was true and what was right and when presented with error/sin the truth remained firm in his rememberance and that firmness was the cause of his flight.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I must have been tired. I meant to type the obvious fact that error/darkness runs/flees from truth/light. This is why I am happy to engage JWs long after they want to run when they cannot answer a point. I will study until Armageddon with them knowing the power of truth and the Spirit. (previous post edited).

godrulz

May 22nd, 2004, 11:42 AM

It has been said that cults are the unpaid bills of the church and a mission field on our doorsteps.

We need to teach and train believers. Exposing ourselves to errors like evolution and Mormonism is an innoculation against deception. I do not believe we need to hide people from both sides of the story.

We passionately love Mormons, etc. and trust we can speak the truth in love. I defend their right to be here and do not desire to censure them. They have implicitly suggested ('missionary') that they are here to proselytize, so expect a defense. I would actually do the same on their boards.

If they do not like the ground rules in homes they enter, they should wipe the dust off their feet and move on. I too do not need to be taught by 18 year old 'elders' (oxymoron) who are bringing a canned presentation of LDS teaching. If you have the genuine, a counterfeit is easy to spot without knowing all the details or variations. Many missionaries I have talked to have not even read the whole Bible (the oldest revelation and standard for comparing other later works) nor have life experience or maturity to deal with those who have known and served God for decades.

Virtually no LDS missionaries have become Christians on their mission. They are too controlled and structured (not separate, etc.) for this to happen. However, after a mission, some do come to Christ. More well-meaning non-Mormons have been deceived through the missionary presentation than merits dealing with them unless you know what you believe and why (and what they believe). For a mature Christian, the onus is on us to plant seeds of truth. I respect that they are not there to be taught, but also agree that thinking people do not need a monologue lecture. Believers should also not be intimidated into not proclaiming and defending the Gospel.

MS, you are loved, and I trust you will be stimulated and better understand other's perspective here.

Chileice

May 22nd, 2004, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by godrulz

It has been said that cults are the unpaid bills of the church and a mission field on our doorsteps.

We need to teach and train believers. Exposing ourselves to errors like evolution and Mormonism is an innoculation against deception. I do not believe we need to hide people from both sides of the story.

We passionately love Mormons, etc. and trust we can speak the truth in love. I defend their right to be here and do not desire to censure them. They have implicitly suggested ('missionary') that they are here to proselytize, so expect a defense. I would actually do the same on their boards.

If they do not like the ground rules in homes they enter, they should wipe the dust off their feet and move on. I too do not need to be taught by 18 year old 'elders' (oxymoron) who are bringing a canned presentation of LDS teaching. If you have the genuine, a counterfeit is easy to spot without knowing all the details or variations. Many missionaries I have talked to have not even read the whole Bible (the oldest revelation and standard for comparing other later works) nor have life experience or maturity to deal with those who have known and served God for decades.

Virtually no LDS missionaries have become Christians on their mission. They are too controlled and structured (not separate, etc.) for this to happen. However, after a mission, some do come to Christ. More well-meaning non-Mormons have been deceived through the missionary presentation than merits dealing with them unless you know what you believe and why (and what they believe). For a mature Christian, the onus is on us to plant seeds of truth. I respect that they are not there to be taught, but also agree that thinking people do not need a monologue lecture. Believers should also not be intimidated into not proclaiming and defending the Gospel.

MS, you are loved, and I trust you will be stimulated and better understand other's perspective here.

Really a top notch post. Right on in every sense!

rene

May 22nd, 2004, 02:42 PM

GRATES not granite. Speaking as to irritation. :D

Originally posted by CryTears

Don't worry with granite, he is an autobot.
He says the same thing about Christianity as a whole and Islam.
:think:

rene

May 22nd, 2004, 03:15 PM

Chileice: The last point you made is great. I always knew I was getting through to a mormon when they fell back on their "testimony". And then if I continued to share and they couldn't seem to refute my questions apologetically, they just disappeared. I wouldn't see them anymore. It was like once I was wasn't an evangelistic target, I was no longer "friend" material. That always seemed so very honest and loving. When there is no answer... admit it. But that seems real hard for a mormon to do. Instead they will try to drop something in your lap. They seem to always want to leave you with the ball in your court even if they can't answer your questions. Probably a trick from misionary training. Leaves them feeling good but leaves the listener with a bad taste in the old mouth.

Know what your talking about. The difference where I live is that it is a small town and everyone pretty well knows everyone else. No place to hide.... :) Then there is the reality that I work in one of the main places in town where everyone has to go sooner or later. So not seeing them any more is - not really an option. Unless they want to forgo eating - - I work at the local grocery store. Trust me - they are not falling by the wayside due to lack of food. :D They also can see that I act and do the very same way inside and outside of my home. I have been told that it is that one thing that actually was what made them want to talk to me. Go figure.

The latest young man that has been coming around didn't want to admit to any error on the Mormon part. So - I put him in touch with someone who's heritage comes thru the very leaders of their group (ancestry study is a biggie with them) and let him use my computer to write to them. My part was a simple one - I just share what I know to be true using the bible.

I have read the claims that have been made about none leaving when they are on their "missionary trips" - which considering personal experience - I more than doubt. I understand why they want that sort of stuff out there for people to find - but more than doubt it.

godrulz wrote: If they do not like the ground rules in homes they enter, they should wipe the dust off their feet and move on. I too do not need to be taught by 18 year old 'elders' (oxymoron) who are bringing a canned presentation of LDS teaching. If you have the genuine, a counterfeit is easy to spot without knowing all the details or variations. Many missionaries I have talked to have not even read the whole Bible (the oldest revelation and standard for comparing other later works) nor have life experience or maturity to deal with those who have known and served God for decades.

Agree. I am not talking about using any sort of force but the exact opposite. I always have fresh bread, cookies, fruit, etc that I get out (I drink coffee). A far cry from the 'bright light in the face with a rubber hose' approach that keeps coming up. I mean - - does anyone honestly believe that they would come back if I had USED such an approach?

I too have found that they have no knowledge of the bible save for a few selected verses. Not a good foundation for one that wishes to be called a "missionary" to be sure.

I more than question this comment by godrulz tho because of personal experience:

Virtually no LDS missionaries have become Christians on their mission. They are too controlled and structured (not separate, etc.) for this to happen. However, after a mission, some do come to Christ. More well-meaning non-Mormons have been deceived through the missionary presentation than merits dealing with them unless you know what you believe and why (and what they believe). For a mature Christian, the onus is on us to plant seeds of truth. I respect that they are not there to be taught, but also agree that thinking people do not need a monologue lecture. Believers should also not be intimidated into not proclaiming and defending the Gospel.

My reply to that is that they will ADMIT to. That indeed is the key. I do tho agree with you that there are many that will be lead to false doctrines and teachings by these people. That indeed is a sad reality. The point that I am making is that instead of not answer our doors like so many will do - - or say the coming on like gangbusters approach and smacking them over the head with an 8x10 bible that there is a way to reach out to them at these times. This is not something to be taken on by those that have not done study within the bible and are on a firm foundation. It has to be done with the full intent that this person before you is a person that God sent His Son to pay the price for his sins and that He desires relationship with them. Any other approach other than that is going to be counter productive.

Rene

godrulz

May 22nd, 2004, 03:26 PM

I heard the idea that virtually no Mormons convert while on a mission from counter-cult ministries dealing with Mormons. Knowing the Word and the Spirit I hope that it is not true. Realistically, reaching those in these groups (JW/Mormon) is difficult. Thankfully, many have come to know Jesus Christ and are set free from religion and self-righteousness. I believe every 'strong' Mormon at my workplace (read BOM at work, witnessed, etc.) has left their wife and kids, sold drugs, etc. This is sad. They need to turn to the real Jesus and not just away from a church that left them disillusioned since it did not give them the power to live up to its high standards. Christianity is mentally healthy because we have high standards and help to live up to them in the person and work of the Holy Spirit. Other religions have ideals but rely on the arm of the flesh in reality since God only upholds truth.

rene

May 22nd, 2004, 03:44 PM

Amen to the points that you have made godrulz.

I know what they say online about those on missionary trips and the like. Like I have written, I know people that have 'left' the Mormon belief and have been fighting for years to get their names off the 'roles'. There is one that I write with on a regular basis that has had been putting up with this for YEARS. They wrote to me and told how angry that they were about it esp. after finding out that the relatives that were still within that group took it upon themselves to get them 'married' (by proxy) within a temple ceremony, 'baptism' of their children (by proxy) in another ceremony. Thing is that they have been married to a Christian for over 25 YEARS and have 3 children! It is this type of attitude and mindset that those leaving have to deal with. Easy it is not.

So while I am sure that indeed you or anyone else will be able to prove it by the records that the Mormon's have. But that doesn't mean that it isn't happening.

Rene

godrulz

May 22nd, 2004, 04:11 PM

It is one thing to be evil and an overt sinner. It is another thing to be sincere, want to love God and others, and yet misled by organizations who should know better (there is a wealth of historical and biblical evidence to bring these religions down cf. the amazing move from heresy to orthodoxy by the Worldwide Church of God after Herbert Armstrong died). Religion is a tool of Satan. It is a counterfeit for a relationship with the Living God.

The key issue for JWs is the Deity of Christ (vs Arian beliefs); for Mormons it is monotheism vs polytheism (MS: henotheism is transitional between mono and polytheism where one God of many are worshipped or preeminent...this is still not the LDS belief...tritheism= 3 separate gods ++ = polytheism). Other issues are secondary. These essential doctrines are self-evident with any working knowledge of the Bible or Church history. To believe that God used Charles Taze Russell (JW) or Joseph Smith (LDS) in the 1900s to bring a new gospel is incomprehensible. Red lights should be going off in seeker's minds.

We should pray and be burdened for those who are sincere. Sincerity does not create truth and deception is powerful. Yet they remain culpable (morally responsible for following man-made religions). The Spirit of God is mighty to save and deliver. Let us be mighty in Spirit as we love those for whom Christ died.

Mustard Seed

May 22nd, 2004, 09:20 PM

Originally posted by rene

Tolerance doesn't mean that one allows another to come and go against all that they believe and attempt to suggest that such is of God.

If not then what, praytell, is tolerance? If you are on a theological forum and you expect open debate or if you are permiting missionaries from another religion into your home I would argue that you have implicitly accepted such (that is you have permited one to 'come and go against' most of what you 'believe and... suggest that such is of God')

As to blasphemous comments and how such relates, blaspheme is to speak/write of the things that are false/slanderous. See, unlike a Christian that has a varied view as I may have or another Christian - you have a totally different view that includes writings that you place in higher esteem than the bible. "Pearl of Great Price" comes to mind.

Christ claimed to have more than the Jews. He claimed to be the God that gave the scripture and hence all spoke was scripture. Many of the jews did not accept the added light and truth because it was 'added'. They failed to consider that God never put a prohibition on his adding to or taking away from his own word.

Part of the reason that I even learned anything about Mormons is because it was required to know the history of the state to pass the 8th grade. Since Joseph Smith tried to set up shop in Missouri at one time - learning about your group was part of history. Not required any more from what I understand - which I find sad, cause I do believe that people need to know about the foundations of such groups as you belong to so they can be aware of its roots.

I would be quite interested to see what they taught and it's accuracy. I've found often enough text books that were not trust worthy in the telling of our history. Granted most text books in our public schools get a great deal of things wrong and often emphasise and ignore the wrong areas.

I can't speak for those that own this area upon net. But from what I have seen, they have been more than what you seem to want to suggest that they have been.

In some instances I would agree with you. In others I wouldn't. This is certainly not a steril forum but it's not as open as it could be within the bounds of decency.

<with regard to my statement that it is requisite to have some knowledge of a person to love them>
Not if one is a Christian. We are called to walk in love, esp to those that are of the household of faith.

Being christian entails learning more about the identity of all and I believe it is that that enables one to truly begin to love those they have not yet met. Just currious. Do you consider us as part of the 'houshold of faith'?

WHY??

You seemed rather confident in your message. You were implying that you had them hook line and sinker. If such is the case what would reading a couple posts by some amature apologist of their faith do?

One thing that I have learned from several that left your ranks of belief is that getting out isn't easy.

No. God's a stickler in the covenants he makes. Who would have guesed he'd want one to keep their word?

I have written and write to several that have tried for YEARS to have their names removed from the 'roles' - only to have them find out that someone has gone and did your version of baptism for them since they won't - OR - found out that they were 'married' to someone without someone telling them.

We only do baptisms and weddings in proxy for the dead. While errors in records occure I somehow doubt some of the hearsay your giving us. One can be excommunicated or disfellowshiped and they, for what I think are obvious reasons, remain on some list or another in our church records. They are not members but that doesn't mean they aren't still cared for and looked after. With claims from your side of the need to care for others regardless of their beliefs or the direction they've gone I think would be sympathetic to our desire to maintain or welcome back those who have strayed or out and out revolted.

Such actions sort of make your comments a cause of concern. Not only for those that I have been witnessing to - but to what you also have been put thru - even if you are not ready to admit it at this time - yet.

If we made such an excuse for not permiting your side of the story to be heard I can nigh guarantee that we would hear the outrage of your crys of 'brainwashing'. You seem to think that it's fair play for you to demand equal exposure for your side but for you to withhold two simple posts from someone is 'acceptable' because for them to hear just two more posts worth of propeganda you feel would compromise your nearly acheived prize. Where's your faith?

There is a world out there full of people seeking truth and God. As a Christian to share such with those seeking is the responsiblity of each and every believer of the one true God.

Amen. Yet you would deprive them two posts because you feel your message is insufficient to overcome two measly posts by an amature apologist who cannot even be there to supervise the presentation.

I guess then you could say that I am part of the 'army of God' and I get directives from Him and His word.

I make the same claims.

As to those that see fit to come to my door that have been raised within your group - they have alot of questions and are looking for honest answers.

To the question "Will you, Rene, accept the true restored gospel of Jesus Christ by being baptised in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?"

The comparison of the relationship Jesus had with Peter is not the best example of what we are talking about.

Why not? I see no reason why it is not appropriate. Peter had an even greater reason to have been well grounded then a 19-26 year-old missionary has yet he was apparently following the Saviour's requisits 'converted'.

Jesus taught the will of His Father. Your group is into the teachings of Joseph Smith and others that followed after him.

Jesus and Joseph Smith taught the same will of the same Father. If you do not believe Joseph Smith then you will not really believe Him(Christ) who sent him nor his (Christ's) father.

Not to worry about that at all. They are and they appreciate what I have shared with them - per their words.

Again you imply a great deal of confidence in their 'conversion' to your side. If you really have faith in the power of your message why the pausing in the face of a few extra words for the other side of the aisle.

Like inviting someone into your home only to be rude to them is uncouth. Your assuming with such a line of thought an incorrect thought that is full of error.

I fear I was not clear in my question. I was asking what items you could prove to them were wrong that they thought were right? Or are you saying that they thought it was okay to be rude?

Why? I have a steady supply coming to my front door... :D

I just thought you cared enough about the salvation of our souls to make the effort to come to our doors. You know. Return the favour. You don't have too obviously.

Not to mention that it isn't *ME* that saves anyone.

I know it's not you or me but Christ, but...

14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

(New Testament | Romans 10:14 - 15)

But such comments do make me think that maybe such a thought isn't that bad of an idea....... Anyone that thinks along lines like that needs instruction of the truth of the gospel.

Ahhh yes. Insinuate that I don't comprehend a basic of the Gospel. And I'm the only one being harsh?

You make it sound as if I all but have to hold a gun to their head - which is a far cry from what is actually happening.

I obviously don't know whats happening. You are the only one with eyes and ears there so by necesity I try and guess what the circumstances are. I was not meaning to imply you were holding them at gun point or anything like unto it.

"Demand"? Far from it. My request has always been met by those thinking that they are going to give their pre-set comments out with no give and take.

I am not against give and take. I simply was trying to point out the absurdity of your demand for equal time of those that were sent.

Such an approach isn't discussion - that's a lecture.

Of the which Christ and the Prophets were known at times to give. To every season...

My request is that to come into my home that there are no lectures. Each must be willing to allow the other to speak and listen to what they are saying then, allowing all sides to speak and share.

Again I am not against that so long as it is not forgoten who was 'sent' to preach and who was not sent but received. To expect the same opportunity to share when you are not willing to be sent to do the teaching is a bit of a stretch.

It does appear that you have a problem with such an approach.

My only problem being your expectation of receiving more opportunity to preach than Paul or Peter would have granted you to preach to them were they to come to your home.

Never said that I did nor have I suggested such.

Trust me - no handcuffs involved - tho my husband IS an ex cop.

Excellent.

Again your references to needing equal time is where my complaint came in.

Within the bible, it teaches that believers are always to be ready to share the good news of the gospel. That would include even within your own home.

No argument on that.

That I require for any discussion to take place the same respect that they are requesting within my own home - is not unreasonable.

I simply feel you are mixing up respect with the your job and theirs. They have come to your home to discuss their message. Discusion on that message is not a problem and is encouraged. When you assume to be in charge of the message then you have shown a lack of respect for the perogative of those you invited in to hear THEIR message. Would you go along and set up a bunch of appointments with salesmen to come to your house so you could preach to them what you believe the Gospel to be? They (the door-to-door or house visiting salesmen) merit salvation as much as we do! Why not play the same game with them? They come to your door! They're just as convenient as we are! Why the exception? Courtesy? Oh wait! I thought you were 'bound' as Christians to not leave any soul that crossed your path unwarned!

Is my case for courtesy with regard to the implicit expectaions of these scenerios obvious? What is the difference?

What WOULD be unreasonable is for those that want to come within my home attempt to dictate that I am not allowed the same respect within my own home.

You are again confusing respect with implicit agrement of inviting one to your home to share a message.

If such is what you suggest - it is *I* that would be looking for the handcuffs hidden within your briefcase that you are trying to bring within my home vs the way you keep wanting to try to suggest that I am doing.

I am not suggesting handcuffs. I am trying to show the context you are disregarding in your claims of needing respect. Respect is vital but not the issue. Respect can still be had on both sides without both sides having to give a message.

Paul spent large amounts of time in the temples and synagogues. One of my all time favorites is found in Acts 17, verses 22 thru 34. Mention of it is made again in just a few verses down in 18:4. This is but two examples. Take the time and look for youself within the bible and you will find the examples I am sure.

Do you think that most or even half of such time there was spent listening to other creeds? If you do I believe you are mistaken.

WHY? Why would I even consider putting before them writings from within a book that isn't the bible that is clearly evident to be a put down to them seeking answers to the real questions that they have about what they have been told to believe?

Alot of what you've likely placed before them I doubt was from the Bible. That didn't stop you from doing it. I likely have as many bible quotes in my posts as you have in the literature you have given them.

Then there is the thought that there is a time for everything and everything has it's season - - that they are not there by chance but in the right place at the right time to hear what they need to hear to have relationship with God.

They are there at the command of God but that doesn't mean that your message is what they are there for.

ROFL! Not scared at all. But seen nothing productive that would come of such. Waste of time that can be better spent sharing the gospel of Jesus.

If you would I would be willing to read that which you have placed before them. Deal?

Mustard Seed

May 23rd, 2004, 12:19 AM

Originally posted by Chileice

Two thoughts:
1. It is very typical of any religion, not just Mormonism, to be prickly when things close to the heart are attacked. What many don't see and it appears that Mustard is one of them, that tolerance is a two way street. He wants you to accept him as a Christian and be tolerant, but the minute you step on any of his pet doctrines, tolerance goes out the window. I find it interesting that Mustard and King David (who hasn't been here in some time) were quick to write on any topic related to Mormons but almost NEVER ventured off their pet threads.

Put yourself, Chileice, if you will, in our shoes. If you will review those exchanges to which you refer, and even this thread as of late, and tell me how the numbers are. Now imagine that the beliefs you hold very dear are being constantly attacked and not only that but you are quite outnumbered. Do you leave the attacks alone to go run off to some other threads? Do you sacrifice more time on the internet, at the expense of the rest of your life, to appear to 'participate fully' so that you not be accused of only sticking to 'pet' issues? I have gone out as much as my time has permited but blatant attacks on the core of my beliefs will not be exchanged for more trivial threads and the time they in turn would demand.

I give them high marks as mormons for venturing onto this forum.

I, in turn, respect your view which has been much more than most, kept in perspective. We clearly do not agree on much but the likes of you and lightson and, from what I've seen for the most part, from rene (and there are others though I can't think of more specifics at this time) are people who are both, for the most part, wise and kind in their comments and to a great degree do not allow their deeply rooted beliefs to turn them to bigotry. I thank you for such and your recognizing, when others refuse, some of our points that you believe we are getting the shaft on.

Isuspect they are young recently returned missionaries still zealous to promote the ways of Zion.

Recently is relative. I do pray that I always am "zealous to promote the ways of Zion".

But free thought has never been a hallmark of mormonmism.

I must object to such a statement. Free thought is demanded in Mormonism. I believe you cannot truly be a 'mormon' if you are not a free thinker. I have witnessed a massive amount of free thought that has blessed the cause of Zion. The attempt to paint us as some monolithic entity on the intellectual level is wrong. Yes we adhere to the basics of the gospel and accept them without compromise but all corolaries are, and have been, up for debate. And debated they are. Many times the debate gets quite heated and passionate. I have good friends in my faith in both political parties. I have heard an array of points of view on almost everything from evolution to intricacies of the words of the early prophets. The only time one gets into trouble is, as would be the case in any type of Christianity, when one questions the basics. If a Christian does not believe Christ was what he said he was then they are not really Christian. Some outside of Christianity take such a dogmatic requisite as evidence that, as you claim with regard to us, that Christianity has never had 'free thought' as a 'halmark'.

Missionaries can never be seperated. You can't invite one to dinner without the partner coming along.

7 ¶ And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two;

(New Testament | Mark 6:7)

There are great reasons for the avoidance of going out alone. Christ recognized such.

They are taught from a young aga all the reasons and they all make sense within the closed system they live in.

And, as I've found out, they make sense outside of it also. The principles of the Gospel of Christ are eternal. They will be as good in application as a child as when an adult living thousands of miles away from home or years after leaving.

We will never really understand the power of that closed system unless we became Christians out of Islam.

I have great great respect for many of our Muslim brothers but the paralell is not what you portend it to be. We do not sit in Madras rocking back and forth memorizing the Book of Mormon. We are greatly encouraged to be actively engaged in the intellectual community. Ever hear of Henry Eyring? If you know much about Chemistry you would. We have world renouned professionals and we do not need a masive base the size that Islam has to produce them. Have you read Nibley? Likely one of the most intellegent men alive yet ignored by most because one of his fortes is apologetics.

It is a life system that dominates everything.

Isn't that what Christ taught?

But once completely seperated from that system (which rarely happens, they make sure of that) a mormon is really adrift.

True. Then is the time to see if the structure stands alone. Of course just growing up in Utah doesn't mean that it's a cake walk. You may dismiss it but one of the greatest challenges is when you are surrounded by peers, supposedly of your own faith, that you know know better than to do what they are trying to get you to do. I do not want to argue what is harder, to be in Utah or out of it (an argument that occures, at times, in the church). My point is that the 'pure mormon environ' picture you try and paint is not accurate. The world penetrates farther into Utah than many think.

Groupthink is so ingrained that those who want to leave rarely officially leave the church. They just become Jack-mormons, or mormons in name only. To actually leave, especially in Utah, Idaho, Western Wyoming, southwest Alberta, etc. would be social suicide.

Mormon and/or Utah subculture is often not what it should be. Many new films have made a good deal of money poking fun at this. It is very regretable. My best friend growing up was/is Bahai. I witnessed many who would claim to be Latter Day Saints that acted inexcusably toward my friend. Some of it comes from ignorance and some is from those who are heeding the wrong voice. It's sad to see what the results of many of their actions are. It is too true that much good can be undone by the wickedness of a few.

Although it has gotten better in recent years, discrimination in those areas was strong against the non-mormon. The same kind or worse than Mustard was complaining about on the "back of the prayer bus" thread.

I do not condone those instances of injustices commited by members of my faith. I would request that you discern between the actions of those that lead and those that are suppose to follow. Our church has never had a policy of discriminating against another because of belief, gender or race.

He thinks he is being objective but he will never be objective until he totally lays all those beliefs on the line and admit the possibility that J.Smith, Jr. was wrong.

I have NEVER claimed to be objective. Beware the man who claims such. If you think YOU can be objective then you have fooled yourself. True you can try to approach it but I have never met a person that has been truly objective. I state my side and readily acknowledge my bias. I hope none of you claim to be objective. Such is not possible to mere mortals. And God, while capable of objectivity, I believe, is not. Just yes. Objective would require detachment. God is quite aware and involved in all his creations.

That's unlikely to happen.

True.

2. The last point you made is great. I always knew I was getting through to a mormon when they fell back on their "testimony". And then if I continued to share and they couldn't seem to refute my questions apologetically, they just disappeared. I wouldn't see them anymore. It was like once I was wasn't an evangelistic target, I was no longer "friend" material.

That is a sad phenomena that occures among many that do not realize the strength of their position and are either to afraid or not concerned enough about everyones welfare to maintain at the least a level of friendship.

That always seemed so very honest and loving.:nono:

I agree with your assessment of the integrity of chosing such a path. It is not correct. Please try and consider also that there may be other reasons. For many they are still trying to get the whole process down and I believe many do have good intentions. I learned on my mission to respect anyone with the gumption to approach someone else with their faith. Though the act of handing a tract to someone you do not know and likely will not see again does not require a whole lot I respected the lady that did such a simple act even though she did not appear to necesarlily want to fellowship me in any depth on her own.

When there is no answer... admit it.

Amen.

But that seems real hard for a mormon to do.

I have no problem doing it.

Instead they will try to drop something in your lap. They seem to always want to leave you with the ball in your court even if they can't answer your questions. Probably a trick from misionary training. Leaves them feeling good but leaves the listener with a bad taste in the old mouth.

I fully realise that our membership isn't always the best PR machine imaginable. We are just as fallable as everyone else. Please remember that both sides of the aisle could do alot more to improve their methods. We'll work on our side you work on yours and hopefully we gain nothing but greater respect for both sides despite the dificulties we both experiance with our own frailties.

Mustard Seed

May 23rd, 2004, 12:29 AM

Originally posted by godrulz
I must have been tired. I meant to type the obvious fact that error/darkness runs/flees from truth/light. This is why I am happy to engage JWs long after they want to run when they cannot answer a point. I will study until Armageddon with them knowing the power of truth and the Spirit. (previous post edited).

Okay. I'd thought you'd really flipped. Good to hear otherwise. I should have guessed that's what happened. I know how some of those late nights can go.

Reminds me of a debate I was in on my mission when I was just new and still trying to master the spanish language. We had an apointment that we showed up for only to discover that our appointment had double schedueled with some JWs. They got us together. I thought I was doing pretty good so I ventured to respond to something that they had said. In an attempt to clarify that we did not believe they same as them on the item we were discussing my companion interjected and took over. I learned at the end that I had said the complete opposite of what I meant to say. Oh the learning experiances we have. Humble pie in abundance. I eat so much of it but I still haven't learned enough to keep from having to eat it again and again. I'm sorry again that I went off on you godrulz.

Mustard Seed

May 23rd, 2004, 12:55 AM

Originally posted by godrulz
I believe every 'strong' Mormon at my workplace (read BOM at work, witnessed, etc.) has left their wife and kids, sold drugs, etc.

That is not entirely fair. I am well aware that the horrible and pernicious evils of our day ravage our homes as well as yours. If I recall correctly godrulz you work in metal fabrication I believe? Now all I really have to go from is the occasional shop I have visited and my highschool shop classes but from what I recall my shop classes (auto etc.) were not exactly the most holy places on earth. The lifestyle of your average shop worker, at least following pervasive stereotypes, is not exactly one of pure clean bible reading christians talking about theology and how wonderful their family life is. AGAIN THIS IS NOT TO EXCUSE THEIR ACTIONS! I would dare say (depending on the size of your opperation) that a great number of men in your shop have or have had similar problems regardless of their religious affiliation. I know that making generalizations is generaly frowned upon by our politicaly correct world but statment like 'most painters like their beer' are statements that I have seen prove themselves true much of the time especialy when one talks to those within the various profesions.

Basicaly I'm saying for you to take an example from your work is about a fool proof way of finding a bad example as there is. I have seen MANY christians that have fouled up lives that still read their Bible and try to be strong in their faith. I do not think to blame their condition upon what it is they believe or what it is they read. To do so would need condemn every faith for every faith is made up of humans and every one of those humans screws things up (to varying degrees) quite often.

This is sad. They need to turn to the real Jesus and not just away from a church that left them disillusioned since it did not give them the power to live up to its high standards.

It's insinuations like this that are so wrong-headed. As if you can (or would even want to) compare the statistics of those of each faith who backslide and where that takes them and use such statistics in comparison. Trust me 'traditional Christianity' would not win such a match up.

Christianity is mentally healthy because we have high standards and help to live up to them in the person and work of the Holy Spirit. Other religions have ideals but rely on the arm of the flesh in reality since God only upholds truth.

Such hollow rhetoric.

godrulz we are all in need of repentance be we traditional Christian, Latter Day Saint or what have you. I support you in your calls for repentance but repentance is as possible among us as it is among you and both sides have plenty of need to repent regardless of whether or not we arrive at a point of seeing eye to eye. I hope you will agree with the gist of this passage despite it's source. Truth is truth regardless of the mesenger.

22 Yea, and I say unto you that if it were not for the prayers of the righteous, who are now in the land, that ye would even now be visited with utter destruction; yet it would not be by flood, as were the people in the days of Noah, but it would be by famine, and by pestilence, and the sword.
23 But it is by the prayers of the righteous that ye are spared; now therefore, if ye will cast out the righteous from among you then will not the Lord stay his hand; but in his fierce anger he will come out against you; then ye shall be smitten by famine, and by pestilence, and by the sword; and the time is soon at hand except ye repent.

(Book of Mormon | Alma 10:22 - 23)

Have a great Sabbath everyone!

rene

May 23rd, 2004, 01:28 AM

Originally posted by Mustard Seed

If not then what, praytell, is tolerance? If you are on a theological forum and you expect open debate or if you are permiting missionaries from another religion into your home I would argue that you have implicitly accepted such (that is you have permited one to 'come and go against' most of what you 'believe and... suggest that such is of God')

Tolerance is a fair and permissive attitude toward those whose race, religion, nationality, etc. differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry - at least according to Webster's.

Allowing someone within my home does not mean that I agree with nor follow what they believe. - no matter what you want to argue. I will say that point very well could be why you seem to have spent some time in complaint against this area because of that belief. I then feel the need to point out from your own words that by your choice, you have opened yourself to such as you feel as has been the 'wrong' done to you.

Personally - I don't agree with that comment - but taking it full circle that is the end result of that stand.

Christ claimed to have more than the Jews. He claimed to be the God that gave the scripture and hence all spoke was scripture. Many of the jews did not accept the added light and truth because it was 'added'. They failed to consider that God never put a prohibition on his adding to or taking away from his own word.

What has this to do with anything about the fact that those within the belief system that you seek to promote hold in higher esteem the book "The Pearl of Great Price" over the bible??

I would be quite interested to see what they taught and it's accuracy. I've found often enough text books that were not trust worthy in the telling of our history. Granted most text books in our public schools get a great deal of things wrong and often emphasise and ignore the wrong areas.

I have no doubt that you would claim that it is totally wrong and not accurate. Only problem with that is that it was within that state that there was a division within your group because of the wrongs that were going on which lead to the formation of the Reorganized Latter Day Saints.

In Independence, Mo, they have a museum located there with actual artifacts, papers, newspaper articles, etc that I also am sure that you will suggest are not accurate about the Mormon church, the split that took place, and Joseph Smith. I am sure that you more than likely will claim that such is not accurate as well.

Point is - that doesn't shock me.

In some instances I would agree with you. In others I wouldn't. This is certainly not a steril forum but it's not as open as it could be within the bounds of decency.

My comment to your views of this area are a simple one. You honestly think that a Mormon area would be open to discussion upon its area by Christians?

Do you HONESTLY BELIEVE that they are going to say nothing at all?

If you believe that way - I have got a bridge for you that's for sale......

<with regard to my statement that it is requisite to have some knowledge of a person to love them>

Being christian entails learning more about the identity of all and I believe it is that that enables one to truly begin to love those they have not yet met. Just currious. Do you consider us as part of the 'houshold of faith'?

Are you asking if I believe if you are following the gospel that brings eternal life with God? The answer is 'no' if you are following Mormon belief. Do I think that you can be a Christian? 'Yes' if you will but follow the teachings of Jesus and accept Him as Lord over your life.

You seemed rather confident in your message. You were implying that you had them hook line and sinker. If such is the case what would reading a couple posts by some amature apologist of their faith do?

I have no personal message. I do have the message given by Jesus, as fortold within the bible. I do have relationship with God thru His Son and I am a child of God.

As to the choice of words that you made choice of from the book that your belief system holds in higher esteem that the bible - why in the WORLD would you think that I am going to make the choice to expose them further than they already have been to false writings?? Better to show them the words of God and His promises.

No. God's a stickler in the covenants he makes. Who would have guesed he'd want one to keep their word?

These words do not address the very real people and situations of those that have attempted to break from the Mormon belief. Do you not agree that for a group to take over 25 years to get someone's names off their membership roles is too long - actually longer cause the one friend is STILL trying to get them to do just that. Do you think that it is honest of your group to keep those that are on their roles there even tho they have requested to be taken off? Honest to have temple ceremony against their knowledge to perform a 'marriage' or 'baptism' when the person doesn't even know nor want such done in their name? Ignoring the fact that they are not only married, but members of a Christian church, have been baptized after joining and becoming part of the family of God?

When a group is taking those sort of actions - not by their word or will - who is really breaking what?

We only do baptisms and weddings in proxy for the dead. While errors in records occure I somehow doubt some of the hearsay your giving us. One can be excommunicated or disfellowshiped and they, for what I think are obvious reasons, remain on some list or another in our church records. They are not members but that doesn't mean they aren't still cared for and looked after. With claims from your side of the need to care for others regardless of their beliefs or the direction they've gone I think would be sympathetic to our desire to maintain or welcome back those who have strayed or out and out revolted.

Those that leave and walk away from the Mormon belief are somehow considered 'dead' (friend explained it to me - but to me it was totally foolishness) thus such is indeed 'ok' within the Mormon belief.

Person that I am thinking of - which because of the very real problems that they have faced since having left your group I don't want to give out too much information about - saw the 'visits' and comments made to them in a different light all together. They had to leave the state of Utah, moved to a neighboring state - and since have left that state as well because of problems that kept coming up.

My friends story is not the only one. Even one of the grandson's of your head person left and has written of the very same problems. So, it isn't like I am making this up and that such has never happened. He works for a newspaper - names eludes me at the moment.

If we made such an excuse for not permiting your side of the story to be heard I can nigh guarantee that we would hear the outrage of your crys of 'brainwashing'. You seem to think that it's fair play for you to demand equal exposure for your side but for you to withhold two simple posts from someone is 'acceptable' because for them to hear just two more posts worth of propeganda you feel would compromise your nearly acheived prize. Where's your faith?

I never said one way or the other anything about allowing anything on this site. I have no authority here. Never have claimed that I have. So your claims of "equal exposure" - when I don't see any asking and seeking for sites to do this on upon this site at all - are moot. I see none here even suggesting that they wish to do that at all. Thus that point is nothing more than a strawman.

As to where my faith is - - it is within the living God, His Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is thru His Son that I have access to His blessings and not because of membership or my name on some role other than the one in heaven.

Amen. Yet you would deprive them two posts because you feel your message is insufficient to overcome two measly posts by an amature apologist who cannot even be there to supervise the presentation.

I "deprive" NOTHING. Instead of giving them words from someone that most def. doesn't want them to hear the message of Jesus and His salvation, His truth, His will for them - I give them words of hope, faith, and love from within the bible that brings eternal life if they will accept them.

What I am seeing is a real FEAR on your part. Fear that when they will find out the errors within the Mormon belief. I on the other hand do not fear that but instead have a great hope and desire that such is what they will find and that there is indeed a God that loves them so much that He sent His Son to pay a price for them that they could never pay - thus based upon love.

I make the same claims.

You can make the claim - but that claim means nothing if it is not following the teachings of Jesus thru whom all blessings flow, thru whom is the only hope of eternal life with God.

To the question "Will you, Rene, accept the true restored gospel of Jesus Christ by being baptised in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?"

That may be your hope of all that is said - - but you forget that I require discussion and not lectures. They can present their pre-set 'lecture' - and I will in turn take out my bible and show them what is within it and tell them of the baptism that Jesus practiced and told to be taught - which isn't being baptised into a group, but into the family of God.

Why not? I see no reason why it is not appropriate. Peter had an even greater reason to have been well grounded then a 19-26 year-old missionary has yet he was apparently following the Saviour's requisits 'converted'.

If you want to suggest that these people knocking on doors are in any way comparable to Peter, Paul, or any other apostle - you are free to do so. But I will remind you that these men, with only 3 years of walking with Jesus show a maturity that built and added to the church in one day over 3,000. Such acts I feel more than call into question your suggestion.

Jesus and Joseph Smith taught the same will of the same Father. If you do not believe Joseph Smith then you will not really believe Him(Christ) who sent him nor his (Christ's) father.

Don't think so......

God has always been God (Psalm 90:2; Isaiah 57:15)
vs
"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!!! . . . We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345)

Jesus was born of the virgin Mary (Isaiah 7:14; Matt. 1:23)
vs
"The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood - was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 8: p. 115)

Jesus is the eternal Son. He is second person of the Trinity. He has two natures. He is God in flesh and man (John 1:1, 14; Col. 2;9) and the creator of all things (Col. 1:15-17)
vs
Jesus is the literal spirit-brother of Lucifer, a creation. (Gospel Through the Ages, p. 15)

Hosea Stout wrote, "President B. Young taught that Adam was the father of Jesus and the only God to us...." (Private Journal MSS, Vol. 2, p. 436, April 9, 1852) and future Church President Wilford Woodruff quoted Young as saying, "...Adam is Michael or God, and all the God that we have anything to do with..." (Private Journal MSS, April 9, 1852)

In Mormonism, men and women have the potential of becoming gods. President Lorenzo Snow said, "As god once was, man is. As God is, man may become."

You see, God has none of the error found within Smith and others in authority within the Mormon belief.

Again you imply a great deal of confidence in their 'conversion' to your side. If you really have faith in the power of your message why the pausing in the face of a few extra words for the other side of the aisle.

As already stated, I am not going to show them things that have nothing to do with their eternal salvation and that is coming from the point of view that is going to keep them in the false. To do so would be STUPID - which I am not.

I fear I was not clear in my question. I was asking what items you could prove to them were wrong that they thought were right? Or are you saying that they thought it was okay to be rude?

They didn't know about the obvious errors that can be shown from within Mormon writings. They didn't know about the many flip-flops that have been made on different issues, each time claiming that there was divine knowledge in each choice even tho they were totally opposite of each other and a contradiction.

See, I tell them not to take my word alone for anything. Go to the library (which my local one is filled with librarians that are all Christian) and use their computers to request copies of pages from within books from the national library. They can and do see with their own eyes words that clearly are at odds with what they have been taught - and denied.

A person doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to be able to do any of this. Basic, simple, honest approach that is upfront about it being questioned, even encouraged to do so as to verify what is being told.

I just thought you cared enough about the salvation of our souls to make the effort to come to our doors. You know. Return the favour. You don't have too obviously.

Another strawman...... Suggestions about me not caring are a moot point since I am indeed being a witness of the gospel of Jesus to those that I come in contact with. The mission field starts within ones own home and goes right outside your own front door - unless one feels the calling of God to do otherwise. Utah is not a place I would even want to visit. A place filled with so many people seeking a false message would be heartbreaking to say the least. Besides, were I to leave - those that I already have coming to my home wouldn't have what they have now - someone willing and open to being questioned, seeking for them to verify all that they are told, and someone that really is not trying to force or use a pre-set program based upon falsehoods. Have no fear for I do pray for all that are lost in such false teachings that they come to the saving knowledge fo whom Jesus really is and what He desires to do within their life.

I know it's not you or me but Christ, but...

14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! (New Testament | Romans 10:14 - 15)

Preach - another word for teach - which is what I am doing. You seem to have the mistaken view that to be "sent" one has to go far away - when the reality more than likely is that it is the person next door that you should be going to.

Ahhh yes. Insinuate that I don't comprehend a basic of the Gospel. And I'm the only one being harsh?

Not ment to be. But considering your words and what you follow - a consideration that is viable.

I am not against give and take. I simply was trying to point out the absurdity of your demand for equal time of those that were sent.

It would be absurd to believe that someone come their home, presume to teach their version of 'truth' that they have been spoon-fed and don't really know about when the other knows about what it is that they are trying to 'teach' me about and all the error within.

That I even allow them within my home to turn their lecture into a discussion shows the tolerance that I had to explain to you about what it is. It also is known as compassion.

Of the which Christ and the Prophets were known at times to give. To every season...

True per Jesus and the prophets. But when it is from a person that really has no knowledge and doesn't even have a complete understanding about what it is that they are attempting to promote - that would be totally foolish to do.

Again I am not against that so long as it is not forgoten who was 'sent' to preach and who was not sent but received. To expect the same opportunity to share when you are not willing to be sent to do the teaching is a bit of a stretch.

In the bible, ALL are called to be a witness. It isn't set to a limited time span. Not limited to just to some far away place that some person decides that they need to go to. It is with everyone that they come in contact with - another difference between Christians and Mormons.

My only problem being your expectation of receiving more opportunity to preach than Paul or Peter would have granted you to preach to them were they to come to your home.

Refer to my comments above - Christians are always on call to share the gospel.

I simply feel you are mixing up respect with the your job and theirs.

I think what I am seeing is that you are not happy that someone is taking the time to share the true gospel with them. I understand that because of what you follow - don't agree with you - but I do understand.

They have come to your home to discuss their message.

That may be. But they only come within my home if they are willing to show the same respect to me and my message as they require for theirs.

You know, the more you harp on this - the more that it seems that your problem is really with the fact that someone is not going to settle for anything less than what they require. You are wanting the uneven playing field and others to just sit down and believe all that they are told.

No wonder your group had to sell it's building here in town. Such isn't the sort of approach nor honesty that is going to draw people to it.

Discusion on that message is not a problem and is encouraged. When you assume to be in charge of the message then you have shown a lack of respect for the perogative of those you invited in to hear THEIR message.

HUH?? Let me put it in a way that you might grasp. Why not you open your doors to the Christians and allow them free reign within your home to say as they wish and say nothing back unless it is agreement with what they say. Cause that is what it sure is looking like what you want.

That ANYONE is getting sucked in with such an approach should be a real wakeup call to Christians to show them that the fields really are ready for harvest and to get out there and reach out to the person next to them and share the true gospel with them!

Would you go along and set up a bunch of appointments with salesmen to come to your house so you could preach to them what you believe the Gospel to be?

This is nothing but another strawman and not even worth a comment other than out of respect for you as a human I am telling you that such tactics are seen for what they really are with me. So save your typing time with such.

BTW - when people have come to my door for a variety of reasons and come into my home and I have an opening - I do share what I have been so graciously given by God. Such is what every true believer is called to - as stated before.

You are again confusing respect with implicit agrement of inviting one to your home to share a message.

No. I just see that you have a obvious problem with anyone having an honest discussion with anyone that knocks on my door that is Mormon. There is a difference.

I am not suggesting handcuffs. I am trying to show the context you are disregarding in your claims of needing respect. Respect is vital but not the issue. Respect can still be had on both sides without both sides having to give a message.

OH - I get it now.... As long as someone shuts up and buys all that is in the pre-set lecture is considered being respectful - but to have an open discussion with all sides being able to voice their views is not. Sort of the approach similar to what is found in say a dictatorship don't you think? That you represent such as what is the standard for Mormons - a testimony in and of itself of why such should not be agreed to.

Alot of what you've likely placed before them I doubt was from the Bible. That didn't stop you from doing it. I likely have as many bible quotes in my posts as you have in the literature you have given them.

I place before them things from within Mormon writings that call into question what they are trying to say what they believe and follow as well.

They are there at the command of God but that doesn't mean that your message is what they are there for.

They are within my home because they were sent out by the Mormon organization - not God. As to the end results of them coming to my home and how God uses it is by God's direction, not mine.

If you would I would be willing to read that which you have placed before them. Deal?

Not hard. I have a folder here at the house full of pages from books that have been copied for me by the library. There are any number of sites online that will show you all the changes made within your book of Mormon, changes made, direct quotes from Mormon books - a host of things.

It isn't like it is hard to find. All you have to do is look.

Rene

godrulz

May 23rd, 2004, 08:41 AM

MS: I am a paramedic. I am not sure who the metal worker is.

My experience with Mormons at work was not meant to be an ad hominem attack (attack person vs beliefs). People of all faiths fall away from their commitments. I was expressing concern and grief how 'religious people' can go astray, and the necessity of knowing the Lord. I do feel a Mormon is as spiritually lost as a pagan. If we turn from something, it is important what we turn to. There is another gospel and another Jesus of a different kind being preached. Diametrically opposed views cannot both be right. The key is not just to have Jesus Christ on the name of your church, but to correctly know and understand the Jesus revealed in Scripture. Trusting a counterfeit or believing in the wrong identity is worthless (cf. currency). I realize you feel you do have the right gospel and Jesus. I feel the evidence is against that.

LightSon

May 23rd, 2004, 08:04 PM

Greetings b-baggins. Welcome to TOL. Thanks for sharing.

Originally posted by b-baggins

The Lake of Fire has three meanings in LDS theology. It can mean the time of anguish between death and the resurrection of the unjust. It can mean final consignment to the Telestial kingdom which is the least of the kingdoms of glory, where the individual is eternally separated from the Father and the Son and which glory Paul likened to the brightness of the stars. Finally, it can mean consignment to outer darkness with Satan and his angels.

This last is typically what Protestants consider when they think of hell. In order for an individual to be consigned to outer darkness, he must be a baptized Mormon who has received an absolute witness and surety as to the living reality of Christ, who then turns and tells the world that there is no Christ. Joseph Smith likened it to a man telling people there is no sun while it is shining in his face. Such individuals commit the unpardonable sin and crucify the Lord afresh.

I recognize the third LDS usage of "lake of fire", that being to "[consign] to outer darkness with Satan and his angels." The KJ Bible uses the term "lake of fire" 4 times (in Revelation) and each time it is in reference to this very unpleasant place. There are no other Biblical usages, so how is it that LDS teaching has manufactured these other 2 extra-Biblical connotations?

LightSon

May 23rd, 2004, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by godrulz

... I am not sure who the metal worker is.
...

It might be Omega, but last I heard he was out of work.

Mustard Seed

May 23rd, 2004, 08:20 PM

This whole issue regarding tolerance, permiting one to accomplish that which they were sent to accomplish, and the roles we play in our various interactions with each other <be it visiting each others homes or interacting online or whatever it may be> is obviously something were not going to agree on. You will continue to insinuate (despite the fact that I have not said and do not support the notion) that we try to force our discussions on you with no tolerance for questioning (which is not true and not what I have advocated) And I will continue to insist that we ask no more than your Christian ministers would request were they to do the same.

It is clear that you, rene, have reached, for better or worse an accord with those missionaries that visit you. I pray the situation is not as grim as you state but I must and do leave the situation to God. You are to worried to permit them to see our dialog and that's fine.

I will address, though I have done so before in other conversations. Your accusations against our faith and those things you claim to be proofs of our status as a 'fraud'.

What has this to do with anything about the fact that those within the belief system that you seek to promote hold in higher esteem the book "The Pearl of Great Price" over the bible??

This is not a true accusation. While we do believe the Bible is true only so far as it is translated correctly this is not significantly different from your belief that it is true so long as it is compliled correctly. Do you accept as true those versions of the Bible used by the Catholics? How about Greek Orthodox? Do you believe as Luther that Revelations and James ought not be included?

I have no doubt that you would claim that it is totally wrong and not accurate.

I did not claim that. I questioned parts of the history.

Only problem with that is that it was within that state that there was a division within your group because of the wrongs that were going on which lead to the formation of the Reorganized Latter Day Saints.

In Independence, Mo, they have a museum located there with actual artifacts, papers, newspaper articles, etc that I also am sure that you will suggest are not accurate about the Mormon church, the split that took place, and Joseph Smith. I am sure that you more than likely will claim that such is not accurate as well.

As I have had to point out many many times, it is not usually the facts presented that I have a questioned it is rather the conclusions or insinuations that are. It doesn't take much to throw something off. Atheists and Christians sight the same evidence in the appeal to their conclusions about God yet despite having the same facts they come to opposite conclusions.

Then there are those times, you rene have done this several times, where you state that we beleive, or that I have stated, something that either we do not believe or I have not stated. The above is evidence of such. You claim that I rejected it all (what was taught in your history lessons) when I never said such. There may be 98% truth, or more, but as you know some of the greatest lies can have some of the greatest amounts of truth and only the smallest pedazo of a lie. You take so many of my arguments and state them as something they are not and in so doing try to make them seem absured or hypocritical.

Point is - that doesn't shock me.

Aside from the fact that your pretext was wrong for what you said it was never my intention to shock you. Another point off the mark.

You honestly think that a Mormon area would be open to discussion upon its area by Christians?

We do allow such dialog in our area. A great number of people of all different faiths have been invited to speak pray sing and perform in many of our greatest venues (and our not as grand chaples). We have opened the tabernacle to the prayers and words of many different christian and other religious faiths.

Are you asking if I believe if you are following the gospel that brings eternal life with God? The answer is 'no' if you are following Mormon belief. Do I think that you can be a Christian? 'Yes' if you will but follow the teachings of Jesus and accept Him as Lord over your life.

As to the choice of words that you made choice of from the book that your belief system holds in higher esteem that the bible -

As stated before that is a lie.

why in the WORLD would you think that I am going to make the choice to expose them further than they already have been to false writings?? Better to show them the words of God and His promises.

To show your faith in the power of your own message. Again you refer to our methods as 'brainwashing' yet when given the opportunity to allow both sides (just two posts) you scoff and claim futile such an action.

Do you not agree that for a group to take over 25 years to get someone's names off their membership roles is too long - actually longer cause the one friend is STILL trying to get them to do just that.

Since we are dependent on you for te hearsay regarding this matter, as you shouldn't post the specific information on the internet as such would be unwise and contrary to the intentions of those trying to accomlish what you claim they are trying to do. I can offer no other possible explinations than that which I mentioned before regarding the fact that there is always some record as to the condition of anyone with regard to their relation to our church after they have once been in it. If you wished to no longer be a US citizen it would be absured to expect the government to destroy all records they have concerning you.

Do you think that it is honest of your group to keep those that are on their roles there even tho they have requested to be taken off?

I think it runs into more problems with buerocracy than with any actual questions of honesty on the part of anyone in our church. If you want to be so critical of an organization of our size then show me one of an equivalent complexity that has never had any problems with it's paper work. Find me one that has a spotless record with regard to relations with those who have left that organization. Such doesn't exist.

Honest to have temple ceremony against their knowledge to perform a 'marriage' or 'baptism' when the person doesn't even know nor want such done in their name? Ignoring the fact that they are not only married, but members of a Christian church, have been baptized after joining and becoming part of the family of God?

When a group is taking those sort of actions - not by their word or will - who is really breaking what?

Those that leave and walk away from the Mormon belief are somehow considered 'dead' (friend explained it to me - but to me it was totally foolishness) thus such is indeed 'ok' within the Mormon belief.

I believe you are confusing our belief with that of Judaism or someone has really screwed up (for one reason or another) because I have NEVER seen that belief ANYWHERE in our church. I have not even heard hearsay of such going on. It is not and has never been promoted that we baptize or marry in proxy the living and especially the unwilling living. Either your report is wrong or someone in our church has really botched something up. Again since I will not be privy in this life to the details of your friends troubles I can not judge one way or the either but I can and do strongly assert that what you have described above, the administering of the ordinances in proxy for those who are not physicaly dead and not willing is NOWHERE in the doctrine of our church and is not a practice encouraged (and in my case ever heard of)

... it isn't like I am making this up and that such has never happened. He works for a newspaper - names eludes me at the moment.

I will not claim the buerocracy of our church is executed perfectly. We can be the only true and living church and still mess up our roles. Such obviously occured in the early days of Christ's dispensation.

If you want to suggest that these people knocking on doors are in any way comparable to Peter, Paul, or any other apostle - you are free to do so. But I will remind you that these men, with only 3 years of walking with Jesus show a maturity that built and added to the church in one day over 3,000. Such acts I feel more than call into question your suggestion.

See our early church history. There were such days in which THOUSANDS were converted. In the early days some entire churchs converted. Such is not impossible in the future.

God has always been God (Psalm 90:2; Isaiah 57:15)
vs
"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!!! . . . We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345)

God is eternal and we are eternal. We are 'gods in embryo' and have always existed as such. Christ remained a God despite the fact that he was at the same time as we are now. Christ himself proclaimed...

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

(New Testament | John 10:34 - 35)

6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High
(Old Testament | Psalms 82:6)

Jesus was born of the virgin Mary (Isaiah 7:14; Matt. 1:23)
vs
"The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood - was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 8: p. 115)

And these conflict HOW??? They DON'T!

Jesus is the eternal Son. He is second person of the Trinity. He has two natures. He is God in flesh and man (John 1:1, 14; Col. 2;9) and the creator of all things (Col. 1:15-17)
vs
Jesus is the literal spirit-brother of Lucifer, a creation. (Gospel Through the Ages, p. 15)

No where does your first statement conflict with the fact that Christ is our brother and that Lucifer is our brother.

Hosea Stout wrote, "President B. Young taught that Adam was the father of Jesus and the only God to us...." (Private Journal MSS, Vol. 2, p. 436, April 9, 1852) and future Church President Wilford Woodruff quoted Young as saying, "...Adam is Michael or God, and all the God that we have anything to do with..." (Private Journal MSS, April 9, 1852)

This simply shows that all of the keys of authority of God on earth will go back to Adam before they are then given back to Christ. Adam being the greatest patriarch on Earth is the one who will hand the keys to Christ in your own back yard when Christ comes again to usher in His Millenial reign (Adam-ondi-Ahman Missouri)

You see, God has none of the error found within Smith and others in authority within the Mormon belief.

I have demonstrated that our beliefs have biblical backing.

See, I tell them not to take my word alone for anything. Go to the library (which my local one is filled with librarians that are all Christian) and use their computers to request copies of pages from within books from the national library. They can and do see with their own eyes words that clearly are at odds with what they have been taught - and denied.

You say go to a library. I have. I have yet to find one of your claims damning to our claims of veracity. We do not, as you insinuate above, demand that anyone trust our word. But a step beyond the library we send them to the greatest archive in the universe, GOD. Prayer and faith based on personal revelation is the only unshakable foundation on which one can gain an enduring testimony of the sacrifice of Christ.

A person doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to be able to do any of this. Basic, simple, honest approach that is upfront about it being questioned, even encouraged to do so as to verify what is being told.

Prayer requires even less. The millions of illiterate people troughout the world don't need to wait to learn to read to be able to get an answer in prayer from God. They would not, however be privy to the benefit of the archives of any library.

No wonder your group had to sell it's building here in town. Such isn't the sort of approach nor honesty that is going to draw people to it.

Again I had mentioned at the begining of this post that we clearly do not agree on what the missionaries should do upon entering a home. That disagrement has no bering on the reason the building was sold and for you to extrapolate the argument of a single member on a single issue as being the cause of a building being sold is absured.

HUH?? Let me put it in a way that you might grasp. Why not you open your doors to the Christians and allow them free reign within your home to say as they wish and say nothing back unless it is agreement with what they say. Cause that is what it sure is looking like what you want.

Let's try your scenerio. Say I call up a traditional Christian and claim that I am interested in joining their church. She or he decides to oblige my curriosity and they enter my home. Now let's say I start teaching them from our missionary discussions. Is that appropriate? I'm giving him equal amount of time. I've allowed him into my home so he should go by my rules. If he thinks he can just give his message with limited comments from me regarding his message then has he got another thing comming because I have the 'responsibility' to warn him.

That ANYONE is getting sucked in with such an approach should be a real wakeup call to Christians to show them that the fields really are ready for harvest and to get out there and reach out to the person next to them and share the true gospel with them!

That's RIGHT come to our house cause the field is ready to harvest!

BTW - when people have come to my door for a variety of reasons and come into my home and I have an opening - I do share what I have been so graciously given by God. Such is what every true believer is called to - as stated before.

Do you preach to every door to door salesman that comes by?

Not hard. I have a folder here at the house full of pages from books that have been copied for me by the library. There are any number of sites online that will show you all the changes made within your book of Mormon, changes made, direct quotes from Mormon books - a host of things.

It isn't like it is hard to find. All you have to do is look.

Rene

I thought it might give you motive to share my words with them in exchange for my promise of reading your message. We would often be approached by christians that would promise to go to our church if we went to theirs. I was thinking of something along that line. You let them read this and I'll agree to read your message.

Mustard Seed

May 23rd, 2004, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by godrulz

MS: I am a paramedic. I am not sure who the metal worker is.

Sorry. I hope you understand the gist of my argument.

My experience with Mormons at work was not meant to be an ad hominem attack (attack person vs beliefs). People of all faiths fall away from their commitments. I was expressing concern and grief how 'religious people' can go astray, and the necessity of knowing the Lord. I do feel a Mormon is as spiritually lost as a pagan.

I do not see things as absolutely accross the board. I believe that there are differences in the truths contained in various faiths and hence a difference in which would be prefered over another. I would far prefer one be a Christian than an atheist or Pagan but you can have very good and very bad people that run the gamut of belief affiliation.

If we turn from something, it is important what we turn to.

Agreed.

There is another gospel and another Jesus of a different kind being preached. Diametrically opposed views cannot both be right.

True.

The key is not just to have Jesus Christ on the name of your church, but to correctly know and understand the Jesus revealed in Scripture.

True.

Trusting a counterfeit or believing in the wrong identity is worthless (cf. currency).

If you in the end are unwilling to advance then that is true. The Apostle Neal A. Maxwell said (I paraphrase as I cannot at the moment find the actual quote) If you have not chosen the Kingdom of God then in the end it will not matter what you have chosen.

I realize you feel you do have the right gospel and Jesus. I feel the evidence is against that.

The feeling is equal on this side. I respect your right to that.

rene

May 23rd, 2004, 10:43 PM

I bring up the valid and truthful point that Mormon's hold "The Pearl of Great Price" in higher esteem that the bible - and you claim"This is not a true accusation." Instead what to talk about possible errors within translations of the bible and ignore the point made. That is known as sidestepping. By the way, just in case you didn't know, the Mormon church cannonized it in 1880. So much for your claims of me making an untrue accusation......

You then ignore what I have written about showing them anything from you because your intent is to keep them within Mormonism and from hearing the gospel of Jesus that brings eternal life and salvation. I clearly stated why - and you want to suggest it is "fear"? Wrong. Just not going to be part of exposing people to such as what your belief has been exposing them to. Very simple. Very clearly stated. As to the "fear" - it seems more clear with each post of yours that it is you that are in such a state because someone is exposing what you follow to the light of the true gospel.

As to the library that you claim to have gone to, which I would question the quality of that library if it could not indeed find all that I have written - try the national library. They can fax pages from the books and pages I have already posted here - since you can't seem to find it online or at the public library.

I point out that I don't see people here that are Christians asking to go to Mormon sites as you have done here - but you still want to see yourself in the 'poor pitiful me' light - which is not a true reflection of this area at all.

As to your example of going to a Christians home and trying to teach about Mormonism? People that I know I have no doubt would be able to do just as I have been doing - take what you want to suggest as truth and show you the real truth that is found within Jesus. The Jesus that doesn't have the brother of Jesus as Lucifer, the Jesus born of a virgin and not because God had sex with a mortal woman as your writings suggest. Trust me, I have no doubt that when you walked out that door you would have heard the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Promised One whom it is only thru Him that any can hope to have relationship with God.

It is such people that will indeed have a home with God in heaven - which is in no way as Mormon writings suggest with men with their individual planets and levels and the like. You would be exposed to the only teaching that brings one to the knowledge of salvation - and it isn't thru any 'temple' ceremony either.

You know what is the real hoot in all this - they started talking just like you - till I pointed to them on paper, books, computer, and then gently take them thru the bible and show them what is within it. Same things as I have been presenting to you. I challenged them to take a look and verify all that I had - and if they could prove me wrong - I would become a Mormon. You on the other hand claim that you can find nothing at all - not even in a library, website, even with the page numbers listed for you, can't seem to find them within books printed under Mormon publishers. Claim that it isn't there... strange, cause those that have been coming to my home seemed to have been able to find it.

I am not a Mormon - and they are coming back to learn more.

Rene

Mustard Seed

May 24th, 2004, 12:08 AM

Originally posted by rene

I bring up the valid and truthful point that Mormon's hold "The Pearl of Great Price" in higher esteem that the bible - and you claim"This is not a true accusation." Instead what to talk about possible errors within translations of the bible and ignore the point made. That is known as sidestepping. By the way, just in case you didn't know, the Mormon church cannonized it in 1880. So much for your claims of me making an untrue accusation......

We hold it on the same level as the Bible. You did misrepresent it. I wasn't side stepping I was countering your most likely response. I'm well aware it is cannonized. The KJV is too. They are on the same level.

As to the library that you claim to have gone to, which I would question the quality of that library if it could not indeed find all that I have written - try the national library. They can fax pages from the books and pages I have already posted here - since you can't seem to find it online or at the public library.

The Marriot Library, though named for a member of our church, is on a campus that is likely the most anti-Mormon campus in the world.

the Jesus born of a virgin and not because God had sex with a mortal woman as your writings suggest.

I suggested nothing. The details of that are not disclosed and our not our bussiness.

You know what is the real hoot in all this - they started talking just like you - till I pointed to them on paper, books, computer, and then gently take them thru the bible and show them what is within it. Same things as I have been presenting to you. I challenged them to take a look and verify all that I had - and if they could prove me wrong - I would become a Mormon. You on the other hand claim that you can find nothing at all - not even in a library, website, even with the page numbers listed for you, can't seem to find them within books printed under Mormon publishers. Claim that it isn't there... strange, cause those that have been coming to my home seemed to have been able to find it.

What I have yet to find is an argument that is valid in it's facts that has not been adequatly refuted by one or more possible explanations. Just because I do not assume the worse or assume the conclusion you do does not mean I have not considered the facts. I've likely seen all the evidence you have shown them. The difference is that I have seen viable responses that Either render your arguments invalid or alot more complicated than many on your side claim them to be.

I am not a Mormon - and they are coming back to learn more.

Rene

I pray they discern the truth. As I'm pretty sure you do.

rene

May 24th, 2004, 12:40 AM

What I have yet to find is an argument that is valid in it's facts that has not been adequatly refuted by one or more possible explanations. Just because I do not assume the worse or assume the conclusion you do does not mean I have not considered the facts. I've likely seen all the evidence you have shown them. The difference is that I have seen viable responses that Either render your arguments invalid or alot more complicated than many on your side claim them to be.

What I have yet to find is a person that has the ablity to find with a simple search engine online any number of the things written of that lists book names, page numbers, edition - all that anyone needs to get a copy of a desired page from within a book from the library. If you don't know how to do it - ask the librarian. If they can't seem to do it - find a GOOD LIBRARY, cause the one that your going to is not up to par with the one that I have in a town of under 15,000 farming community where many of the books are paperbacks because there isn't money for better.

Consider the facts? You haven't even done an honest look with a search engine on the internet if you can't find anything that I have written about. Google gave thousands of hits - but you can't seem to find any......

And with all this - you want to suggest considering what you have written about you lack of ablity to find - that you say you can't find - that your going to "render your [ my ] arguments invalid?? No - not even a possiblity. One thing that I know for sure is that God never fails. It isn't me that your attempting to come up against, but the very spirit of God that many upon this list have tried to share with you. What you have to fall back on is a prophet with failed prophecies and writings that clearly change the entire meaning and direction of it's writings and then says that it didn't (or claim like you have just done that it can't be found even with page numbers and the like published by Mormon publishers even).

All things considered - I am standing on the Rock while you on the shifting sands.

Rene

godrulz

May 24th, 2004, 12:57 AM

John 10; Ps. 82 have nothing to do with 'gods in embryo'= blasphemous lie of Satan.

Proper exegesis and context shows that Ps. 82:6 is talking about mere human judges...they were condemned as false gods who will die like mere men (82:7). They were not gods by nature.

Jesus was building an argument that He is God in the flesh (Jn. 1:1;14). He quoted the passage to support His Deity, not to teach polytheism or the deification of creatures. If humans were called gods, why do you think it strange that I claim to be God (Jews believed in one God and felt it blasphemy to claim to be God. The Trinity is the only way to understand all relevant verses that teach monotheism and distinctions in the one God).

There is only one uncreated Creator God. There are many so-called gods, who are false gods and not God by nature.

Gal. 4:8...by nature are not gods...

I Cor. 8:4-6 gods are idols...there is only one triune God.

rene

May 24th, 2004, 01:48 AM

Mormonism teaches that trillions of planets scattered throughout the cosmos are ruled by countless gods who once were human like us. That long ago, on one of these planets, to an unidentified god and one of his goddess wives, a spirit child named Elohim was conceived. This spirit child was later born to human parents who gave him a physical body. Through obedience to Mormon teaching, death, and resurrection, he proved himself worthy and was elevated to godhood as his father before him. Mormons believe that Elohim is their Heavenly Father and that he lives with his many wives on a planet near a mysterious star called "Kolob". There the god of Mormonism and his wives, through endless Celestial sex, produced billions of spirit children. (”God is an exalted man who once lived on an earth and underwent experiences of mortality.... His marriage partner is our mother in heaven. We are their spirit children, born to them in the bonds of Celestial marriage.” [Achieving Celestial Marriage Manual, p.129-130]. “Have all the people born in this world first been conceived as spirit children–been fathered by Elohim? Of course.” pp. 50-51)

To decide their destiny, the head of the Mormon gods called a great heavenly council meeting. Both of Elohim’s eldest sons were there, Lucifer and his brother Jesus. (yeah, your seeing right - they teach that Lucifer is the brother of Jesus)

The plan was presented to build planet Earth where the spirit children would be sent to take on mortal bodies and learn good from evil. Lucifer stood and made his bid for becoming savior of this new world. Wanting the glory for himself, he planned to force everyone to become gods. Opposing the idea, the Mormon Jesus suggested giving man his freedom of choice as on other planets. The vote that followed approved the proposal of the Mormon Jesus who would become savior of the planet Earth. Enraged, Lucifer cunningly convinced one-third of the spirits destined for earth to fight with him and revolt. Thus Lucifer became the devil and his followers the demons. Sent to this world, they would forever be denied bodies of flesh and bone. Those who remained neutral in the battle were cursed to be born with black skin. This is the Mormon explanation for the black race. ("The Lord forgave them any preexistence punishment in 1978, and now they too can hold the priesthood– which actually was the real punishment, not the skin color. And now blacks can marry in the temple.” p. 53 - I am sure that the blacks just LOVE this - NOT)

The spirits that fought most valiantly against Lucifer would be born into Mormon families on planet Earth. These would be the lighter-skinned people, or ‘white and delightsome,’ as the Book of Mormon describes them.”

Early Mormon prophets taught that Elohim and one of his goddess wives came to the earth as Adam and Eve to start the human race. Thousands of years later, Elohim in human form once again journeyed to earth from the star base Kolob, this time to have physical relations with the Virgin Mary in order to provide Jesus with a physical body.(”We do believe in the virgin birth.... Mary was certainly a virgin before she was overshadowed by Heavenly Father.” pp. 54-55)

Mormon Apostle Orson Hyde taught that after Jesus Christ grew to manhood, he took at least three wives– Mary, Martha, and Mary Magdalene. Through these wives the Mormon Jesus supposedly fathered a number of children before he was crucified. Mormon founder Joseph Smith is supposedly one of his descendants.” (”None of that is currently taught by any authority in the Church. ... Joseph Smith, through personal revelation, told several of the early leaders that they were descendants of Jesus. The rest comes from old speeches in the Journal of Discourses which we don’t accept as doctrinal today.” Decker, p. 55. Question then is, what does one follow a prophet that is found to be wrong/false?)

According to the Book of Mormon, after his resurrection Jesus came to the Americas to preach to the Indians, who the Mormons believe are really Israelites. Thus the Jesus of Mormonism established his church in the Americas as he had in Palestine. By the year 421 A.D., the dark-skinned Israelites, known as the Lamanites, had destroyed all of the white-skinned Nephites in a number of great battles. The Nephites’ records were supposedly written on golden plates buried by Moroni, the last living Nephite, in the Hill Cummorah. 1400 years later a young treasure-seeker named Joseph Smith, who was known for his tall tales, claimed to have uncovered the same gold plates near his home in upstate New York. He is now honored by Mormons as a prophet because he claimed to have had visions from the spirit world in which he was commanded to organize the Mormon Church because all Christian creeds were an abomination. It was Joseph Smith who originated most of these peculiar doctrines which millions today believe to be true.

“By maintaining a rigid code of financial and moral requirements, and through performing secret temple rituals for themselves and the dead, the Latter-day Saints hope to prove their worthiness and thus become gods. The Mormons teach that everyone must stand at the final judgment before Joseph Smith, the Mormon Jesus, and Elohim. (”Joseph Smith holds the keys to this dispensation– he is its head and will be throughout all eternity. Of course he will be at the judgment bar, but I can assure you that he is there as your friend to plead your case if need be. But nobody will go to the Celestial Kingdom without his express approval.” p. 60 {Come unto Christ, The Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide (Salt Lake City: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 1983-1986) pp. 139-145).

Those Mormons who were sealed in the eternal marriage ceremony expect to become polygamous gods in the Celestial Kingdom, rule over other planets, and spawn new families throughout eternity. The Mormons thank God for Joseph Smith, who claimed that he had done more for us than any other man, including Jesus Christ. The Mormons claim that he died as a martyr and shed his blood for us so that we too may become Gods. (such isn't within the bible - but then hey, this isn't the bible were talking about)

Facts of what the Mormons believe, teach, and follow:

"God was once a mortal man. He lived on a planet like our own. He experienced conditions similar to our own and advanced step by step." (Achieving Celestial Marriage Manual {ACCM}, 1976, p. 129L/R)

"God is now an exalted man with powers of eternal increase. He lives in an exalted Marriage relationship." (ACMM page 129L)

"We are the literal Children of God, a part of his family unit. We lived with our heavenly parents before coming to earth." (ACMM 129R, 130L)

"Giving birth to spirit children and setting them on the road to exaltation. And if this is to be done, you must have an exalted man and exalted woman." (ACMM page 4RL)

"If God became God by obedience to all of the gospel law with the crowning point being the celestial law of marriage, then that’s the only way I can become a god." (ACMM page 3R)

"Baptism for the dead: the keys to the holy priesthood ordained so you may receive honor and glory; for their salvation [the dead] is necessary and essential to our salvation." (Doctrine and Covenants 124:28-36; 127:128; 128:15 - not the priesthood and the head over it as told within the bible, nor even close to what the bible speaks about salvation)

and one from the book that is considered to be "cannonized" by Mormons:

"All Christian creeds were an abomination in his sight." (JS 2:17-20 "Pearl of Great Price") Does make one wonder why they want to be called Christian.

Making this up? No, don't have to. Reality is more than enough.

Rene

SOTK

May 24th, 2004, 02:20 AM

Originally posted by rene

Mormonism teaches that trillions of planets scattered throughout the cosmos are ruled by countless gods who once were human like us. That long ago, on one of these planets, to an unidentified god and one of his goddess wives, a spirit child named Elohim was conceived. This spirit child was later born to human parents who gave him a physical body. Through obedience to Mormon teaching, death, and resurrection, he proved himself worthy and was elevated to godhood as his father before him. Mormons believe that Elohim is their Heavenly Father and that he lives with his many wives on a planet near a mysterious star called "Kolob". There the god of Mormonism and his wives, through endless Celestial sex, produced billions of spirit children. (”God is an exalted man who once lived on an earth and underwent experiences of mortality.... His marriage partner is our mother in heaven. We are their spirit children, born to them in the bonds of Celestial marriage.” [Achieving Celestial Marriage Manual, p.129-130]. “Have all the people born in this world first been conceived as spirit children–been fathered by Elohim? Of course.” pp. 50-51)

To decide their destiny, the head of the Mormon gods called a great heavenly council meeting. Both of Elohim’s eldest sons were there, Lucifer and his brother Jesus. (yeah, your seeing right - they teach that Lucifer is the brother of Jesus)

The plan was presented to build planet Earth where the spirit children would be sent to take on mortal bodies and learn good from evil. Lucifer stood and made his bid for becoming savior of this new world. Wanting the glory for himself, he planned to force everyone to become gods. Opposing the idea, the Mormon Jesus suggested giving man his freedom of choice as on other planets. The vote that followed approved the proposal of the Mormon Jesus who would become savior of the planet Earth. Enraged, Lucifer cunningly convinced one-third of the spirits destined for earth to fight with him and revolt. Thus Lucifer became the devil and his followers the demons. Sent to this world, they would forever be denied bodies of flesh and bone. Those who remained neutral in the battle were cursed to be born with black skin. This is the Mormon explanation for the black race. ("The Lord forgave them any preexistence punishment in 1978, and now they too can hold the priesthood– which actually was the real punishment, not the skin color. And now blacks can marry in the temple.” p. 53 - I am sure that the blacks just LOVE this - NOT)

The spirits that fought most valiantly against Lucifer would be born into Mormon families on planet Earth. These would be the lighter-skinned people, or ‘white and delightsome,’ as the Book of Mormon describes them.”

Early Mormon prophets taught that Elohim and one of his goddess wives came to the earth as Adam and Eve to start the human race. Thousands of years later, Elohim in human form once again journeyed to earth from the star base Kolob, this time to have physical relations with the Virgin Mary in order to provide Jesus with a physical body.(”We do believe in the virgin birth.... Mary was certainly a virgin before she was overshadowed by Heavenly Father.” pp. 54-55)

Mormon Apostle Orson Hyde taught that after Jesus Christ grew to manhood, he took at least three wives– Mary, Martha, and Mary Magdalene. Through these wives the Mormon Jesus supposedly fathered a number of children before he was crucified. Mormon founder Joseph Smith is supposedly one of his descendants.” (”None of that is currently taught by any authority in the Church. ... Joseph Smith, through personal revelation, told several of the early leaders that they were descendants of Jesus. The rest comes from old speeches in the Journal of Discourses which we don’t accept as doctrinal today.” Decker, p. 55. Question then is, what does one follow a prophet that is found to be wrong/false?)

According to the Book of Mormon, after his resurrection Jesus came to the Americas to preach to the Indians, who the Mormons believe are really Israelites. Thus the Jesus of Mormonism established his church in the Americas as he had in Palestine. By the year 421 A.D., the dark-skinned Israelites, known as the Lamanites, had destroyed all of the white-skinned Nephites in a number of great battles. The Nephites’ records were supposedly written on golden plates buried by Moroni, the last living Nephite, in the Hill Cummorah. 1400 years later a young treasure-seeker named Joseph Smith, who was known for his tall tales, claimed to have uncovered the same gold plates near his home in upstate New York. He is now honored by Mormons as a prophet because he claimed to have had visions from the spirit world in which he was commanded to organize the Mormon Church because all Christian creeds were an abomination. It was Joseph Smith who originated most of these peculiar doctrines which millions today believe to be true.

“By maintaining a rigid code of financial and moral requirements, and through performing secret temple rituals for themselves and the dead, the Latter-day Saints hope to prove their worthiness and thus become gods. The Mormons teach that everyone must stand at the final judgment before Joseph Smith, the Mormon Jesus, and Elohim. (”Joseph Smith holds the keys to this dispensation– he is its head and will be throughout all eternity. Of course he will be at the judgment bar, but I can assure you that he is there as your friend to plead your case if need be. But nobody will go to the Celestial Kingdom without his express approval.” p. 60 {Come unto Christ, The Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide (Salt Lake City: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 1983-1986) pp. 139-145).

Those Mormons who were sealed in the eternal marriage ceremony expect to become polygamous gods in the Celestial Kingdom, rule over other planets, and spawn new families throughout eternity. The Mormons thank God for Joseph Smith, who claimed that he had done more for us than any other man, including Jesus Christ. The Mormons claim that he died as a martyr and shed his blood for us so that we too may become Gods. (such isn't within the bible - but then hey, this isn't the bible were talking about)

Facts of what the Mormons believe, teach, and follow:

"God was once a mortal man. He lived on a planet like our own. He experienced conditions similar to our own and advanced step by step." (Achieving Celestial Marriage Manual {ACCM}, 1976, p. 129L/R)

"God is now an exalted man with powers of eternal increase. He lives in an exalted Marriage relationship." (ACMM page 129L)

"We are the literal Children of God, a part of his family unit. We lived with our heavenly parents before coming to earth." (ACMM 129R, 130L)

"Giving birth to spirit children and setting them on the road to exaltation. And if this is to be done, you must have an exalted man and exalted woman." (ACMM page 4RL)

"If God became God by obedience to all of the gospel law with the crowning point being the celestial law of marriage, then that’s the only way I can become a god." (ACMM page 3R)

"Baptism for the dead: the keys to the holy priesthood ordained so you may receive honor and glory; for their salvation [the dead] is necessary and essential to our salvation." (Doctrine and Covenants 124:28-36; 127:128; 128:15 - not the priesthood and the head over it as told within the bible, nor even close to what the bible speaks about salvation)

and one from the book that is considered to be "cannonized" by Mormons:

"All Christian creeds were an abomination in his sight." (JS 2:17-20 "Pearl of Great Price") Does make one wonder why they want to be called Christian.

Making this up? No, don't have to. Reality is more than enough.

Rene

:darwinsm:

I've read all this before myself. It's insane! It reminds me of Greek Mythology. The sick thing is that your average mormon has no idea that crazy garbage like this even exists within mormonism. I've met more mormons who have never heard of this stuff and were surpised when I brought it up. I had to bring out my book and show it to them before they would believe it!

rene

May 24th, 2004, 07:27 AM

You are indeed correct. These young people that came to my doorstep attempting to promote what they thought that they knew about indeed were shocked to find out these things.

The saddest thing is that there is even MORE than just this. A whole HOST of things that one can quote, give page numbers to verify to those that doubt.

My one example is just a very small portion of what is out there to be found with no trouble at all - if one is honest enough to actually look.

Rene

godrulz

May 24th, 2004, 11:11 AM

The maze of Mormonism is fascinating and frightening. It reminds me of the religion started by science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard. These 'new revelations' are fanciful, but fraudulent.

They are a different gospel with no roots in biblical, historical, orthodox Christianity (1st century). They are modern inventions by controversial characters. They do not have divine authority or credibility.

rene

May 24th, 2004, 01:05 PM

The one thing that I noticed is that when they come to the door, they really are not expecting to find someone that knows anything about God at all. The fact that I could question their comments and give ref. from within the bible kept their suggested meanings def. not a strong position supported by scripture at all. It wasn't long within the meeting that they asked me questions - and it just sort of took off from there.

It is just that for too long, we Christians have let the false take over. Would/Could/Did/n't stand up for what we believe. Not vocally anyway. We let them say that to stand up for our beliefs within our own homes, places that we go, with people that we meet - is somehow 'wrong' when they are doing that very thing themselves - and in our own homes even. And we allowed it - for way too long.

The body of Christ needs to get up off the recliners and start making stands for what they know to be true. Quit sitting back in the disquise of 'being Christian' but instead step out and be one as the bible states. Quit allowing the false to run free with no showing of the truth of the gospel, sharing it with all that we meet (as the bible tells us to do).

When they make claims to certain 'facts' that you know are not true - reason with them, attempt to show and discuss with them. Show the real FACTS of what it is that they are following compared to the real gospel that brings eternal life and full relationship with God. Some will deny - for awhile. But one day, they are going to have to come to grips with what they have been shown and told about and those seeds shown by those in Jesus Christ and not Joseph Smith or any other person making similar claims will either bring forth fruit or not. The choice is theirs in the end. But till they have been shown and understand - how can they even make such a choice?

Rene

Mustard Seed

May 24th, 2004, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by godrulz

John 10; Ps. 82 have nothing to do with 'gods in embryo'= blasphemous lie of Satan.

Proper exegesis and context shows that Ps. 82:6 is talking about mere human judges...they were condemned as false gods who will die like mere men (82:7). They were not gods by nature.

With all of your talk of 'proper exegesis' (a favorite claim in your arguments) you never go into much detail as to why yours is the true and 'proper exegesis' you just make some statement or site some scripture without explaining why it is such evidence supports your 'proper exegesis'. Let's see your actual evidence the verse 7 you claim supports your 'proper' view. How does it stand?

6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

(Old Testament | Psalms 82:6 - 7)

I see no claim of wickedness or being false gods as you claim. It simply states that they will die 'like one fo the princes' and last I recall that's exactly what occured with Christ. Yet such an occurance did not render him a false god. Points like this shoe the improper exegesis that you are actualy using.

Jesus was building an argument that He is God in the flesh (Jn. 1:1;14). He quoted the passage to support His Deity, not to teach polytheism or the deification of creatures. If humans were called gods, why do you think it strange that I claim to be God (Jews believed in one God and felt it blasphemy to claim to be God. The Trinity is the only way to understand all relevant verses that teach monotheism and distinctions in the one God).

Granted I've refuted these arguments in times past yet you still bring them up and they will be thrown down just as they were before.

Let's look at your next claim.

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

(New Testament | John 10:34 - 36)

Now there are only two 'he's that it could be refering to. Either God or a prophet of God. We see that if it is a prophet of God it is a true one because that which was spoken was 'the word of God' and scripture. Either way your claim falls on it's face.

There is only one uncreated Creator God. There are many so-called gods, who are false gods and not God by nature.

Gal. 4:8...by nature are not gods...

In the context you refused to present.

7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.
8 Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.

(New Testament | Galatians 4:7 - 8)

[quote]I Cor. 8:4-6 gods are idols...there is only one triune God.

As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.
5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

(New Testament | 1 Corinthians 8:4 - 6)

Nowhere is there the word triune. There are two members represented but nowhere does it say they are one being. It simply says they are one God. If one becomes one with God and hence becomes a God that in no way means that their is more than one God for all the gods are one. Show us where in the orginal greek text it says triune. Or will you admit that that is extra-biblical?

Mustard Seed

May 24th, 2004, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by rene

Mormonism teaches that trillions of planets scattered throughout the cosmos are ruled by countless gods who once were human like us. That long ago, on one of these planets, to an unidentified god and one of his goddess wives, a spirit child named Elohim was conceived. This spirit child was later born to human parents who gave him a physical body.

You extrapolate and place in assumed details. This is not our doctrine but rather guess work that is layed out in a manner that is hoping for the reaction of disbelief. You are as astute and accurate in your telling of the story as old Decker was in "God Makers" unfortunatly as has been proven he wasn't all that accurate or astute in that production.

Through obedience to Mormon teaching, death, and resurrection, he proved himself worthy and was elevated to godhood as his father before him. Mormons believe that Elohim is their Heavenly Father and that he lives with his many wives on a planet near a mysterious star called "Kolob". There the god of Mormonism and his wives, through endless Celestial sex, produced billions of spirit children. (”God is an exalted man who once lived on an earth and underwent experiences of mortality.... His marriage partner is our mother in heaven. We are their spirit children, born to them in the bonds of Celestial marriage.” [Achieving Celestial Marriage Manual, p.129-130].

The trivial manner in which you assume things makes apparent your lack of desire for exactness. Your claims again are largely assumed ideas based on a few words you've found in our doctrine. What you are diaplaying is NOT doctrine.

“Have all the people born in this world first been conceived as spirit children–been fathered by Elohim? Of course.” pp. 50-51)

To decide their destiny, the head of the Mormon gods called a great heavenly council meeting. Both of Elohim’s eldest sons were there, Lucifer and his brother Jesus. (yeah, your seeing right - they teach that Lucifer is the brother of Jesus)

There is no scripture in the Bible that can counter that claim. Has God talked to you and told you otherwise?

You are doing nothing different than Ed Decker. You simply take a religion then mock it by telling it's story in comic book fashion. Oversimplification combined with broad extrapolation allows you to mock that which is sacred and perpetuate lies through so many assumptions. You litter it with references and think that somehow makes it scholarship.

The plan was presented to build planet Earth where the spirit children would be sent to take on mortal bodies and learn good from evil. Lucifer stood and made his bid for becoming savior of this new world. Wanting the glory for himself, he planned to force everyone to become gods.

He was not going to force everyone to become Gods. He wanted to surpase all including the Father. He wanted to become the sole ruler.

Opposing the idea, the Mormon Jesus suggested giving man his freedom of choice as on other planets. The vote that followed approved the proposal of the Mormon Jesus who would become savior of the planet Earth. Enraged, Lucifer cunningly convinced one-third of the spirits destined for earth to fight with him and revolt. Thus Lucifer became the devil and his followers the demons. Sent to this world, they would forever be denied bodies of flesh and bone. Those who remained neutral in the battle were cursed to be born with black skin. This is the Mormon explanation for the black race.

That last part is not doctrine. While we do believe that there was variance in degrees of fidelity among the spirits we do NOT believe that dark skin is a marking of such a position. It has been a hypothesis of some at an earlier time in our church. They were not perfect men and many had biases and bigotry that was not correct.

I challenge you to show me where it states such in our doctrine.

("The Lord forgave them any preexistence punishment in 1978, and now they too can hold the priesthood– which actually was the real punishment, not the skin color. And now blacks can marry in the temple.” p. 53 - I am sure that the blacks just LOVE this - NOT)

Again all based on your assumptions of what a few statements mean. You are largely extrapolating and inserting things that are not true.

The spirits that fought most valiantly against Lucifer would be born into Mormon families on planet Earth. These would be the lighter-skinned people, or ‘white and delightsome,’ as the Book of Mormon describes them.”

Again that is not supported in our doctrine with regard to skin color. Ther are thousands that were as valiant if not more so that have darker skin. You do err not understanding the scriptures.

Early Mormon prophets taught that Elohim and one of his goddess wives came to the earth as Adam and Eve to start the human race. Thousands of years later, Elohim in human form once again journeyed to earth from the star base Kolob, this time to have physical relations with the Virgin Mary in order to provide Jesus with a physical body.(”We do believe in the virgin birth.... Mary was certainly a virgin before she was overshadowed by Heavenly Father.” pp. 54-55)

Let us see the source and the whole context. You also assume to know the details of what that all entails when such details are never given. Assumptions is what you base most of your arguments on which is why they fall to pieces.

Mormon Apostle Orson Hyde taught that after Jesus Christ grew to manhood, he took at least three wives– Mary, Martha, and Mary Magdalene. Through these wives the Mormon Jesus supposedly fathered a number of children before he was crucified. Mormon founder Joseph Smith is supposedly one of his descendants.” (”None of that is currently taught by any authority in the Church. ... Joseph Smith, through personal revelation, told several of the early leaders that they were descendants of Jesus. The rest comes from old speeches in the Journal of Discourses which we don’t accept as doctrinal today.” Decker, p. 55. Question then is, what does one follow a prophet that is found to be wrong/false?)

So you ARE just copying and pasting from Decker! THAT'S SAD. Regarding old Decker. Try reading volume four of the series "They Lie in Wait to Deceive" series. The book is almost entirely comprised of signed aftidavids that rip his book to shreads. I would say at LEAST half of the aftidavids are NOT from members of our church. If you are willing to trust Ed Deckers word on matters of Salvation then you haven't an icecubes chance on the sun of acheiving salvation. The man wrote the 'expose' after cheating on his wife. Even a great number of those who fight our church have GREATLY tried to distance themselves from this man because of his treacherous and hypocritical nature and the lack of any semblance of scholarship in his works.

According to the Book of Mormon, after his resurrection Jesus came to the Americas to preach to the Indians, who the Mormons believe are really Israelites.

Neither the Book of Mormon nor any of our prophets have claimed that the Israelites were the only ones here in the Americas. In fact there is evidence in the Book of Mormon that they weren't. Another assumption.

Your other arguments which have been addressed MANY times I will leave for you to reference the other threads where they have been answered or I'll send you to FAIR (http://www.fairlds.org) to hear our side to avoid redoing that which has been done so well so many times before to the exact same things you are misrepresenting here.

...Making this up? No, don't have to. Reality is more than enough.

Rene

You do make up much of it through unwarrented assumptions and their subsequent extrapolated/displayed-in-the-worse-possible-light 'points'.

King David

May 24th, 2004, 03:48 PM

I would like to thank all of my "Mormon" friends for posting on this thread that I started. Rene and others all do their "doggone" best (since their inspiration doth not come from above on this, as they try to string things together) to make "Mormonism" into something that it isn't.

For he who (I don't remember whose relatively recent post it was (within the last 2 or 3 pages, I believe) who supposed that MS and I, KING DAVID were young freshly returned missionaries (with all of our zeal), I want to thank him first for his compliment. This 50-year old body that recently laid to rest his father of 82-years of age is made to feel the fire within his bones, once again, by such allusions to my youth!

Secondly, I want to thank those kind 'traditional Christians' who allow us to post on this forum! And would remind him, who likes to remind us of the grace so proffered us, that we are all here on this greater forum (earth) at the kind providence of one even more worthy of our praise and adulation.

And, I would here like to first take the brief opportunity (I can not spend the time here I use to -- in my 'youth'), to go to a point on which we are so often accused of blasphemy -- that God the Father and Jesus Christ, his son, are two personages of a Godhead that has three members (the third being the Holy Ghost).

Now I ask you, what evidence more could we have of the truth of our position, (that each has a body of their own of flesh and bones) than eyewitness accounts of those who have seen them?

So, let me take you there.

For my first witness, I call, Joseph Smith to the stand. As a boy of only 14 years of age, he claims to have seen, when praying in a grove of woods near his parents' home, two personages whose glory and brightness defy all description, descend in a column of light. He had gone into the woods to inquire of them which of all the (then extant) churches was right (or was God's), for he did not believe they could all be right (Jesus did say that his house is not divided). He was told by the one whom God the Father had introduced as "My beloved son, in whom I am well pleased" (who would be, of course, Jesus Christ), who told Joseph that he should join none of them.

Now, as Joseph Smith himself testified--

23 It caused me serious reflection then, and often has since, how very strange it was that an obscure boy, of a little over fourteen years of age, and one, too, who was doomed to the necessity of obtaining a scanty maintenance by his daily labor, should be thought a character of sufficient importance to attract the attention of the great ones of the most popular sects of the day, and in a manner to create in them a spirit of the most bitter persecution and reviling. But strange or not, so it was, and it was often the cause of great sorrow to myself.

24 However, it was nevertheless a fact that I had beheld a vision. I have thought since, that I felt much like Paul, when he made his defense before King Agrippa, and related the account of the vision he had when he saw a light, and heard a voice; but still there were but few who believed him; some said he was dishonest, others said he was mad; and he was ridiculed and reviled. But all this did not destroy the reality of his vision. He had seen a vision, he knew he had, and all the persecution under heaven could not make it otherwise; and though they should persecute him unto death, yet he knew, and would know to his latest breath, that he had both seen a light and heard a voice speaking unto him, and all the world could not make him think or believe otherwise.

25 So it was with me. I had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that light I saw two Personages, and they did in reality speak to me; and though I was hated and persecuted for saying that I had seen a vision, yet it was true; and while they were persecuting me, reviling me, and speaking all manner of evil against me falsely for so saying, I was led to say in my heart: Why persecute me for telling the truth? I have actually seen a vision; and who am I that I can withstand God, or why does the world think to make me deny what I have actually seen? For I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it, neither dared I do it; at least I knew that by so doing I would offend God, and come under condemnation.

(Pearl of Great Price | JS-History 1:23 - 25)

He sealed his testimony of this and all of his work with his own blood, as did many of the prophets and apostles of old.

Now, I call to the stand, Stephen, the first martyr after the death and resurrection of Jesus, in the one and only Church that Jesus Christ established during his mortal ministry.

This is the account we have of his stoning--

55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

57 Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord,

58 And cast him out of the city, and stoned him
(New Testament | Acts 7:55 - 58)

Stephen was, as the scripture above says "full of the Holy Ghost", he saw and he bore witness-- "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God."

Clearly, to any thinking, reasoning person, while the accounts are by no means identical, it is quite evident they witnessed a similar vision. Both each saw God the Father. Both saw "the Son", or Jesus Christ. Stephen says that Jesus (the "son of man") was on the right hand of God. Now, I ask this again, as I have asked before. Either God the Father and Jesus Christ are two separate personages, or "Jesus was 'beside himself'"-- which really seems like an assenine understanding of this.

Now, as to God the Father and Jesus Christ being two separate personages, but yet being One God, let me indicate that such is so as per the following explanation, given in the Book of Mormon--

1 AND now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.

2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—

3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—

4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

5 And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people.

6 And after all this, after working many mighty miracles among the children of men, he shall be led, yea, even as Isaiah said, as a sheep before the shearer is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.

7 Yea, even so he shall be led, crucified, and slain, the flesh becoming subject even unto death, the will of the Son being swallowed up in the will of the Father.

8 And thus God breaketh the bands of death, having gained the victory over death; giving the Son power to make intercession for the children of men—

9 Having ascended into heaven, having the bowels of mercy; being filled with compassion towards the children of men; standing betwixt them and justice; having broken the bands of death, taken upon himself their iniquity and their transgressions, having redeemed them, and satisfied the demands of justice.

10 And now I say unto you, who shall declare his generation? Behold, I say unto you, that when his soul has been made an offering for sin he shall see his seed. And now what say ye? And who shall be his seed?

11 Behold I say unto you, that whosoever has heard the words of the prophets, yea, all the holy prophets who have prophesied concerning the coming of the Lord—I say unto you, that all those who have hearkened unto their words, and believed that the Lord would redeem his people, and have looked forward to that day for a remission of their sins, I say unto you, that these are his seed, or they are the heirs of the kingdom of God.

12 For these are they whose sins he has borne; these are they for whom he has died, to redeem them from their transgressions. And now, are they not his seed?

(Book of Mormon | Mosiah 15:1 - 12)

Again, we have evidence elsewhere in the scriptures, even in the Bible that the Godhead consists of more than one individual--

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...

(Old Testament | Genesis 1:26)

When the resurrected Jesus met Mary Magdalene in the Garden of Gethsemane, he exhorted her--

...Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

(New Testament | John 20:17)

In this last verse, even as the resurrected Lord, he refers to God the Father as "my Father, and your Father", and furthermore as "...my God, and your God."

How could anyone be more clear that Jesus Christ and God the Father are separate personages than in what and how Jesus phrased what he did to Mary?

Notice that later that same day he not only allowed mortals to touch him, but in fact encouraged it--

36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.

38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?

39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.

41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?

42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.

43 And he took it, and did eat before them.

(New Testament | Luke 24:36 - 43)

Now Jesus was every bit as tangible (with flesh and bones) when he stood before Mary Magdalene following his resurrection as when he stood in front of the remaining of the twelve, and probably others of the Church. But he first had to ascend to his Father. Why? Again, as I have found in my life, when and where a parent is available, they are usually due the first hug or embrace. God the Father had showed him and told him what to do (one supposes probably in vision -- and perhaps even by visitation -- such that Jesus saw his Father, when no one else did). The latter would likely explain the brief time when God the Father withdrew himself from Jesus when Jesus was on the cross, and when Jesus exclaimed--

My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

(New Testament | Matthew 27:46)

There are numeous other examples, such as at Jesus' baptism, where the geographic location of God the Father, Jesus Christ (the 'Only Begotten' of the Father in the flesh, and the Holy Ghost occupied different locations), thereby indicating again, separate personages.

For those caught up with an apparent discrepancy between "One God" but more than one personage, I would direct them to the explanation I gave above, whereby it explains that THEY are ONE God because the Son and the Holy Ghost do all according to the Father's will.

If you read directly from the Bible, and take your understanding directly from it, rather than from the teachings of post-Biblical "scholars" and churchmen, and if you read honestly and understand correctly, there is no reason why you should completely dismiss our witness.

There are a THOUSAND disagreements anyone may have with another over understanding scripture. But 'traditional Christianity' claims "Heresy!" against the true witness Joseph Smith (and others, including Stephen and Mary Magdalene and many others) have given.

Would ye have also stone Stephen, putting your hands over your ears (to us) as they did to him? I think so, for ye do so.

--KING DAVID

Chileice

May 24th, 2004, 03:53 PM

KD,
Sorry to hear about your dad.

Chileice

May 24th, 2004, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by Mustard Seed

You extrapolate and place in assumed details. This is not our doctrine but rather guess work that is layed out in a manner that is hoping for the reaction of disbelief. You are as astute and accurate in your telling of the story as old Decker was in "God Makers" unfortunatly as has been proven he wasn't all that accurate or astute in that production.
What exactly do you deny? Do you deny the existence of Kolob? What do you do about this then?

Originally posted by Joseph Smith
2 And I saw the astars•, that they were very great, and that one of them was nearest unto the throne of God; and there were many great ones which were near unto it;

3 And the Lord said unto me: These are the governing ones; and the name of the great one is aKolob•, because it is near unto me, for I am the Lord thy God: I have set this one to govern all those which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest.

4 And the Lord said unto me, by the Urim and Thummim, that Kolob was after the manner of the Lord, according to its atimes• and seasons in the revolutions thereof; that one revolution was a bday• unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand cyears• according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. This is the reckoning of the Lord’s dtime, according to the reckoning of Kolob.

Do you deny the existence of many God's at creation?

Originally posted by Joseph Smith The Gods plan the creation of the earth and all life thereon—Their plans for the six days of creation are set forth.

1 AND then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the aGods•, borganized• and formed the cheavens• and the earth.

2 And the earth, after it was formed, was empty and desolate, because they had not formed anything but the earth; and adarkness reigned upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of the Gods bwas• brooding upon the face of the waters.

3 And they (the Gods) said: Let there be light; and there was light.

4 And they (the Gods) comprehended the light, for it was abright•; and they divided the light, or caused it to be divided, from the darkness.

5 And the Gods called the light Day, and the darkness they called Night. And it came to pass that from the evening until morning they called anight•; and from the morning until the evening they called day; and this was the first, or the beginning, of that which they called day and night.

6 And the Gods also said: Let there be an aexpanse• in the midst of the waters, and it shall divide the waters from the waters.

7 And the Gods ordered the expanse, so that it divided the waters which were under the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so, even as they ordered.

8 And the Gods called the expanse, Heaven. And it came to pass that it was from evening until morning that they called night; and it came to pass that it was from morning until evening that they called day; and this was the second atime• that they called night and day.

9 And the Gods ordered, saying: Let the awaters• under the heaven be gathered together unto bone• place, and let the earth come up dry; and it was so as they ordered;

10 And the Gods pronounced the dry land, Earth; and the gathering together of the waters, pronounced they, aGreat• Waters; and the Gods saw that they were obeyed.

11 And the Gods said: Let us prepare the earth to bring forth agrass•; the herb yielding seed; the fruit tree yielding fruit, after his kind, whose seed in itself yieldeth its own likeness upon the earth; and it was so, even as they ordered.

12 And the Gods organized the aearth• to bring forth grass from its own seed, and the herb to bring forth herb from its own seed, yielding seed after his kind; and the earth to bring forth the tree from its own seed, yielding fruit, whose seed could only bring forth the same in itself, after his kind; and the Gods saw that they were obeyed.

13 And it came to pass that they numbered the days; from the evening until the morning they called night; and it came to pass, from the morning until the evening they called day; and it was the third time.

14 And the Gods organized the alights• in the expanse of the heaven, and caused them to divide the day from the night; and organized them to be for signs and for seasons, and for days and for years;

15 And organized them to be for lights in the expanse of the heaven to give light upon the earth; and it was so.

16 And the Gods organized the two great lights, the agreater• light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; with the lesser light they set the stars also;

17 And the Gods set them in the expanse of the heavens, to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to cause to divide the light from the adarkness.

18 And the Gods watched those things which they had aordered until they obeyed.

19 And it came to pass that it was from evening until morning that it was night; and it came to pass that it was from morning until evening that it was day; and it was the fourth time.

20 And the Gods said: Let us prepare the waters to bring forth abundantly the moving creatures that have life; and the fowl, that they may fly above the earth in the open expanse of heaven.

21 And the Gods prepared the waters that they might bring forth great awhales•, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters were to bring forth abundantly after their kind; and every winged fowl after their kind. And the Gods saw that they would be obeyed, and that their plan was good.

22 And the Gods said: We will bless them, and cause them to be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas or agreat• waters; and cause the fowl to multiply in the earth.

23 And it came to pass that it was from evening until morning that they called night; and it came to pass that it was from morning until evening that they called day; and it was the fifth time.

24 And the Gods prepared the earth to bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth after their kind; and it was so, as they had said.

25 And the Gods organized the earth to bring forth the beasts after their kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after its kind; and the Gods saw they would obey.

26 And the Gods took acounsel among themselves and said: Let us go down and bform man in our cimage•, after our likeness; and we will give them dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So the aGods• went down to organize man in their own bimage, in the image of the Gods to form they him, male and female to form they them.

28 And the Gods said: We will bless them. And the Gods said: We will cause them to be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and to have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

29 And the Gods said: Behold, we will give them every herb bearing seed that shall come upon the face of all the earth, and every tree which shall have fruit upon it; yea, the fruit of the tree yielding seed to them we will give it; it shall be for their ameat•.

30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, behold, we will give them life, and also we will give to them every green herb for meat, and all these things shall be thus organized.

31 And the Gods said: We will do everything that we have said, and organize them; and behold, they shall be very obedient. And it came to pass that it was from evening until morning they called night; and it came to pass that it was from morning until evening that they called day; and they numbered the asixth• time.

Look, this is not a quote from Dekker but it is the 4th chapter of the Book of Abraham. Do you believe it, or not? You yourself said to me earlier that there are doctrines you must believe if you are going to call yourself a mormon, is this one... a modified version of creation? I am just asking, not accusing.

Or maybe your problem with Rene was on being spirit children. But in my own copy of Gospel Principles (which I'm sure you have if you had family home evening or were raised in a mormon church) is very explicit to teach that we ALL are "literally the sons and daughters of the Deity" and that "Every person who was ever born on earth was our spirit brother and sister in heaven." (chapter 2, if you want to check.)

If you are a Mormon, and you have said you are, I don't understand is what you object to about what Rene said.

Originally posted by Mustard Seed
The trivial manner in which you assume things makes apparent your lack of desire for exactness. Your claims again are largely assumed ideas based on a few words you've found in our doctrine. What you are diaplaying is NOT doctrine.

I agree that Rene has trivialized the doctrine a bit, but the grain of the matter is there. Mormons teach forever families.
"Families can be together forever. To enjoy this blessing we must be married in the temple." (ch. 36). In chapter 38 we learn about eternal marriage. Exaltation depends on eternal marriage. You cannot be exalted to godhood without it.

"Heavealy Father has given us the law of eternal marriage so we can become like him. We must live this law to be able to have spirit children." (ch. 38 Gospel principles) They get this teaching from Doctrines and Covenants 131:1-4

Originally posted by Joseph Smith
1 IN the celestial• glory there are three heavens• or degrees;

2 And in order to obtain the highest•, a man must enter into this border of the cpriesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];

3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.

4 He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase•.

5 (May 17th, 1843.) The more sure word of prophecy• means a man’s knowing that he is sealed up unto eternal• life, by revelation and the spirit of prophecy, through the power of the Holy Priesthood.

6 It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance•.

7 There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer• eyes;

8 We cannot see• it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter•.

The first four verses above show that only those sealed in the temple can continue to procreate spirit children in the next life. So, again, I have to ask what you take exception to. If it is his use of Dekker as a source, fine. Nobody likes getting their "enemies" thrown in their face all the time... but what do you say to your own scripture and discipleship material?

Originally posted by Mustard Seed
There is no scripture in the Bible that can counter that claim. Has God talked to you and told you otherwise?

I do think Colossians 1 pretty plainly refutes the possibility that God chose between Jesus and Lucifer to pick the plan of salvation. I think that and John 1 make it pretty clear that Jesus pre-existed all beings including Satan. Can YOU PROVE your claim?

Originally posted by Rene
quote:
Opposing the idea, the Mormon Jesus suggested giving man his freedom of choice as on other planets. The vote that followed approved the proposal of the Mormon Jesus who would become savior of the planet Earth. Enraged, Lucifer cunningly convinced one-third of the spirits destined for earth to fight with him and revolt. Thus Lucifer became the devil and his followers the demons. Sent to this world, they would forever be denied bodies of flesh and bone. Those who remained neutral in the battle were cursed to be born with black skin. This is the Mormon explanation for the black race.

Originally posted by Mustard Seed
That last part is not doctrine. While we do believe that there was variance in degrees of fidelity among the spirits we do NOT believe that dark skin is a marking of such a position. It has been a hypothesis of some at an earlier time in our church. They were not perfect men and many had biases and bigotry that was not correct.

I challenge you to show me where it states such in our doctrine.

You and I both know that 2 Nephi 5 was used as a justification. The curse of the lamanites was "applied" to blacks everywhere until the changes in 1978. Although not official doctrine... the passage from 2 Nephi 5.21-24 makes it sound pretty bad to be black.

All in all Rene is not as far off as you make him/her sound. Dekker may not be the best charater to quote, but that does not make him ignorant. Clinton cheated on his wife but that alone does not make him ignorant. A man of questionable morals may still have knowledge. He may not be wise in the use of that knowledge, but knowlegable, nonetheless.

Mustard Seed

May 24th, 2004, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by rene
if one is honest enough to actually look.

Rene

Are you honest enough to look at the Mormon apologetic sites and see the problems with your age old, long refuted yet forever rehashed arguments?

Chileice

May 24th, 2004, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by Mustard Seed

Are you honest enough to look at the Mormon apologetic sites and see the problems with your age old, long refuted yet forever rehashed arguments?

I imagine if he goes there, he will go with the same mindset you go to a Dekker site... looking for all the places they are wrong. I'm sure you don't go looking on anti-mormon sites for a chance to really see whether your faith is valid or not. You go "knowing" your faith is valid and looking for more ways to dismantle the "opponent". I'm sure you have probably never gone pretending you know NOTHING of mormonism to see what you would think and to see if you would convert. Pretty hard to lay it all down and pick up a blank slate. It would be cool if we could truly do that and truly weigh ALL the evidence from ALL sides with NO prejudices, no families to keep happy, no jobs to lose, no church friends, fellow atheists, mosque members or whatever to impress or stay in line with. Wonder where we would all be if we could truly do that?

Mustard Seed

May 24th, 2004, 07:31 PM

Originally posted by Chileice

I imagine if he goes there, he will go with the same mindset you go to a Dekker site... looking for all the places they are wrong. I'm sure you don't go looking on anti-mormon sites for a chance to really see whether your faith is valid or not. You go "knowing" your faith is valid and looking for more ways to dismantle the "opponent". I'm sure you have probably never gone pretending you know NOTHING of mormonism to see what you would think and to see if you would convert. Pretty hard to lay it all down and pick up a blank slate. It would be cool if we could truly do that and truly weigh ALL the evidence from ALL sides with NO prejudices, no families to keep happy, no jobs to lose, no church friends, fellow atheists, mosque members or whatever to impress or stay in line with. Wonder where we would all be if we could truly do that?

I will admit that I am biased. I don't think it would be good if we could rid ourselves of all prejudices. Some prejudices are built into our system for our own good. Prejudice has it's time and place. I do not expect them to drop all when they go there or to leave all prejudice behind. I belive one can honestly acknowledge that we have answered the arguments withour agreeing with our faith. An example of such honesty is quoted from two evangelists below. You may have seen it before.

Mormon Apologetic, Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?
Carl Mosser and Paul Owen 1997 Evangelical Theological Society Far West Annual
Meeting April 25, 1997

Introduction Spiritual warfare is a reality. Battle in the spiritual realm is not fought with guns and tanks in the manner of the world. This is the war of ideas that vie for men's minds. The Apostle Paul tells us that the weapons we fight with have divine power to demolish such intellectual strongholds. Of Christians he says that, "we demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God" (II Cor. 10:5). However, to tear down arguments entails that one must first know what the arguments are. This paper seeks to describe the scholarly and apologetic arguments of one group which we, as evangelicals, believe inhibit true knowledge of God. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Mormonism, has, in recent years, produced a substantial body of literature defending their beliefs. This paper does not discuss the full range of defensive and offensive scholarship by Latter-day Saints. Instead, we will focus our discussion upon those disciplines that fall under the broad categories of biblical studies and church history. We choose these two categories because of the importance they play in understanding Christian origins and the nature of early Christianity. Both Mormonism and evangelicalism claim to be the Church which Christ founded. Both claim to be the heirs of New Testament Christianity. Both cannot be correct. It is then appropriate to focus on these disciplines because knowing what the beliefs and practices of the earliest Christians were and whether or not the Church which Christ founded apostatized is the central issue of contention. We realize that what we say will not be welcomed by all, especially by some in the counter-cult movement. Some may criticize us for giving the Mormons too much credit and for being too harsh on our fellow evangelicals. However, much like testifying against a loved one in court, we cannot hide the facts of the matter. In this battle the Mormons are fighting valiantly. And the evangelicals? It appears that we may be losing the battle and not knowing it. But this is a battle we cannot afford to lose. It is our deep hope that this paper will, in some small way, serve to awaken members of the evangelical comnmunity to the important task at hand.

Taken from this link. Click here to read the complete piece. (http://www.cephasministry.com/mormon_apologetics_losing_battle.html)

They manage honesty without droping certain prejudices and dogmas. They are not objective but they are more honest in their apraisal of the situation than most.

King David

May 24th, 2004, 07:44 PM

Chileice,

Thanks for the condolenscences. My father was 82. He died of stomach cancer, a very quick growing variety. But he was faithful to the end. I would hope that I could be as resolute as my parents were (my mother passed away 10 years ago from leukemia) in facing death, and the trial of one's faith.

Now, let me respond to questions posed to MS--

Originally posted by Chileice

What exactly do you deny? Do you deny the existence of Kolob? What do you do about this then?

Do you deny the existence of many God's at creation?

How many Gods are there? One can safely say--

25 For there is a time appointed for every man, according as his works shall be.

AND

28 A time to come in the which nothing shall be withheld, whether there be one God or many gods, they shall be manifest.

29 All thrones and dominions, principalities and powers, shall be revealed and set forth upon all who have endured valiantly for the gospel of Jesus Christ.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 121:25, 28, 29)

It appears that Rene is perhaps a bit premature in speculation. It is said that only those who are "valiant in the testimony of Jesus" will obtain the Celestial, or highest Kingdom, where both God the Father and Jesus dwell. Therefore, the above scripture clearly indicates that the specific answers to these questions will likely only be known ultimately by those who abide according to the gospel of Jesus Christ as has been dispensed anew from heaven from time to time as God has seen fit to give to mankind, from the time of Adam, to the time of Joseph Smith (which includes to our day).

Hence, only those who both accept this one true gospel, and abide according to the covenants that God requires them to enter into shall know these mysteries. Hence Paul's exclamation--

16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness...

(New Testament | 1 Timothy 3:16)

Chileice, would you deny the three kingdoms or degrees of glory given by Paul? (Note, the telestial kingdom is not found in our extant scriptures, but the symbolic equivalent of it (the stars) is listed by him (so the 'Telestial' must have been at some time excised, whether accidentally, or purposely)--

40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead.

(New Testament | 1 Corinthians 15:40 - 42)

How do YOU explain these "glories" that Paul lists? And how then does YOUR explanation compare with that revealed to and through the Prophet Joseph Smith?

(see D&C 76 for Joseph Smith's revelation from God on this)

Look, this is not a quote from Dekker but it is the 4th chapter of the Book of Abraham. Do you believe it, or not? You yourself said to me earlier that there are doctrines you must believe if you are going to call yourself a mormon, is this one... a modified version of creation? I am just asking, not accusing.

Your quote from Abraham is correct (but we need to get you a version of the scriptures other than that at lds.org which omits the footnote letter references, which, when you copy it, makes a lot of words look mispelled). The LDS Church sells for maybe $5.00 at their distribution centers CD's with all LDS scriptures on them. I have online LDS scriptures that omit the footnote references, but they are not always reliable (they're not always 'up').

What problem do YOU have with it? Is it unreasonable that God would have a residence. Remember, Jesus said, "In my father's house are many mansions. If it were not so, I would have told you..." What problem do you have with God identifying the geographic location of the star near which he resides? Certainly, he (God the Father) travels. For, surely, his course is "one eternal round" (a former bishop of mine claims that this is evidence that God is a golfer).

Also, that a day to God is a thousand years to man is also given in the Bible--

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

(New Testament | 2 Peter 3:8)

But Abraham was given information to indicate that the revolution of Kolob takes one thousand years of man's time to complete. Hence, it literally is as a day to God! Peter explanation was not a mere fuzzy euphemism. Joseph Smith revealed in bringing the book of Abraham to light that Peter's explanation is a literal conveyance of an eternal truth.

Or maybe your problem with Rene was on being spirit children. But in my own copy of Gospel Principles (which I'm sure you have if you had family home evening or were raised in a mormon church) is very explicit to teach that we ALL are "literally the sons and daughters of the Deity" and that "Every person who was ever born on earth was our spirit brother and sister in heaven." (chapter 2, if you want to check.)

This is true! Your Bible says so too! Though it states it in slightly different words, but ones that mean exactly the same thing--

The LDS 'Topical Guide' states this about us being children of God, and gives these scriptural references on both definitions--

SONS AND DAUGHTERS OF GOD. See also Atone, Atonement; Begotten; Born Again, Born of God; Children of Christ; Man, Men

The scriptures use these terms in two ways. In one sense, we are all literal spirit children of our Heavenly Father. In another sense, God's sons and daughters are those who have been born again through the atonement of Christ.

Spirit children of the Father: Ye are gods, children of the most High, Ps. 82:6. We are the offspring of God, Acts 17:29. Be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, Heb. 12:9. I am a son of God, Moses 1:13.

Children born again through the Atonement: As many as received him gave he power to become the sons of God, John 1:12 (Rom. 8:14; 3 Ne. 9:17; D&C 11:30). Now are we the sons of God, 1 Jn. 3:1–2. You shall be called the children of Christ, his sons and his daughters, Mosiah 5:7. All people must be born again, becoming his sons and daughters, Mosiah 27:25. They shall become my sons and my daughters, Ether 3:14. Ye certainly will become a child of Christ, Moro. 7:19. All those who receive my gospel are sons and daughters, D&C 25:1. They are gods, even the sons of God, D&C 76:58. Thus may all become my sons, Moses 6:68. Many have believed and become the sons of God, Moses 7:1.

(Guide to the Scriptures | S Sons and Daughters of God.:Entry - Children born again through the Atonement)

Chileice said--If you are a Mormon, and you have said you are, I don't understand is what you object to about what Rene said.

Rene is both speculating beyond what the scriptures say, for one. And the way she is framing it, also tends to misemphasize things.

Of course, presentation is everything (consider Jacob entreating Esau). How one presents these to a 'traditional Christian' audience can either be done in a way in which they can see that they jibe with what the Bible says, and, given modern day revelation from God, and the fact that God can and will manifest the truth of these things to those who earnestly and worthily inquire of him, always makes a difference. There are secular truths or facts that if I presented them to you in a certain way, though they seem fantastic, outlandish, and even contrary to what you already "know", you would reject, because of how they are (or are not) presented!

I agree that Rene has trivialized the doctrine a bit, but the grain of the matter is there. Mormons teach forever families.
"Families can be together forever. To enjoy this blessing we must be married in the temple." (ch. 36). In chapter 38 we learn about eternal marriage. Exaltation depends on eternal marriage. You cannot be exalted to godhood without it.

"Heavenly Father has given us the law of eternal marriage so we can become like him. We must live this law to be able to have spirit children." (ch. 38 Gospel principles) They get this teaching from Doctrines and Covenants 131:1-4

Again, this brings to one, who is humble enough to receive it, is "poor in spirit", (which is the exact opposite of those who arrogantly think they already know it all or enough that they will not accept any more or greater truths than they already possess) a more complete knowledge, which causes an understanding of truths they already have available--

3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

(New Testament | John 17:3)

Now, what does this mean to KNOW "...the only true God, AND Jesus Christ, whom (God) sent?

Paul explains--

9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but THEN SHALL I KNOW EVEN AS ALSO I AM KNOWN.

(New Testament | 1 Corinthians 13:9 - 12) [Emphasis Added]

If we KNOW God the Father and Jesus Christ whom we sent, then Paul indicates that we SHALL...KNOW EVEN AS ALSO (WE ARE) KNOWN.

This, obviously, is not mere acquaintance.

'Traditional Christians' say that we ("Mormons") commit blasphemy by saying "...that as man now is, God once was, and as God now is, man may become."

Well, if you examine your Bible a lot closer, you will discover that it says the same thing! So, will you condemn the prophets and apostles, even the Savior himself?

We think it not robbery to say that we may, if we abide according to the covenants we enter into with God, that we may become like him, just as Jesus thought it not robbery to claim (and accurately so) that he was and is the Son of God (thereby making himself equal with God).

Does not the scripture say--

16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

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

(New Testament | Romans 8:16 - 17)

You say that you believe the Bible. But DO YOU? Do you believe the above verses?

As I said, my father passed away a few months ago. (Of course, his body died, but his spirit, after which his body was modeled, which spirit is eternal; or is, as Abraham explains it, "gnolaum", or eternal -- it has always existed, and will always exist). Therefore, when Rene said that "Elohim" was in the distant past "created", she is not necessarily wrong, from one point of view. But, from another, he has been (as WE also are) and always will be (as ALSO we WILL be) ETERNAL -- we have, in one way, no beginning, and no end.

And, since both of my parents have passed away, my seven siblings and I have been dividing their estate. I am an heir, and a joint-heir with my siblings.

I get just as much as they do. And, happily, the splitting of goods has been very amicable between eight siblings.

But if we are "joint-heirs" with Christ, does this not mean that we will receive what HE does?

I reply, "YES!" And I add, "Hallelujah", which means, literally, "Praise Jehovah!" And, since we (LDS) believe that Jehovah and Jesus Christ are the same personage, that exclamation fits EXACTLY! He is willing to share what the Father (His Father AND Our Fathe) EQUALLY! Wow! What a brother!

Jesus himself said, ... I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

(New Testament | John 20:17)

Now, consider that. His father is our father, and his God is our God. And, let's see, those words fully indicate that Jesus is our BROTHER!!! Not just in an ecclesiastical sense, but also in a "spiritual sense" (I'll bet many of you never considered those two to possibly be different).

What I am trying to tell you is that Jesus is not only our "brother" in his Church, but his Father, who is "the Father of Spirits" is the father of his (Jesus') spirit and also of our spirit.

LDS distractors like to try to make a big deal that we teach that Lucifer was the brother of Jesus. What’s so big about this? Look at Judas Iscariot. He was one of Jesus’ chosen twelve apostles. Consider Cain. He was the brother of Abel. One (the latter) will be exalted, the other (Cain) cast into outer darkness, as a Son of Perdition.

This pattern is followed today. You are much more likely to be murdered by a relative than a stranger. And, while we’re talking about Lucifer (became Satan) was the brother of Jesus, have you forgotten to mention that both were our spirit brothers too? We have potential, according to our desires and inclinations, to become more like one or the other!

Now, I said before, that a spirit is "gnolaum" or eternal--it has always existed and will always exist (Book of Abraham). Another word used in restoration (LDS) scriptures is "Intelligence", as well as "light". The fact that "stars" are often equated the spirit children of God is found in a number of places in scripture.

If we "always existed", you may ask (as I have), then how can we be "created", or as the term is used in the Book of Abraham, "organized".

Well, here is MY speculation. Just as we (LDS) believe that God created the earth, we do NOT believe that He created the earth from nothing. The scripture says it was "void". What I believe is meant by that is that there was no "life" or conditions for life in/on the elements from which the earth was "organized".

As I have pointed out before, my wife may make a cake from "scratch" (and Wow!, what just a sort of cake she made yesterday for one of my seven daughter's birthday), this does not mean (though "scratch" is a term sometimes meant to mean "nothing", this does not mean that she did not use prior existing ingredients to make this cake). So God, we believe, did God "create" or "organize" the existing elements into a form that could function for the planet and could and do now dwell on.

So it may be with man. We have always "existed". But, in what form, with what ability, etc., I (nor anyone on the earth that I know of) can say! But we were "born" to Heavenly Parents (which, yes, implies both a Father and a Mother). Or, as Eliza R. Snow asks, "In Heaven, are parents single? No, the thought, makes reason stare! Truth is reason, truth eternal, tells me I've a mother there!"

Of course, the fact that God created man in his image and likeness, and did so in both male and female genders should be a pretty good indicator that "gods" come in a female version too!

Also, the concept and eventuality of many being cut off from their family (the opposite of "Families can be forever") in Malachi, speaking of ALL who have ever lived, and the eternal consequences of their choice when Jesus comes in glory and burns the earth--

1 FOR, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.

(Old Testament | Malachi 4:1)

Now, what is your "root", but your parents (grandparents, great grandparents, etc.). And what are your "branches" but your children (grandchildren, great grandchildren, etc)?

Note the promise Jesus made to Peter and the apostles--

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

(New Testament | Matthew 16:19)

Bind and Seal mean the same thing. Peter was not then given these keys. But, probably within days of this promise, he and James and John in all likelihood received these keys on the Mount of Transfiguration (all of the gospel accounts are rather cursory, and do not give all that transpired).

These two same prophets, and the Savior himself, along with other messengers from previous gospel dispensations appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery on April 3, 1836 in the Kirtland (Ohio) Temple and gave them these same keys--

1 THE veil was taken from our minds, and the eyes of our understanding were opened.

2 We saw the Lord standing upon the breastwork of the pulpit, before us; and under his feet was a paved work of pure gold, in color like amber.

3 His eyes were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was white like the pure snow; his countenance shone above the brightness of the sun; and his voice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the voice of Jehovah, saying:

4 I am the first and the last; I am he who liveth, I am he who was slain; I am your advocate with the Father.

5 Behold, your sins are forgiven you; you are clean before me; therefore, lift up your heads and rejoice.

6 Let the hearts of your brethren rejoice, and let the hearts of all my people rejoice, who have, with their might, built this house to my name.

7 For behold, I have accepted this house, and my name shall be here; and I will manifest myself to my people in mercy in this house.

8 Yea, I will appear unto my servants, and speak unto them with mine own voice, if my people will keep my commandments, and do not pollute this holy house.

9 Yea the hearts of thousands and tens of thousands shall greatly rejoice in consequence of the blessings which shall be poured out, and the endowment with which my servants have been endowed in this house.

10 And the fame of this house shall spread to foreign lands; and this is the beginning of the blessing which shall be poured out upon the heads of my people. Even so. Amen.

11 After this vision closed, the heavens were again opened unto us; and Moses appeared before us, and committed unto us the keys of the gathering of Israel from the four parts of the earth, and the leading of the ten tribes from the land of the north.

12 After this, Elias appeared, and committed the dispensation of the gospel of Abraham, saying that in us and our seed all generations after us should be blessed.

13 After this vision had closed, another great and glorious vision burst upon us; for Elijah the prophet, who was taken to heaven without tasting death, stood before us, and said:

14 Behold, the time has fully come, which was spoken of by the mouth of Malachi—testifying that he [Elijah] should be sent, before the great and dreadful day of the Lord come—

15 To turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the children to the fathers, lest the whole earth be smitten with a curse—

16 Therefore, the keys of this dispensation are committed into your hands; and by this ye may know that the great and dreadful day of the Lord is near, even at the doors.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 110:1 - 16)

Chileice said--
The first four verses above show that only those sealed in the temple can continue to procreate spirit children in the next life. So, again, I have to ask what you take exception to. If it is his use of Dekker as a source, fine. Nobody likes getting their "enemies" thrown in their face all the time... but what do you say to your own scripture and discipleship material?

I take exception to Rene's way of presenting it in a way in which she doubts it, and presents it in a way to try to persuade others to doubt it.

I do think Colossians 1 pretty plainly refutes the possibility that God chose between Jesus and Lucifer to pick the plan of salvation. I think that and John 1 make it pretty clear that Jesus pre-existed all beings including Satan. Can YOU PROVE your claim?

Here is Colossians 1. Which part "refutes" either what MS said or what LDS scripture teaches?

1 PAUL, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timotheus our brother,

2 To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

3 We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you,

4 Since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and of the love which ye have to all the saints,

5 For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel;

6 Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth:

7 As ye also learned of Epaphras our dear fellowservant, who is for you a faithful minister of Christ;

8 Who also declared unto us your love in the Spirit.

9 For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding;

10 That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God;

11 Strengthened with all might, according to his glorious power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness;

12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:

13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;

20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled

22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:

23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:

25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:

27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:

28 Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:

29 Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily.

(New Testament | Colossians 1:1 - 29)

You and I both know that 2 Nephi 5 was used as a justification. The curse of the lamanites was "applied" to blacks everywhere until the changes in 1978. Although not official doctrine... the passage from 2 Nephi 5.21-24 makes it sound pretty bad to be black.

That scripture reads--

21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.

23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.

24 And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey.

(Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 5:21 - 24)

God didn't want the seed (descendants) of Nephi to mingle with the seed of his two oldest brethren (Laman & Lemuel) and those who followed them, because they taught, believed and lived contrary to the commandments of God. This is what God tried to get Israel to do. To not mix (marry) with the non-believers of Canaan. Because one is more likely to descend to another's beliefs and practices than they are likely to ascend to one's own.

Do you have a better explanation for why there are people of different races, ethnic origins, languages, etc than this? The 'mark' and the 'curse' are really different. The mark of the dark or darker skin was meant to make them (generally, as "unbelievers") as unattractive to those who again, generally, were more inclined to believe, the "Nephites". The curse was that they were distanced from God by their lifestyles.

All in all Rene is not as far off as you make him/her sound. Dekker may not be the best charater to quote, but that does not make him ignorant. Clinton cheated on his wife but that alone does not make him ignorant. A man of questionable morals may still have knowledge. He may not be wise in the use of that knowledge, but knowlegable, nonetheless.

True, Rene may be not "far off". But if one is "off" just "enough", this is how people deceive others. Rene is close, but "No cigar" (er Kolob)!

--KING DAVID

Mustard Seed

May 24th, 2004, 08:39 PM

Originally posted by Chileice

What exactly do you deny? Do you deny the existence of Kolob? What do you do about this then?

Her statements regarding the details of what occures on Kolob and with God. No where in the scriptures does it say how god accomplishes what he does. rene has assumed that certain things happen that are not proven or doctrinal and in so doing has lied. She does not know the implications of various statements yet takes liberties at interpreting to a supprisingly detailed degree what they mean. Look at what she has done and compare it to Decker. She has more or less done what he has.

Do you deny the existence of many God's at creation?

No. Do you? The word Eloheim (one of the many words used for God in the Bible) is plural for god. In other words 'gods'.

Look, this is not a quote from Dekker but it is the 4th chapter of the Book of Abraham. Do you believe it, or not? You yourself said to me earlier that there are doctrines you must believe if you are going to call yourself a mormon, is this one... a modified version of creation? I am just asking, not accusing.

Yes I believe the scriptures. That is my point. Rather than quoting Decker why didn't she quote out of our scriptures? Then she would have avoided entirely the many great mistakes in extrapolation assumption that Decker does.

Or maybe your problem with Rene was on being spirit children. But in my own copy of Gospel Principles (which I'm sure you have if you had family home evening or were raised in a mormon church) is very explicit to teach that we ALL are "literally the sons and daughters of the Deity" and that "Every person who was ever born on earth was our spirit brother and sister in heaven." (chapter 2, if you want to check.)

I do not disagree with that part.

If you are a Mormon, and you have said you are, I don't understand is what you object to about what Rene said.

Then you have not looked very closely at what she said. She stated many things that were assumptions she (more likely Decker) had made that had no doctrinal backing for the detail she was going into. She assumed to accurately extract more about our theology than we claim. Using such liberties leaves the door WIDE open for many false ideas and wrong conclusions.

I agree that Rene has trivialized the doctrine a bit, but the grain of the matter is there.

That is the core of the matter. How would you react to the trivialization of the story of the Bible. I have heard such trivializations from atheists or others opposed to Christianity and the "grain of the matter" was "there". (whatever that means as doctrine altered even in the slightest can render it false)

Mormons teach forever families.
"Families can be together forever. To enjoy this blessing we must be married in the temple." (ch. 36). In chapter 38 we learn about eternal marriage. Exaltation depends on eternal marriage. You cannot be exalted to godhood without it.

Amen. The Bible teaches the same.

11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

(New Testament | 1 Corinthians 11:11)

"Heavealy Father has given us the law of eternal marriage so we can become like him. We must live this law to be able to have spirit children." (ch. 38 Gospel principles) They get this teaching from Doctrines and Covenants 131:1-4

It never states how that occures in our doctrine and to mock it as if we believe all that eternity concists of would be sex is demented, wrong and perverted. It's trivializations like this that are insulting and wrong, both in what they portray to be fact and in their treatment of the matter. I believe such that discuss things with such frivolity will be held acountable for their words at some point and time. I would not risk such a mistake on something that is so sacred.

The first four verses above show that only those sealed in the temple can continue to procreate spirit children in the next life. So, again, I have to ask what you take exception to. If it is his use of Dekker as a source, fine. Nobody likes getting their "enemies" thrown in their face all the time... but what do you say to your own scripture and discipleship material?

Presentation is almost everything. To disregard the sanctity of a message can make the most holy appear comical. That is the goal of Satan. Why can't you see that anyone that would present such in such a way has no aspiration to teach with any semblance of enlightenment.

Have any of you seen any of Mark Fiore's flash cartoons (http://www.markfiore.com) ? They can be funny and at time be true in the 'facts' they present but the presentation is not always honest and the conclusion is often WAY off and disregarding many other facts. Since they are not always dealing with the holy (the exception being his stance on the oxymoron subject of "gay marriage" and I would guess he's not pro-life either) his satire is not always bad, taken in context.

I do think Colossians 1 pretty plainly refutes the possibility that God chose between Jesus and Lucifer to pick the plan of salvation. I think that and John 1 make it pretty clear that Jesus pre-existed all beings including Satan.

Your going to need to elaborate a bit more than just stating two chapters. What specific parts support your claim.

Can YOU PROVE your claim?

I never said I could. Apologetics requires only that I maintain plausibility NOT prove my faith. The ommision of specifics in the Bible does not mean it is not so.

You and I both know that 2 Nephi 5 was used as a justification. The curse of the lamanites was "applied" to blacks everywhere until the changes in 1978.

No, you or I, do not know that. That may be your view of the situation but you do not "know" that that is the reason.

Although not official doctrine... the passage from 2 Nephi 5.21-24 makes it sound pretty bad to be black.

Let's see what it says.

20 Wherefore, the word of the Lord was fulfilled which he spake unto me, saying that: Inasmuch as they will not hearken unto thy words they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord. And behold, they were cut off from his presence.
21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.
22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.
23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.
24 And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey.
25 And the Lord God said unto me: They shall be a scourge unto thy seed, to stir them up in remembrance of me; and inasmuch as they will not remember me, and hearken unto my words, they shall scourge them even unto destruction.

(Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 5:20 - 25)

The ACTUAL cursing was only partialy the dark skin and loathsome countanance and that was conditional on their (the Lamanites) current state of righteousness. The dark skin and loathsome appearance (it states that the Nephites would consider them loathsome, beauty is in the eye of the beholder) was for the Nephites to keep them from mingling with them UNLESS they repented, in which case they would no longer be loathsome to the Nephites "I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.

In your selective pull of scripture you also omit a reproof by a prophet of God to the Nephites concerning the matter.

3 But, wo, wo, unto you that are not pure in heart, that are filthy this day before God; for except ye repent the land is cursed for your sakes; and the Lamanites, which are not filthy like unto you, nevertheless they are cursed with a sore cursing, shall scourge you even unto destruction.
4 And the time speedily cometh, that except ye repent they shall possess the land of your inheritance, and the Lord God will lead away the righteous out from among you.
5 Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father—that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them.

(Book of Mormon | Jacob 3:3 - 5)

All in all Rene is not as far off as you make him/her sound.

If the manner of presentation is not vital then why not give the kids cartoon books of the Bible written by militant atheists? Hey if there is the 'grain of the matter' present does it really matter?

Dekker may not be the best charater to quote, but that does not make him ignorant. Clinton cheated on his wife but that alone does not make him ignorant. A man of questionable morals may still have knowledge. He may not be wise in the use of that knowledge, but knowlegable, nonetheless.

I never said he was ignorant. In fact I believe he is quite the opposite. Would you trust your childeren to a school full of the most brilliant teachers if their morals were that of Clinton or Deckers? Then why would you trust your own salvation to such? I completely agree that they are intellegent men, VERY INTELLEGENT. Just because they have great intellegence and most of what they say is true does not mean one should trust them to be their teacher.

14 And also trust no one to be your teacher nor your minister, except he be a man of God, walking in his ways and keeping his commandments.

(Book of Mormon | Mosiah 23:14)

Can we learn things from them. YES. I have learned a great deal from both. That does not mean I would trust them for a second OR that the conclusions of their arguments are correct.

b-baggins

May 24th, 2004, 09:40 PM

There are no other Biblical usages, so how is it that LDS teaching has manufactured these other 2 extra-Biblical connotations?

The term "manufactured" in this context is an emotionally charged trigger word.

I am open to a discussion, but let's try to keep prejudicial language out of it.

Two of your accounts in Revelation also refer to the lake of fire in connection with the second death. It would be a valid reading to state that these two metaphors are speaking of a different end than that of the beast.

However, the biblical case in this matter is weak. This doctrine comes largely from the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants, which are considered supplementary and complimentary scripture to the Bible.

I know that Protestants don't accept either of these books, but since we're discussing LDS theology, and not Protestant theology, the Protestant position on the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants is irrelevant to the point.

The book of Alma in the Book of Mormon discusses the condition of the spirits of men between death and the resurrection.

The Doctrine and Covenants expands on Paul's teaching of the three heavens and describes the Telestial (glory of the stars), Terrestrial (glory of the moon), and Celestial (glory of the sun) kingdoms and the kinds of people who will inhabit them.

And, yes, I am aware of the standard Protestant interpretation of Paul's discussion the heaven's in Corinthians. I think the LDS interpretation is the better reading.

So the short answer to your initial question is that the teachings on the lake of fire is knowledge that has been restored through revelation from God to His prophets in these last days.

b-baggins

May 24th, 2004, 10:27 PM

What exactly do you deny? Do you deny the existence of Kolob? What do you do about this then?

Kolob is a star or creation nearest the dwelling place of God. Note what this scripture does NOT say that Rene maintains it does. It does NOT say God lives on Kolob. It does NOT say there are trillions of planets populated by billions of god-children and god-fathers.

If you read the entire chapter (essential when doing hermeneutics), you will find that God is giving Abraham a metaphor as to the order of creation and how it relates to the order of intelligences.

If you finish reading the chapter, you will see this in verse 19, where God uses the orders of the heavens to illustrate the orders of intelligences with this statement:

19. And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all.

Do you deny the existence of many God's at creation?

Again, you have practiced poor hermenutics. If you read verses 22-24 of the previous chapter, you will find out exactly who "the Gods" were.

22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones;

23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.

24 And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;

As you can see, "the Gods" referred to in chapter 4 of Abraham are the great and noble spirit children of the Father, who, remember, we have learned, is the most intelligent (or the greatest, most glorious -- see the definition of Intelligence in the Doctrine and Covenants) of them all.

Verse 24 makes it clear that Christ stood in the midst of these individuals, and took them with Him to create the Earth.

All you have done in making the claim that the Book of Abraham talks about many Gods, with the implication being they are equal to God the Father, is shown us that you do not know how to read in context.

I do think Colossians 1 pretty plainly refutes the possibility that God chose between Jesus and Lucifer to pick the plan of salvation. I think that and John 1 make it pretty clear that Jesus pre-existed all beings including Satan. Can YOU PROVE your claim?

Point 1. The Father never picked between Satan and Christ. The plan was the FATHER'S plan. Satan came out in rebellion with an ALTERNATE plan, whereby HE would be savior of mankind. This is made clear in the Book of Moses.

The Book of Abraham does not discuss that particular event, rather focusing on the Father allowing us to choose whom we would follow.

To paraphrase in summary, here's basically what happened: The Father presents his plan, and names Christ the savior. Satan comes forth, and argues that the Father's plan is flawed. He presents an alternate plan where all men are forced to heaven. In return for which, The Father gives Satan all His power and Glory, and Satan becomes greater than the Father.

The Father, respecting our right to choose, asks his children: Whom will you follow?

Those who chose to rebel against the Father and follow Satan lost their first estate, and were denied the opportunity of mortality and a physical body, and the resurrection. Those who chose to follow the Father kept their first estate, and were granted the privilege of mortality and possible exaltation.

Your second point: Of course Christ is before Satan. The Book of Moses calls Christ Firstborn in the Spirit and only Begotten in the Flesh. Lucifer, on the other hand, is a Son of the Morning. Christ is the Firstborn. There were no spirit children before Him, and none are equal to Him.

And just to put this hoary chestnut about Christ and Lucifer being spirit brothers to rest.

One: The word spirit, is used deliberately to insinuate in the mind of the reader "spiritual" indicating an equivalence. Critics of the LDS faith often accuse Mormons of using traditional terms but assigning them new meaning. In this case, we have a Protestant using a Mormon term with the definite intent of giving it a Protestant meaning.

Spirit brother simply means God was the father of both Christ and Lucifer. Nothing more.

As to them being brothers, so were Cain and Abel. What's your point?

You and I both know that 2 Nephi 5 was used as a justification. The curse of the lamanites was "applied" to blacks everywhere until the changes in 1978. Although not official doctrine... the passage from 2 Nephi 5.21-24 makes it sound pretty bad to be black.

Unless, of course, you happen to actually read the Book of Mormon and come across the writings of Jacob.

From Chapter 3:

9. Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins; neither shall ye revile against them because of their filthiness; but ye shall remember your own filthiness, and remember that their filthiness came because of their fathers.

I would suggest that you perhaps take a course in textual criticism.

rene

May 24th, 2004, 10:59 PM

First, I am female - not male. :)

The next thing is that I just did a quick search on the internet about a topic that when Mormon teachings are compared to the bible - it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that it doesn't reflect a biblical teaching at all. All with ref. points made from within Mormon writings.

I want the Christians to notice something that is clear to see within this thread. When presented with things from their own writings that are clearly not found within the bible to support their claims of their - the claim is quickly made that all the teachings are misrepresentations. That all is done with a mind to suggest something that it isn't. Thing is - - all one has to do is to go to the ref.'s given and they can see that those suggestions are nothing but a smokescreen in an attempt to divert from the point made and the truth found within the bible vs their books with claims of being "cannonized".

So, when these people come a knockin on your door - and they will - keep it on the bible and what is within it for the bible isn't going to support such wacky teachings as I shared here here with quotations from their own writings.

Next thing to notice is that your going to see the suggestion that because you showed them something from within their writings that CLEARLY can't be supported by the bible nor support their claim to being "Christian" (which that word means within Christ - and they are followers of Smith and the head honchos within their group) that you are somehow 'mean' or 'not walking in real Christian love'. Fact is, to leave them in what they are following and not sharing the truth of the gospel with them vs their own writings and teachings would NOT be an act of real Christian love. That to love them as Jesus would is to share His truth with them and not leave them in the false that they follow. Verses abound within the bible that makes that point abundantly clear. So, when that is suggested - just point it out to them in the bible.

People are going to suggest all sorts of strawmen when attempting to share with them. It is important to keep to task and not go down the rabbit trails and get off topic when sharing with them. Keep the focus upon Jesus and His truth. This is a work in and of itself that can be a trial to the one trying to share with these people. Just keep focused on Jesus.

I mean, look at the comments suggested to say that they didn't teach that those that are black were lesser beings than those that are white. One can go to their own writings and see for themselves that the soft peddle that they now are trying to pass off and over what was a basic foundation of their belief for years has indeed been changed to better suit the times vs what is now claimed. Writings by people within their belief and published by Mormon publishers can attest to that. And if the suggestion is made that 'all that is wrong, doesn't represent the church' - why were these people not repromanded for writing falsehoods? same thing for the publisher?

You will hear comments just like written of me, "I take exception to Rene's way of presenting it in a way in which she doubts it, and presents it in a way to try to persuade others to doubt it." For a Christian to do nothing, say nothing, not address something presented as the gospel when it isn't - is wrong and against teachings within the bible.

It is past time for the body of Christ to do what they should know to do that is right. We are the light in the dark world. We are to remember and take to heart what is shown within Ephesians 6:10-18. We are the salt of this earth. If we don't stand up and share the true gospel - who will? How many will be lost?

Rene

godrulz

May 24th, 2004, 11:39 PM

Just a reminder, Mormon friends, that quoting LDS writings is not credible or authoritative for evangelicals. We are persuaded by the evidence that they are extra and contra biblical (except where they plagiarize KJV passages?!). They are not authoritative or persuasive for discerning truth. Our common ground is the Bible, properly translated and interpreted (it is the oldest revelation that we must compare 'new revelations' against).

Mustard Seed

May 25th, 2004, 12:04 AM

Originally posted by rene
The next thing is that I just did a quick search on the internet about a topic that when Mormon teachings are compared to the bible - it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that it doesn't reflect a biblical teaching at all. All with ref. points made from within Mormon writings.

I in many cases have done just that. I have taken verses quoted by you or godrulz or others and shown that in the larger context scriptures YOU have employed against us only appear to be such because you are trying to limit the context.

I want the Christians to notice something that is clear to see within this thread. When presented with things from their own writings that are clearly not found within the bible to support their claims of their - the claim is quickly made that all the teachings are misrepresentations. That all is done with a mind to suggest something that it isn't. Thing is - - all one has to do is to go to the ref.'s given and they can see that those suggestions are nothing but a smokescreen in an attempt to divert from the point made and the truth found within the bible vs their books with claims of being "cannonized".

Might want to restate that because it's not all that clear.

So, when these people come a knockin on your door - and they will - keep it on the bible and what is within it for the bible isn't going to support such wacky teachings as I shared here here with quotations from their own writings.

You should address b-baggins new thread on closed cannon. Many of the Christians there are proposing that the cannon is not closed. I'd be interested to see your take and your response to b-baggins request on that thread.

You again portend that nothing stated in the Bible can be considered as true. I am unaware of biblical justification for such a stance.

Next thing to notice is that your going to see the suggestion that because you showed them something from within their writings that CLEARLY can't be supported by the bible nor support their claim to being "Christian"

Just because something we present may not have support in the bible or support our claim at being Christian does not mean that it is evidence to the contrary or that it is evidence that we are not a biblical religion. Like saying just because a cafe is serving rootbeer that it can't possibly serve coffee and hence can't be considered a true 'cafe'. Just because we accept the prophet Joseph Smith or the Doctrine and Covenants does not mean that we do not support the Bible or follow Christ.

(which that word means within Christ - and they are followers of Smith and the head honchos within their group)

Can one follow Christ without following Moses? Enoch? Paul?

that you are somehow 'mean' or 'not walking in real Christian love'. Fact is, to leave them in what they are following and not sharing the truth of the gospel with them vs their own writings and teachings would NOT be an act of real Christian love. That to love them as Jesus would is to share His truth with them and not leave them in the false that they follow.

It's fine to try and convert us but to say we are not christian when it is clear we are. That is dishonest and mean. I don't mind if you just say we are not 'traditional christians' in fact I gladly agree. But to question our belief in Christ without knowing our hearts is not correct. I do not question your proffesed devotion to Christ even though I question your beliefs concerning him.

Verses abound within the bible that makes that point abundantly clear.

Then bring them up in full context and try and refute our refutations of your earlier attempts at showing such.

So, when that is suggested - just point it out to them in the bible.

People are going to suggest all sorts of strawmen when attempting to share with them. It is important to keep to task and not go down the rabbit trails and get off topic when sharing with them. Keep the focus upon Jesus and His truth.

Heaven forbid you let them share the message they were sent to share. You've got to get your hours of prostlytizing in while people are still comming to your door.

This is a work in and of itself that can be a trial to the one trying to share with these people. Just keep focused on Jesus.

Our discussions are focused on Jesus. While they are not requisit now as they were when I was out the first one talks about Jesus comming to Joseph Smith in these days and how he's revealed himself to prophets in the past the next one deals with Jesus and his attonement. The next one deals with Christ and his church.

For one that claims you need to keep the focus on Jesus your whole Ed Decker sing-along wasn't. It was neither presented in a manner Christ would have presented it and the Glorification of Christ was not the purpose of it.

I mean, look at the comments suggested to say that they didn't teach that those that are black were lesser beings than those that are white.

And this focus's on Christ HOW? You say in one sentance to keep it on Christ and the next you jump to this?

Anyway you have failed to provide any distinct evidence to counter our claims of the falsness of your initial claims. Here you are just saying that it's absured what we just said without saying what was absured or why it was absured or offering any more evidence or reasoned argument.

One can go to their own writings and see for themselves that the soft peddle that they now are trying to pass off and over what was a basic foundation of their belief for years has indeed been changed to better suit the times vs what is now claimed.

For one whose claimed to have done so much research why not give and example we may discuss. If your going to level accusations then have backing ready for such. Otherwise you are just hinting and running. Running on to the next topic that you think you have a juicy expose on. So much for staying focused on Christ.

Writings by people within their belief and published by Mormon publishers can attest to that. And if the suggestion is made that 'all that is wrong, doesn't represent the church' - why were these people not repromanded for writing falsehoods? same thing for the publisher?

People have been corrected and things have been changed when they have been clearly wrong.

You will hear comments just like <this> written of me, "I take exception to Rene's way of presenting it in a way in which she doubts it, and presents it in a way to try to persuade others to doubt it." For a Christian to do nothing, say nothing, not address something presented as the gospel when it isn't - is wrong and against teachings within the bible.

You can claim that it is against the Bible and that by your virtue as a Christian you can 'proclaim' such but such a proclimation doesn't make it so. You talked earlier about the many things you pointed out to the Mormon's your talking to. If they are so convincing why do you not display them that they might be discussed. If Ed Decker is the best you can come up with than it is you more than I that needs the library and more research.

It is past time for the body of Christ to do what they should know to do that is right. We are the light in the dark world. We are to remember and take to heart what is shown within Ephesians 6:10-18. We are the salt of this earth. If we don't stand up and share the true gospel - who will? How many will be lost?

Rene

Sounds like the same request made in the article I referenced by those evangelicals. What did you think of that-by the way?

rene

May 25th, 2004, 12:53 AM

You can suggest all that you like about how it took the the 1970's to allow blacks the same rights as were had by whites within your group are a misrepresentation. Fact is that any can see by reading the writings from within your group that such is not the case. Such a teaching is found nowhere within the bible.

Unlike those that are within the Mormon belief with the founder of Smith, the bible is founded upon God's word and His truth. To suggest that because the bible doesn't have within it the things that they claim as 'truth' doesn't detract from the bible. In fact, that argument when they attempt to use it, a point should be made. The point being that then how do they claim to follow the teachings within the bible with such an approach? The claims of "Christian" when one is adding to the teachings of the one claimed to being followed are made moot by such an approach.

This planet mess that they have within their beliefs is just one example that can be used to more than call into question suggestions that what they follow is of God.

One can easily point out other things as well - like the 'holy underwear' thing that they follow. Or how about - sheesh, the list is so long anyone can take a pick of topics. The 'underwear' thing only came to mind cause a few months ago, they had some sold on eBay - get this - for $1,000.01. I personally wouldn't pay that for them. If I really wanted some, I have relatives that I can get them from that have left the Mormon thought process. Just the thought of getting that sort of thing - - is sort of WEIRD in my opinion.....

But back to the real points. Everything that is brought up needs to be compared to what is within the bible. If it doesn't line up - and so much of it doesn't - not from God. They are coming a knockin at the door suggesting that they are "Christian", claim to believe and follow the bible, and that they got these writings that they want to suggest are to be held with the same respect and authority of the bible. If you don't have copies of those books - ask them to bring them to read them. If for some reason that doesn't work - go to the library. There are sources for many of the librarys online that will send the portions to you in email by a simple request. Best thing to do - is ask. Ref. librarians have gotten to know me very well and I have found them a real blessing at getting my hands on certain books so that I could copy portions of them.

Unlike the Mormon, I ask none to believe me just cause I say that I am "Christian". I am saying to follow Jesus Christ thru whom all blessing flow and that it is only thru Him that there is eternal life. None of this planet mess as Mormons suggest - but the account as told within Genesis which is TOTALLY DIFFERENT that what is within Mormon writings.

Know that they will claim that you haven't proven anything. Know that they will say how wrong you are. But know also that there are going to be many of them coming back to talk some more. Just keep your focus on Jesus, the perfector of our faith - and share that faith with them.

If none shares the gospel of truth found within the bible with them - how will they know that there is a choice to be made? If we don't sit down and reason with these people and not allow them to get off topic and pull in all sorts of directions other than the bible - how will they be able to make that choice since honestly look at the bible isn't what they are doing but using other books that support their false claims not supported by the bible?

These people don't know what to do with someone that is willing to stand up to their false teachings and keep directing discussion back to the real Savior Jesus (tho Smith claims that he has something to do with who is saved - already given that quote with ref.'s to be show all written is indeed as stated). We share Jesus and not an organization as the way of salvation.

Rene

Mustard Seed

May 25th, 2004, 02:04 AM

Originally posted by rene

You can suggest all that you like about how it took the the 1970's to allow blacks the same rights as were had by whites within your group are a misrepresentation. Fact is that any can see by reading the writings from within your group that such is not the case. Such a teaching is found nowhere within the bible.

The priesthood is not a 'right'. Blacks had the same rights in our church as everyone else from the days of Joseph Smith. True there's been some bigotry among the membership but such was the case in Jesus's day. There were those that were bigoted against 'Gentiles' that had converted. Doesn't make such action right but it doesn't render the organization untrue.

The fact that the priesthood isn't a 'right' is made clear in the fact that only one tribe of Israel had it for quite a long time. If you do not recall the Levites then you should brush up on your bible.

Unlike those that are within the Mormon belief with the founder of Smith, the bible is founded upon God's word and His truth.

The bible was put together by a body of men no different from those who post here on TOL. True the Bible contains the word of God but it's existance as a single book is the doing of men that was permited by God. The cannon is not closed and the Bible has never claimed such.

To suggest that because the bible doesn't have within it the things that they claim as 'truth' doesn't detract from the bible. In fact, that argument when they attempt to use it, a point should be made. The point being that then how do they claim to follow the teachings within the bible with such an approach?

Because you can still follow the teachings of Moses when you follow the teachings of Christ. If God augments his scriptures to us it does not negate anything. The appearance of more does not make the previous less.

The claims of "Christian" when one is adding to the teachings of the one claimed to being followed are made moot by such an approach.

We are claiming that Christ himself added to HIS teachings. Christ never forbid himself from giving more in the bible.

This planet mess that they have within their beliefs is just one example that can be used to more than call into question suggestions that what they follow is of God.

How and why? It makes no sense to say "That can't be cell phone if it claims to be a camera" or "That can't be theater if it claims to be an automobile". Just because something claims to be one thing doesn't discredit it's other claims. I've seen plenty of dualism and pluralism in general in all aspects of life. The gospel is no exception. Just because you haven't seen one side of the gospel doesn't mean it is not there or that our account of it is untrue.

One can easily point out other things as well - like the 'holy underwear' thing that they follow. Or how about - sheesh, the list is so long anyone can take a pick of topics. The 'underwear' thing only came to mind cause a few months ago, they had some sold on eBay - get this - for $1,000.01. I personally wouldn't pay that for them. If I really wanted some, I have relatives that I can get them from that have left the Mormon thought process. Just the thought of getting that sort of thing - - is sort of WEIRD in my opinion.....

You can make such accusations of any religion. I don't make a practice of doing so but I'm sure you could give the name of ANY religion (including your own) and you could find BILLIONS of people on this earth that think some practices are "WEIRD in"
their "opinion".

Your weirdness arguments are not arguments. They play on feelings and are fueled by blind dogmatism and demagaugory.

But back to the real points. Everything that is brought up needs to be compared to what is within the bible. If it doesn't line up - and so much of it doesn't - not from God.

Do you do that with every book? Cause your standard book that contains anything about bats and birds would disagree with Moses in your bible. That strickes down those books on animal identification 'cause they don't jibe with a prophet in the Bible.

They are coming a knockin at the door suggesting that they are "Christian", claim to believe and follow the bible, and that they got these writings that they want to suggest are to be held with the same respect and authority of the bible. If you don't have copies of those books - ask them to bring them to read them.

...or you can read them free online at lds.org! (right now even). Much easier in my opinion. Or you could get the LDS scriptures on CD with the original greek for the NT and original Hebrew for the OT along with a cross dictionary for both languages AND all of the standard works for about 10 bucks I think. It's alot easier to quote from than the online version.

If for some reason that doesn't work - go to the library. There are sources for many of the librarys online that will send the portions to you in email by a simple request.

www.fairlds.org has alot of materials too!

Best thing to do - is ask. Ref. librarians have gotten to know me very well and I have found them a real blessing at getting my hands on certain books so that I could copy portions of them.

Unlike the Mormon, I ask none to believe me just cause I say that I am "Christian".

We've never said that and that's the SECOND time you've claimed such. Recant or prove your statement. I don't mind a mistake but when you repeat such after I've explictly pointed it out to NOT be true it gets irksome. Lies generaly get on my nerves.

I've repeatedly advocated that the only way to know the truth is to ask God. NOT your local librarian NOT a book and NOT to just trust my word. PRAY to God in the name of the Father with a sinceer heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ that you will recieve the correct answer. It is by this that you may know the truth of ALL THINGS. (Moroni 10:3-6)

I am saying to follow Jesus Christ thru whom all blessing flow and that it is only thru Him that there is eternal life. None of this planet mess as Mormons suggest - but the account as told within Genesis which is TOTALLY DIFFERENT that what is within Mormon writings.

THAT'S A LIE. I can give you side by side demonstrations of the massive similarities in the creation acounts found in the other parts of our cannon and within Genesis.

Know that they will claim that you haven't proven anything.

If you're doing it the way rene has they will be correct in that assessment.

Know that they will say how wrong you are.

Because if you do as rene has done you will be. Decker is an apostate that hates the church and does not care about the manners in which he slanders it.

But know also that there are going to be many of them coming back to talk some more. Just keep your focus on Jesus, the perfector of our faith - and share that faith with them.

But rene. You didn't "keep the focus on Jesus". You prefered to talk about the blacks and how they had to wait to hold the preisthood.

If we don't sit down and reason with these people

Reason? Where? Where have you used reason. Rather than counter our arguments you've switched to a "how to convert the mormon" councilor instead of address any of the issues that we have refuted.

and not allow them to get off topic and pull in all sorts of directions other than the bible - how will they be able to make that choice since honestly look at the bible isn't what they are doing but using other books that support their false claims not supported by the bible?

We do look at the Bible. Again some are supported by the bible but just because they are not does not make them false. Where in the bible does it layout the intricacies of quantum physics that have recently been discovered? Since their not in the Bible they must not be true.

These people don't know what to do with someone that is willing to stand up to their false teachings and keep directing discussion back to the real Savior Jesus (tho Smith claims that he has something to do with who is saved - already given that quote with ref.'s to be show all written is indeed as stated).

As will Peter. As will Abraham. There are going to be a few people that will have something to do with those who will be saved. Or do you not agree with that?

We share Jesus and not an organization as the way of salvation.

Rene

Jesus is the cheif cornerstone. How can you accept the cheif cornerstone without accepting the church that's built upon it?

Mustard Seed

May 25th, 2004, 02:11 AM

rene

May 25th, 2004, 08:56 AM

The priesthood is not a 'right'. Blacks had the same rights in our church as everyone else from the days of Joseph Smith. True there's been some bigotry among the membership but such was the case in Jesus's day. There were those that were bigoted against 'Gentiles' that had converted. Doesn't make such action right but it doesn't render the organization untrue.

Call it as you wish - is it not fact that blacks were denied the same basic things that whites were within your group?

Fact is that within the bible all that are in relationship with God, even from the OT thru the NT when accepting relationship with God has the very same rights as any other believer. A point where your beliefs until adjusted by your group were a marked difference found within the bible.

So, how can such be said to be Christian?

As to the suggestion that additional books should be seen as equal to the bible and your suggested reasoning? Moot point. Unlike the writings of Joseph Smith that came years later from a practice that he was known to have used to supposedly find money within the ground as a 'seer' - such can not be said of the writings within the bible, nor was such a practice used to write them. The practiced used in no way compares to the 'seer stone' approach but comes from God. Another marked difference where such practices are not found within the bible. Such again calls to question the claims of Christianity by those that follow the teachings of Joseph Smith.

These and many other points are the basis for more than questioning such teachings.

Notice this approach that I have seen before:

Do you do that with every book? Cause your standard book that contains anything about bats and birds would disagree with Moses in your bible. That strickes down those books on animal identification 'cause they don't jibe with a prophet in the Bible.

The attempt is again made to suggest that one should put the writings within the bible on the same level as for any other book. It is that very approach while they elevate books to a higher level than the bible that is at the founation of the mess that they have fallen into and need help getting out of.

When they come to your door, don't allow this type of comment to go unaddressed. Keep the focus upon the bible, God and His salvation unaided by the likes of Joseph Smith.

Nowhere within scripture do they have a similar story as they tell of celectial gods having spiritual children - and the whole mess that they are taught from their writings. It isn't there. Never has been there. Only reason that such is even taught is because of Mormon writings.

Claims of the "plausibility" of something doesn't even fit. Mormons have never been able to find any evidences of the cities, things written of within any of their writings. Not one. Not so with the bible. Evidence has been found and is still being found.

The differences between Mormons and Christianity is the distance between false and real relationship with God.

Rene

godrulz

May 25th, 2004, 11:49 AM

Scripture and Judeo-Christianity has always been monotheistic (belief in one true God). Joseph Smith mocked this and said his religion was polytheistic (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith)= belief in more than one true god. Henotheism is the worship of one god among many. This is not Mormonism. The Father and the Son are both worshipped. Mormonism is tritheism + (unlike triune God...the Word is not in the Bible, but the revelation is= one essence/nature of God with 3 personal distinctions).

One God (explicit verses):I Cor. 8:6; James 2:19; I Tim. 1:17; Gal. 4:8; Deut. 6:4;32:39; Is. 43:10; 44:6,8; 45:5,22; 46:9, etc.

Ps. 82 revisited: This is used as a proof text by LSD for more than one true gods...This isolated text cannot contradict the above explicit monotheistic texts.

Context= evil judges (not disputed by non-Mormon commentators through the centuries):

"Declaring that God judges His human judges, Asaph called for Him to act on His justice. Asaph warned that judges without understanding, who ignore God's appointment for them, will perish (NOT exaltation to Mormon godhood).

The psalmist envisioned God presiding over an assembly of judges. The word gods (Elohim) is used here for authorities in Israel (cf. 45:6; Ex. 21:6; 22:8,9). The Psalm clarifies that these are God's reps on earth.

Using God's words, the psalmist warned these magistrates (not gods by nature Gal. 4:8) to do their jobs. The indictment (v.2) given in the form of a rhetorical question, is that His people were unjust and partial. Instead they should judge fairly and champion the cause of the oppressed (including the weak, fatherless, poor, needy). This is the essence of righteous judging.

However, the human judges under God's indictment roam the earth without spiritual or intellectual understanding and in moral darkness, so that law and order are undermined (it is not saying they are glorious gods in eternity!).

God warned the wicked judges that they will perish (gods do not perish). There delegated divine office would not protect them. He had appointed them as gods/judges (elohim is used of the true God and in other ways depending on the context=false gods)....as 'sons of the most High', His reps on earth. BUT despite their exalted position, they were held accountable by God.

Jesus appealed to verse 6 when He was accused of blasphemy (Jn. 10:34) for claiming to be the one true God. Since Israel's human judges were, in a sense, 'sons' of God, JESUS said He was not blaspheming to call Himself THE SON of God (equal with the Father..the Jews rightly understood that this rabbi was claiming to be Jehovah Elohim, the Almighty God....not one of many gods, which would be even more appalling to them). Jesus contrasts His Deity and Sonship , prior to time, with the judges, who had delegated authority as mere mortals.

Asaph called on God to arise and judge the earth, for they are responsible to Him. (Bible Knowledge Commentary).

This is sound exegesis, hermeneutics, and consistent with the context (not just quoting 'gods' out of context).

Keil-Delitzsch (Hebrew scholars) Commentary on the OT is the gold standard for Hebrew exegesis. They go into more detail on Hebrew words and cross references. They concur with the above accepted concepts. No credible Christian commentators interpret this passage differently. The LDS in-house teachers stand alone in twisting this passage to their own destruction (teaching pagan polytheism rather than Judeo-Christian monotheism). There is nothing more to be said to outright reject Mormonism as a false religion.

John 10 Jesus claimed oneness of nature with God. Jesus' response to their objection requires insight into the methods of argument common in Rabbinic discussions. He first directed them to the OT ...In your Law...Ps. 82 speaks of GOD (not gods) as the true Judge and of mere men, appointed as judges (not gods by nature), who were failing to provide true judgment for God. In this limited sense, God called them gods/judges (not speak of a divine nature in man).

In certain cases, men were called 'gods' (rare). The word elohim is translated judges in Exodus for humans. Jeus complete His argument by pointing out that their Scripture called judges 'gods', so the Jews could not logically accuse Him of blasphemy for calling Himself God's Son since He was set apart and sent on God's mission.

Westcott (Greek scholar and translator of Westcott-Hort Greek text we use for English Bibles) concurs with the above in The Gospel of John Commentary form the Greek Text. The OT judges had a divine office/authority that was misused and temporary (they were not deity). The Son contrasts as the incarnation of Deity (Jn. 1:1,14). He was by nature God (Son) and had a higher authority than the theocratic judges (sons). "I and the Father are one" is unique to Jesus, not the judges.

40 other verses indicate that Jesus is not just a god, but the one true God, co-equal, co-existent, co-essential with the Father and Spirit (Trinity).

Ps. 82; Jn. 10 are specific and limited when properly interpreted. They are not proof texts contradicting dozens of other texts (like the LDS interpretation does) that affirm monotheism and the unique Deity of Christ (not a god among many gods).

There is one true God and many so-called false gods who are not gods by nature (they are idols). Gal. 4:8; I Cor. 8:4-6

There is no God but one.

Ps. 90:2 from everlasting to everlasting you are God (vs progression or plurality). Why do you avoid these as proof texts and yet use Ps. 82/Jn. 10 as proof texts despite a credible and normative alternate explanation?

King David

May 25th, 2004, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by godrulz

Just a reminder, Mormon friends, that quoting LDS writings is not credible or authoritative for evangelicals. We are persuaded by the evidence that they are extra and contra biblical (except where they plagiarize KJV passages?!). They are not authoritative or persuasive for discerning truth. Our common ground is the Bible, properly translated and interpreted (it is the oldest revelation that we must compare 'new revelations' against).

Again, godrulz, WHICH Bible? Oh yes, you'll say the "original signatures" (or writings). But, obviously, you don't claim to have them!

You try to do the same thing the Pharisees and Sadducees did. They believed ONLY in the Old Testament PLUS their traditions, which "interpreted" or gave meaning to the 'Old Testament' writings.

You, like Lenin, know that he who interprets history controls history, for you have perverted (changed) the original meaning as is clearly given in the scriptures. And that pertaining to the nature of God (three personages acting willingly and fully under the direction of Heavenly Father) is what you deny, by trying to make your 'Trinity' is what you have changed, and accuse US of trying to change (back).

I pointed out a number of examples that clearly show that God the Father and Jesus Christ are separate personages. I know what you will say. "The Bible doesn't MEAN what it says -- it means what we and our 'fathers' say it means", is what you will say. "Orthodoxy", "tradition", and the post-Biblical, extra-Biblical, and contra-Biblical writings of various so-called "Christian" writers and "authorities" are what YOU accept. How are you different then from the Pharisees and Sadducees of Jesus', Peter's & Paul's time?

--KING DAVID

godrulz

May 25th, 2004, 12:37 PM

The monotheistic triune understanding of God recognizes that the Father and Son are distinct in one sense (The Father is called God; the Son is called God; the Spirit is called God; there is one essence of God; The Father is not the Son; the Son is not the Spirit; the Spirit is not the Father...3 in 1 and 1 in 3= one nature/essence with 3 personal distinctions). I fully agree with the verses that show the Father is not Jesus as to person. You do not agree with the verses that say there is one God.

Sabellianism/Modalism/ 'Jesus Only" is the heresy you are confusing me with. These groups affirm the Deity of Christ but say that the Father is the Son. Jesus merely steps into different impersonal modes or offices in history. There is one God and one person in the Godhead (their view). This is NOT the same as your tritheism nor my Trinity. You are attacking a straw man again. You do not understand the Trinity or the revelation of Scripture (hence your confusion of what I believe).

The canonicity and veracity of our Scriptures is well attested to (unlike the BOM). Our English translations are imperfect, yet there is no essential teachings missing from any credible translation (JW NWT is a poor translation). They do not contradict each other. Any differences are minor nuances that do not affect doctrine. Undermining the credibility of the Bible to support the BOM, LDS church, or modern prophets is simply not defensible if you would look at the history of Bible translation and textual criticism.

King David

May 25th, 2004, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by godrulz

The monotheistic triune understanding of God recognizes that the Father and Son are distinct in one sense (The Father is called God; the Son is called God; the Spirit is called God; there is one essence of God; The Father is not the Son; the Son is not the Spirit; the Spirit is not the Father...3 in 1 and 1 in 3= one nature/essence with 3 personal distinctions). I fully agree with the verses that show the Father is not Jesus as to person. You do not agree with the verses that say there is one God.

Thank You (NOT) for trying to put words into my mouth. What does the LDS clearly teach?

...Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 20:28)

And, godrulz, the Nicean tripe you listed in the first paragraph of your response sounds high sounding and wondrous, but is nothing more or less than a bunch of pagan-inspired rigamarole. What does it mean?

Again, Joseph Smith saw the same two personages that Stephen saw, one on the right hand (side) of the other. This means that God the Father has arms and hands. He has a head, eyes, nose, mouth, neck, shoulders, chest, stomach, hips, legs, feet, etc.

Jesus said he not only did what the Father told him to do, he also did what he saw his Father DO! Jesus healed the sick, raised the dead, died, and self-resurrected. What then did God the Father do? And WHEN?

As man now is, God once was. And as God is, man may become. That is, folks, the message of the Bible. Jesus said, "Come follow me." And he meant it, NOT ONLY in THIS life, but THROUGH THE ETERNITIES!!! So many of you have skulls as "thick as a brick".

Oh ye blind that WILL not see. Oh ye deaf that WILL not hear. It's not that you CAN'T, but rather that you WON'T. Just like those when Stephen bore witness as he saw the son on the right hand (side) of the Father, they put their hands over their ears, and stoned Stephen as if he (Stephen) were a blasphemous heretic. So do YOU! (at least the hands over the ears bit, right now).

It's NOT in the Bible, REJECT IT! If it's NOT in the BIBLE, it does NOT exist!

Gimme a break! The Bible contains SOME of the words of God. But NOT all. Note yourselves what the Bible ITSELF says on this subject--

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.

(New Testament | John 21:25)

Will ye also deny THAT?

The canon is STILL open! God still lives! And He can and does still speak to his duly appointed servants! He can and has manifested himself in open vision, even to Joseph Smith!

The three witnesses (to the Book of Mormon), though all three left the church (though two later returned) ALL testified from the time it happened until on their deathbeds also, that they HEARD THE VOICE OF GOD.

Oliver Cowdery saw Jesus Christ along with Joseph Smith on April 3, 1836 in the Kirtland Temple.

You do not believe OUR message (that of The Church of Jesus Christ), because you do NOT fully believe your own Bible!

Sabellianism/Modalism/ 'Jesus Only" is the heresy you are confusing me with. These groups affirm the Deity of Christ but say that the Father is the Son. Jesus merely steps into different impersonal modes or offices in history. There is one God and one person in the Godhead (their view). This is NOT the same as your tritheism nor my Trinity. You are attacking a straw man again. You do not understand the Trinity or the revelation of Scripture (hence your confusion of what I believe).

And behold godrulz' "strawmen" --

"You do not agree with the verses that say there is one God."

The canonicity and veracity of our Scriptures is well attested to (unlike the BOM). Our English translations are imperfect, yet there is no essential teachings missing from any credible translation (JW NWT is a poor translation). They do not contradict each other. Any differences are minor nuances that do not affect doctrine. Undermining the credibility of the Bible to support the BOM, LDS church, or modern prophets is simply not defensible if you would look at the history of Bible translation and textual criticism. [/QUOTE]

Tradition. TRADITION. You sound as much as an Pharisaical Jew (like our theatre/movie friend, Tevye). What did Jesus say about 'tradition'?

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men,...

(New Testament | Mark 7:7 - 8)

Here, in regards to the Bible, you do what they did. You hold your "traditional" and "orthodox" (mis)understanding of scripture above the scripture itself.

You shown no real humility, no lowliness of spirit. You know it all. You cannot be taught, because you will not be!

--KING DAVID

Chileice

May 25th, 2004, 05:53 PM

KD,
You always come across sounding so all-knowing and you are well versed in pulling verses out of context that support your arguments. But you fail to interpret the Bible by the Bible. That is the danger with mormonism. It was invented to "close the gaps" that Joseph Smith and others perceived in a n increasiningly complex world. He intentionally chose some of the more obscure verses of the Bible and then built whole doctrines around them. While I know you think these are sacred. I have little patience for those who intentionally twist God's word and add to it at their own pergogative. I KNOW you don't see it that way... but it is that way. You can not see the falacies in your own system and you have been trained (well I might add) to look for the holes in someone else. You are amazingly absent when trying to share with a Budhist or a pagan on this sight. What irks me most about mormons is they let Christians do 90% of their work for them and then they "head-hunt" looking for recent converts or seekers trying to convince them they don't quite have it all. All the time careful to present the "gospel" in such a way that it won't set off too many sirens before you get to the kicker. Get 'em baptized first and then we can teach them the "finer points" the ones that have nothing to do with original Biblical Christianity. I have seen it over and over again... even baptisms in the middle of the night. Missionaries who admitted time and again to trying to get those baptism numbers up. Sure you give them a Book of Mormon, sure they feel a burning in their bosom ( bad tacos probably) and then you convince them that J. Smith Jr. got all the answers.

I mean I have alwayas respected my Mormon friends as people, but lately, more than ever I have lost all respect for their religion. It is a religion of convenience and science fiction wrapped up in an all-american pull yourself up by the bootstraps faith that uses Christian terms and twists them horribly. Then to make matters worse (the missionaries especially) will agree with every cotton-picken thing you say to make themselves seem more Christian than Christ. And if one doesn`t already know the D&C and Pearl of Great Price it can sound convincing. But it irritates the tar out of me that you nearly have to back a mormon against the wall to own up to his own beliefs.

I have many more things to say to you, which if the world were full of books there would not be enough ink to tell you. (semi-biblical :-)) But for now I just wish you could see beyond your blinders. I wish the word grace (not your indoctrinated version of it) would truly be known to you. Liberation would come.

godrulz

May 25th, 2004, 07:40 PM

The trap of the cults is an issue of semantics.

Joseph Smith and the LDS Church explicitly state they believe in a plurality of gods. I am glad KD is trying to be monotheistic (since Judeo-Christianity, unlike Mormonism has always been monotheistic...even the secular Encyclopedia Britannica is accurate here), but he is not being honest. Whatever sense He believes that God is one is not the same sense as Jews, Christians, and the Bible mean that God is one (see other threads for the quotes from McConkie and Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith on the plurality of gods...by definition, not ONE God).

God is ONE in essence and nature. Jehovah is Elohim (interchangeable in the OT= one God). There are many names and titles of the one God.

LDS means one in what sense in light of believing in 3 separate personages/gods??? Jehovah is Jesus; Elohim is the Father (indefensible view).

Who is 'Jehovah Elohim' (compound name in the OT)? He is the one God.

godrulz

May 25th, 2004, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by godrulz

Scripture and Judeo-Christianity has always been monotheistic (belief in one true God). Joseph Smith mocked this and said his religion was polytheistic (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith)= belief in more than one true god. Henotheism is the worship of one god among many. This is not Mormonism. The Father and the Son are both worshipped. Mormonism is tritheism + (unlike triune God...the Word is not in the Bible, but the revelation is= one essence/nature of God with 3 personal distinctions).

One God (explicit verses):I Cor. 8:6; James 2:19; I Tim. 1:17; Gal. 4:8; Deut. 6:4;32:39; Is. 43:10; 44:6,8; 45:5,22; 46:9, etc.

Ps. 82 revisited: This is used as a proof text by LSD for more than one true gods...This isolated text cannot contradict the above explicit monotheistic texts.

Context= evil judges (not disputed by non-Mormon commentators through the centuries):

"Declaring that God judges His human judges, Asaph called for Him to act on His justice. Asaph warned that judges without understanding, who ignore God's appointment for them, will perish (NOT exaltation to Mormon godhood).

The psalmist envisioned God presiding over an assembly of judges. The word gods (Elohim) is used here for authorities in Israel (cf. 45:6; Ex. 21:6; 22:8,9). The Psalm clarifies that these are gods reps on earth.

Using God's words, the psalmist warned these magistrates (not gods by nature Gal. 4:8) to do their jobs. The indictment (v.2) given in the form of a rhetorical question, is that His people were unjust and partial. Instead they should judge fairly and champion the cause of the oppressed (including the weak, fatherless, poor, needy). This is the essence of righteous judging.

However, the human judges under God's indictment roam the earth without spiritual or intellectual understanding and in moral darkness, so that law and order are undermined (it is not saying they are glorious gods in eternity!).

God warned the wicked judges that they will perish (gods do not perish). There delegated divine office would not protect them. He had appointed them as gods/judges (elohim is used of the true God and in other ways depending on the context=false gods)....as 'sons of the most High', His reps on earth. BUT despite their exalted position, they were held accountable by God.

Jesus appealed to verse 6 when He was accused of blasphemy (Jn. 10:34) for claiming to be the one true God. Since Israel's human judges were, in a sense, 'sons' of God, JESUS said He was not blaspheming to call Himself THE SON of God (equal with the Father..the Jews rightly understood that this rabbi was claiming to be Jehovah Elohim, the Almighty God....not one of many gods, which would be even more appalling to them). Jesus contrasts His Deity and Sonship , prior to time, with the judges, who had delegated authority as mere mortals.

Asaph called on God to arise and judge the earth, for they are responsible to Him. (Bible Knowledge Commentary).

This is sound exegesis, hermeneutics, and consistent with the context (not just quoting 'gods' out of context).

Keil-Delitzsch (Hebrew scholars) Commentary on the OT is the gold standard for Hebrew exegesis. They go into more detail on Hebrew words and cross references. They concur with the above accepted concepts. No credible Christian commentators interpret this passage differently. The LDS in-house teachers stand alone in twisting this passage to their own destruction (teaching pagan polytheism rather than Judeo-Christian monotheism). There is nothing more to be said to outright reject Mormonism as a false religion.

John 10 Jesus claimed oneness of nature with God. Jesus' response to their objection requires insight into the methods of argument common in Rabbinic discussions. He first directed them to the OT ...In your Law...Ps. 82 speaks of GOD (not gods) as the true Judge and of mere men, appointed as judges (not gods by nature), who were failing to provide true judgment for God. In this limited sense, God called them gods/judges (not speak of a divine nature in man).

In certain cases, men were called 'gods' (rare). The word elohim is translated judges in Exodus for humans. Jeus complete His argument by pointing out that their Scripture called judges 'gods', so the Jews could not logically accuse Him of blasphemy for calling Himself God's Son since He was set apart and sent on God's mission.

Westcott (Greek scholar and translator of Westcott-Hort Greek text we use for English Bibles) concurs with the above in The Gospel of John Commentary form the Greek Text. The OT judges had a divine office/authority that was misused and temporary (they were not deity). The Son contrasts as the incarnation of Deity (Jn. 1:1,14). He was by nature God (Son) and had a higher authority than the theocratic judges (sons). "I and the Father are one" is unique to Jesus, not the judges.

40 other verses indicate that Jesus is not just a god, but the one true God, co-equal, co-existent, co-essential with the Father and Spirit (Trinity).

Ps. 82; Jn. 10 are specific and limited when properly interpreted. They are not proof texts contradicting dozens of other texts (like the LDS interpretation does) that affirm monotheism and the unique Deity of Christ (not a god among many gods).

There is one true God and many so-called false gods who are not gods by nature (they are idols). Gal. 4:8; I Cor. 8:4-6

There is no God but one.

Ps. 90:2 from everlasting to everlasting you are God (vs progression or plurality). Why do you avoid these as proof texts and yet use Ps. 82/Jn. 10 as proof texts despite a credible and normative alternate explanation?

Any thoughts on why the vast majority of scholars with doctorate degrees and working knowledge of Hebrew and Greek support the gist of this interpretation? Any thoughts on why the Mormons use this as a proof text for pagan polytheism contrary to Judeo-Christianity through the centuries? "New revelation" will not contradict old truth (Christianity revealed more of the triune nature of God and the person and work of Jesus Christ and the Spirit; it did not contradict Jewish monotheism, the foundation of Christianity; Mormonism contradicts both, not adds to it).

King David

May 25th, 2004, 07:55 PM

Chiliece,

I am looking for your more complete reply.

I have never backed down, nor do I hide nor wait for "others to do the work", and then go and steal it from them, in regards to teaching Buddhists, Taoists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Gentiles, Pagans, Atheists, Agnostics, Satanists, in short -- ANYONE who is a son or daughter of Adam and Eve. I have personally (and we have as a church) always gone to where we can and tried to teach and preach the true word of God anywhere and everywhere in the world, to every creature. Do you realize that in the middle of the greatest crises in the Church of Jesus Christ that new efforts were made to send missionaries far and wide throughout the world. Within the first decade, just after they built a temple in Ohio, were being chased and hounded and mobbed out of Missouri, the majority of the Quorum of Twelve apostles were sent to Great Britain. They left their families often ill and destitute, and were themselves sick and without money, relying upon the mercies of God to get themselves to New York, and from there to Liverpool? I'm in the middle of reading a book given to my father by my uncle and aunt on the mission of the apostles between 1837 and 1841. Their story is incredible and truly faith-inspiring. God truly blessed them, and sustained them in illness, in persecution, in attacks by evil spirits on them even! They were persecuted, attacked, bothered by the sectarians of that day (just like sectarians have been trying to do more and more at Temple Square in Salt Lake City in recent years).

You say that I have been well taught by my Church to defend its doctrines. If you knew how little time is spent in and by the church to train anyone like myself to do this. Relatively few members of my church get into apologetics like I have, or like MS has. Most, like ourselves, are mere amateurs. We are not paid to do this. We are not even requested to do this.

Interestingly enough, though, what I have observed on this forum, parallels a statement John Taylor (apostle, and later 3rd president of the [LDS] Church) said to Joseph Smith when he got back to Illinois after his mission in England. He basically told him that the church leaders in England (largely Protestants) were 'too pious', 'too knowledgeable' to have anyone teach them the basics of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and correct principles and doctrine. Basically, like the pharisees and sadducees of old, they (in England then), as so many of those on this (and similar) forum/s, act and talk as if its their way (or the highway), speaking doctrinally -- and either repeat the same diatribe of words and phrases over and over again, as if that is reasoning (such as 'godrulz' typically does) -- but they run away from (as Rene, Godrulz, and heretofore you) have done in what I have written to you to answer in the past 24 hours or so.

None of you have yet answered myself directly on what I have put forth to you from the Bible. You claim I "twist" it. I do not. I read and understand it as it is written. Why can you not take much of the Bible at face value? Why do you imagine to yourself that in so many places it means something other than what it actually and factually says?

Throughout the New Testament, especially, the fact that there are three members of the Godhead is clarified constantly! Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, a member of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles in The Church of Jesus Christ today somewhat recently pointed out--

Of the many magnificent purposes served in the life and ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ, one great aspect of that mission often goes uncelebrated. His followers did not understand it fully at the time, and many in modern Christianity do not grasp it now, but the Savior Himself spoke of it repeatedly and emphatically. It is the grand truth that in all that Jesus came to say and do, including and especially in His atoning suffering and sacrifice, He was showing us who and what God our Eternal Father is like, how completely devoted He is to His children in every age and nation. In word and in deed Jesus was trying to reveal and make personal to us the true nature of His Father, our Father in Heaven.

He did this at least in part because then and now all of us need to know God more fully in order to love Him more deeply and obey Him more completely. As both Old and New Testaments declare, "The first of all the commandments is . . . thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first [and great] commandment."1

Little wonder then that the Prophet Joseph Smith taught: "It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God." "I want you all to know Him," he said, "and to be familiar with Him." We must have "a correct idea of his . . . perfections, and attributes," an admiration for "the excellency of [His] character." Thus the first phrase we utter in the declaration of our faith is, "We believe in God, the Eternal Father." So, emphatically, did Jesus. Even as He acknowledged His own singular role in the divine plan, the Savior nevertheless insisted on this prayerful preamble: "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God."

Elder Holland relates much, much more in his complete talk on this topic which as I see it, corrects much of the misconception about God and his Only Begotten Son in the flesh, Jesus Christ. Anyone (there is no fee or obligation) can read the entirety of his talk, "The Grandeur of God" at--

http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-401-21,00.html

or they can even LISTEN to the audio of his address, and can hear an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ bear solemn witness to the divinity of the Father and the Son at--

http://lds.org/conference/sessions/display/0,5239,23-1-401,00.html

And this is what all of "Mormonism" does. The Book of Mormon itself alone contains many treatises regarding the nature of God, including the unity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost as ONE (count it carefully) GOD! I have already listed on this thread in one of my recent posts how it points out how and why these three are ONE GOD; covering especially the relationship between Christ and our Heavenly Father.

Chileice said--What irks me most about mormons is they let Christians do 90% of their work for them and then they "head-hunt" looking for recent converts or seekers trying to convince them they don't quite have it all. All the time careful to present the "gospel" in such a way that it won't set off too many sirens before you get to the kicker. Get 'em baptized first and then we can teach them the "finer points" the ones that have nothing to do with original Biblical Christianity. I have seen it over and over again... even baptisms in the middle of the night. Missionaries who admitted time and again to trying to get those baptism numbers up. Sure you give them a Book of Mormon, sure they feel a burning in their bosom ( bad tacos probably) and then you convince them that J. Smith Jr. got all the answers.

Yea. You're probably right about the food stuff. After all, we also read in the Bible of a similar instance occuring in connection with meal time--

28 And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they went: and he made as though he would have gone further.

29 But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them.

30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.

31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.

32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

(New Testament | Luke 24:28 - 32)

But don't expect such "touchy, feely, tear-jerking stuff" in 'traditional Christianity'. No! Those Mormons are all big on "inspiration", which is really just--

...the effect of a frenzied mind; and this derangement of your minds comes because of the traditions of your fathers, which lead you away into a belief of things which are not so.

(Book of Mormon | Alma 30:16)

So you, like Korihor, one of the anti-Christs in the Book of Mormon, and so many of your cohorts on this forum, fully dismiss, and thereby deny the power of God to confirm by his Holy Spirit the truth of ALL things, especially in regards to, as 'godrulz' would put it, salvific matters, to the heart and mind of each member of the family of Adam. To you, and your crude "natural man" mind, it is like with 'Timon' and 'Pumbaa', its all just a bunch of intestinal gas ('er heartburn)! Take some Maalox, Rolaids, Tums, or other medication, and it will all go away by morning!

Well it can be said to you as it was to them of old--

...O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken...

(New Testament | Luke 24:25)

When the early and apostles as missionaries in Great Britain baptized in the middle of the night, it was either because they were hounded by sectarians like so many on TOL during the day, or because they were begged to by those they taught to be baptized immediately. I have known of many convert baptisms. While I'm saying it is not done, I have known of none of many, many dozens of them during my life. I've witnessed baptisms in swimming pools, and in the ocean, and have heard of them being done in rivers, lakes, etc. But I have myself never known of one performed in the LDS Church in the middle of the night. Perhaps at 7pm or 8pm, maybe even at 9pm -- but this would only be done due to scheduling necessities to get access to a baptismal font (where baptisms may be performed all day), or because a convert has to work, and that's the only time they can do it!

As far as what we teach them and what they need to know to enter into the covenant of baptism. But if you think that one will feed a "baby" who has a tough enough time digesting "milk" a T-bone steak, you have had far less experience with "children", whether we're speaking of persons young in age, or those young in their knowledge, experience and understanding of the gospel, than you should be.

After Jesus gave the "I am the living bread which came down from heaven" (John 6:51) speech, it was recorded--

From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

(New Testament | John 6:66)

You claim--...and then we ("Mormons") can teach them the "finer points" the ones that have nothing to do with original Biblical Christianity

And tell us, Chileice, did YOU live in Biblical times? What do you REALLY know of "Biblical Christianity".

Tell us, who today holds the power to "bind on earth" and thereby also "bind in heaven"? Why did Moses and Elijah appear with the then glorified Christ on the "Mount of Transfiguration"? How is Jesus "the bread of life"?

What does this mean when Jesus said, 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

(New Testament | John 8:56 - 58)

And, apparently, even a sermon on "the bread of life" can set off sirens and whistles that can cause one to exit -- it need not be the Adam-God theory, blood atonement, spiritual wifery, or any other such "obscure" or "outlandish doctrine"!

If we could, I wouldn't mind sitting down with you in person, and answering your questions and objections directly -- if it would make a difference (and it might).

But, here, where you see so ready to essentially dismiss out of hand what we have and do tell you, even referencing the one book of scripture which you claim to accept -- but then hesitate, if and when a "Mormon" (who must certainly sport devilish horns on his head, or some such thing) shows you in the one book you claim to believe what is or is not so.

We give you evidence, and then you either stop your ears, repeating something not all that different from, "Great is Diana of the Ephesians" (Acts 19:28). You say you believe in God and his words. But it comes across a lot like you worship a God who could at one time speak, but now is handicapped. And you prostate yourself before a great idol made of wood (or paper) and of an animal (leather), and mineral (ink) and/or possibly of vinyl or plastic (instead of leather). You say, "There is a Bible, there is a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible. The Bible is all there is and all there will be. We have His word. It is enough. We need no more, we want no more, and we will accept no more!" That all is about as effective (or vain) as repeating, "Great is Diana of the Ephesians; Great is Diana of the Ephesians"

Ye worship ye know not what. We KNOW what (and whom) we worship. The TRUE and LIVING GOD, not a "has been" or a "gonna be", but the Great I AM.

--KING DAVID

King David

May 25th, 2004, 08:12 PM

Originally posted by godrulz

The trap of the cults is an issue of semantics.

Joseph Smith and the LDS Church explicitly state they believe in a plurality of gods. I am glad KD is trying to be monotheistic (since Judeo-Christianity, unlike Mormonism has always been monotheistic...even the secular Encyclopedia Britannica is accurate here), but he is not being honest. Whatever sense He believes that God is one is not the same sense as Jews, Christians, and the Bible mean that God is one (see other threads for the quotes from McConkie and Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith on the plurality of gods...by definition, not ONE God).

God is ONE in essence and nature. Jehovah is Elohim (interchangeable in the OT= one God). There are many names and titles of the one God.

LDS means one in what sense in light of believing in 3 separate personages/gods??? Jehovah is Jesus; Elohim is the Father (indefensible view).

Who is 'Jehovah Elohim' (compound name in the OT)? He is the one God.

'godrulz',

Without a big horry, trying to anticipate everything explanation, tell us, what was meant by Jesus when he prayed to God the Father, when he said--

...Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

(New Testament | John 17:11)

In the simplest, most straightforward terms you can muster, explain this so that my eight-year old son would not misunderstand what you say, please.

--KING DAVID

godrulz

May 25th, 2004, 08:13 PM

I am all for new insights on the revelation God has given us. This is illumination (light). Inspiration is the accurate recording of revelation. New illumination or revelation will not contradict existing revelation. Our contention is that Mormonism is diametrically opposed to an accurate understanding of the Old and New Testament, the standard we must compare new stuff with.

Millions of pages have been written on this. Having conviction of truth does not make us 'pious' or arrogant. If you know the genuine, a counterfeit is easy to spot. Christianity is understandable and simple. The complexity comes from the maze of ideas from the new challengers on the religious scene.

We must proclaim and defend the faith once for all entrusted to the saints (Jude).

Sincerity does not create truth.

King David

May 25th, 2004, 08:35 PM

Originally posted by godrulz

If you know the genuine, a counterfeit is easy to spot.

Good, godrulz. Then which of the sects of 'traditional Christianity' have the truth, and which do not? You have told me before that all do not have the truth. Please identify either the ones that do, or the ones that don't, if it is so "...easy to spot." Either put up or shut up -- because you have inserted this phrase in so many of your replies to me, I want to pewk!

1. Christianity is understandable and simple. The complexity comes from the maze of ideas from the new challengers on the religious scene.

You call THIS (just below) simple?

from 'godrulz' -- "The monotheistic triune understanding of God recognizes that the Father and Son are distinct in one sense (The Father is called God; the Son is called God; the Spirit is called God; there is one essence of God; The Father is not the Son; the Son is not the Spirit; the Spirit is not the Father...3 in 1 and 1 in 3= one nature/essence with 3 personal distinctions)."

This (above, that YOU wrote) is ANYTHING but 'simple' -- and it doesn't even make one iota of sense! (And I reply that "The emperor [i.e., 'Constantine' as at Nicea] has 'NO CLOTHES'" -- the Nicean creed, and its variations, make no sense).

2. We must proclaim and defend the faith once for all entrusted to the saints (Jude).

The King James versions renders this verse differently than does your New International Version of the Bible

3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

You will note, there is no "once for all", as is found in your (I suppose) interpolated "New International Version".

3. Sincerity does not create truth.

Who ever said or implied it did, on one hand.

On the other hand, whoever said that if "sincerity" is there, that truth is not?

This statement is a "non sequitur" in the context of our discussion. Whether you or I are "sincere", it does not change the veracity of anything, either one way or the other.

Are you implying that though "Mormons" may come across as being sincere, this doesn't make their message true?

If so, the same "truism" can be applied to anybody and everybody, including 'traditional Christians', like yourself!

--KING DAVID

godrulz

May 25th, 2004, 08:38 PM

John 17:11 Context= disciples and the unity of the Body of Christ...Jesus prayed that the disciples would be one. They were not the Father nor Jesus, but they could have oneness and love and unity as the Body of Christ. They would have a oneness as members of the Body of Christ, the Church (see I Cor. for the unity and diversity of the Church...it is in this sense that we are one, not co-equal, co-eternal, co-essential with the Father, Son, Spirit).

Jesus illustrates the unity of His Church by referring to the unity He has with the Father (similar, but not identical...we can be one in purpose with God and each other...one in love...but we are not physically one with each other, nor do we become part of the essential oneness of the Godhead...we are morally, not metaphysically one...one is used with different nuances...this upholds the rest of the revelations, without becoming a proof text for LDS views).

Jesus said: I and the Father are one (Jn. 10:30...v. 33 shows that He was claiming to be the one God). Jesus and the Father are one in essence/nature, not just purpose or will (this context). There is only one God, not 3 gods).

cf. Phil. 2 The incarnation (God becoming a man) is a picture of true humility. It was not arguing that we are gods who became men.

godrulz

May 25th, 2004, 09:49 PM

There is more unity among Christian denominations than Mormons give us credit for. A Billy Graham crusade has dozens of denominations working together to reach a city since we accept the same Gospel. Unity in essentials, diversity in non-essentials, love in all things. We agree on essential doctrines like the gospel, the Deity of Christ, the resurrection, the virgin birth, etc. We have different styles of worship, different church governments, and more divisive, non-salvific issues like charismatics, mode of baptism, Calvinism vs Arminianism, etc.

Some groups in Christendom have become liberal supporting gay rights, abortion, denying the authority of the Word, social gospel, etc. They are nominal and would be in the same category as the many sects of Mormonism (careful to not call the kettle black if you also have divisions in your ranks).

Cults have uniformity because of a centralized, authoritarian structure. This is not the biblical model of local churches with unity and diversity.

Sorry I make you pewk. Let's try not to get too personal. We are passionate about our beliefs and desire to enlighten others. Respect is still the order of the day. Sorry my explanations are not as simple as the truths themselves. We are coming from different world views with different understandings of the same terms. We need to communicate precisely with clarity. Only the Spirit can illuminate truth. There is a blindness from the enemy on those who are deceived.

rene

May 25th, 2004, 10:53 PM

Here is what I found with just a tad of searching about their view of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.

Mormonism teaches that the Persons of the Trinity are not three Persons in one being, as historic Christianity has always taught (from the Bible); rather, Mormons say the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate beings — they are three separate, distinct Gods (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 319).

Bruce McConkie reasons that "as each of these persons is a God, it is evident, from this standpoint alone, that a plurality of Gods exists. To us, speaking in the proper finite sense, these three are the only Gods we worship. But in addition there is an infinite number of holy personages, drawn from worlds without number, who have passed on to exaltation and are thus gods" (Mormon Doctrine, p. 576).

Did Joseph Smith teach the doctrine of the plurality of Gods? Though references in the Book of Mormon (published early in his prophetic career) attest to the existence of only one God, Smith eventually went on to teach the plurality of Gods not only in his writings but also in his public speaking. In one message Smith said this:

"I will preach on the plurality of Gods. . . . I wish to declare I have
always and in all congregations when I preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the Elders for fifteen years. I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! We have three Gods, anyhow, and they are plural; and who can contradict it?
(Joseph Fielding Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 370).

Joseph Fielding Smith adds that "Joseph Smith taught a plurality of gods, and that man by obeying the commandments of God and keeping the whole law will eventually reach the power and exaltation by which he also will become a god" (Doctrines of Salvation, 1:98).

Spencer W. Kimball, a former president of the church, made the following remarks to a group about how they can become gods: "Brethren, 225,000 of you are here tonight. I suppose 225,000 of you may become gods. There seems to be plenty of space out there in the universe. And the Lord has proved that he knows how to do it. I think he could make, or probably have us help make, worlds for all of us, for every one of us 225,000" (The Ensign, November 1975, p. 80).

Brigham Young said, "How many Gods there are, I do not know. But there never was a time when there were not Gods and worlds, and when men were not passing through the same ordeals that we are now passing through. That course has been from all eternity, and it is and will be to all eternity" (Discourses of Brigham Young , arranged by John A. Widtsoe, pp. 22-23).

Mormon apostle Orson Pratt said, "If we should take a million worlds like this and number their particles, we should find that there are more Gods than there are particles of matter in those worlds." (Journal of Discourses, 2:345).

It is critical to recognize that in Mormon theology, just as Jesus has a Father, so the Father allegedly has a Father, and the Father of Jesus' Father has a Father. This endless succession of Fathers goes on and on, up the hierarchy of exalted beings in the universe.

Joseph Fielding Smith expresses the Mormon logic behind the concept: "If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that he had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a Father? ... Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that he had a Father also?" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 370, 373). Smith ponders, "Is this not a reasonable thought, especially when we remember that the promises are made to us that we, may become like him?" (Doctrines of Salvation, 1:12). Hence, there is a Father of the Father of the Father of the Father of the Father, ad infinitum.

King David

May 25th, 2004, 11:10 PM

Originally posted by godrulz

John 17:11 Context= disciples and the unity of the Body of Christ...Jesus prayed that the disciples would be one. They were not the Father nor Jesus, but they could have oneness and love and unity as the Body of Christ. They would have a oneness as members of the Body of Christ, the Church (see I Cor. for the unity and diversity of the Church...it is in this sense that we are one, not co-equal, co-eternal, co-essential with the Father, Son, Spirit).

You can still hardly put together a complete sentence. Your writing has become, I believe, even more fragmented than it was some months ago when we did these exchanges, 'rulz!

My point here is that Jesus (one personage) was praying to God (another personage) that their disciples (yes) "...could have oneness and love and unity" as the Father and the Son have "oneness and love and unity".

Again, Jesus was not praying that they would be one "essence", as you like to use.

You say that your viewpoint is different from those who believe that the Father and the Son are one and the same. But you say that they (the Father and the Son) are "one in essence". What in the universe do you mean? Can you "spit it out", so to speak, in language that is "simple", as you claim it is?

Jesus illustrates the unity of His Church by referring to the unity He has with the Father (similar, but not identical...we can be one in purpose with God and each other...one in love...but we are not physically one with each other, nor do we become part of the essential oneness of the Godhead...we are morally, not metaphysically one...one is used with different nuances...this upholds the rest of the revelations, without becoming a proof text for LDS views).

Again, you sound like you're first saying one thing, and then the other, as if you can't decide which it is!

Jesus said: I and the Father are one (Jn. 10:30...v. 33 shows that He was claiming to be the one God). Jesus and the Father are one in essence/nature, not just purpose or will (this context). There is only one God, not 3 gods).

But your answer just above begs the question as to then why the resurrected ("complete") Jesus has to ascend to "(his) Father and your Father, to (his) God and your God". Are you denying that the Father and the Son are separate personages? Or what?

cf. Phil. 2 The incarnation (God becoming a man) is a picture of true humility. It was not arguing that we are gods who became men.

Jesus quoted the scripture which he said cannot be broken that equated men to/as gods. "I said ye are gods". Rationalize away as you will, that is what he (Jesus) said, and in the context of what he was defending himself in, it is what he meant!

--KING DAVID

p.s. I can't believe the incoherent dribble these sectarians babble!

Mustard Seed

May 25th, 2004, 11:22 PM

Originally posted by Chileice
...you fail to interpret the Bible by the Bible. That is the danger with mormonism. It was invented to "close the gaps" that Joseph Smith and others perceived in a n increasiningly complex world. He intentionally chose some of the more obscure verses of the Bible and then built whole doctrines around them.

Chileice,

I must state that it is very enjoyable to read your posts as you (unlike rene or godrulz have been doing) put thought into what you say and I believe you honestly approach the subject while maintaining your belief rather than just constantly repeat the same argument over and over. I respect that.

This is not to say that I haven't heard some of your objections. The above objection I've considered before. I cannot prove to you that that is not what Joseph did. I do not believe that is what happened and perhapse I can show a little bit of why. Take those same verses and tell me what they really mean. Scriptures like the last chapter of Malachi and the whole turning of the hearts of the childeren to the fathers. I've heard Christians try and explain what they think this verse means and I've never heard anything that doesn't sound like a really big stretch. The same goes for the scriptures in the Bible on baptisms for the dead. You say that he constructed whole doctrines around a few verses and I look at the construction of the doctrine he has presented (of course I do not believe he constructed but revealed) but still I see the doctrine and logicaly it fits. It fits FAR better than any of the other attempts to try and explain the meannings of these verses. Granted I do not accept them because they sound logical but because of my faith and testimony in Christ and that Joseph is a prophet of Christ. Still they, as I believe God's doctrine should be, are so simple and plain yet so deep and profound. Consider the weaving together of so many disputed doctrines that occures when you add the true doctrine of baptism for the dead by proxy. As you read these try and imagine the mind required to see all these gaps being bridged by this single piece being added.

In the New Testament Christ proclaims.

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

(New Testament | John 3:5)

This scripture has been and is at one of the great schisms in Christianity. We see here on TOL that the most popular theologicaly based thread is on just this very issue.

Enter baptism for the dead. All of the sudden a God that is merciful can demand baptism of all because all can receive it of the proper authority. No disputes about the destiny of the righteous man that died a Pagan soley because he was never granted access in this life to the knowledge of the gospel. Now God is not lying and he can still be merciful AND a just God.

It doesn't stop there. Here's where even more divine weaving occures that I believe either places Joseph as a scriptoral genius or a true prophet of God (which fact would necesarily make him the prior). Then, if you believe it to be fabricated then you have to believe that he was fabricating together several other verses.

An example.

You have the the possibility of baptism now but how will they know to accept or reject it. Enter Joseph Smiths explination of another verse of which I haven't heard a viable response from other Christians on. (if you wish to attempt to explain it, by all means)

19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

(New Testament | 1 Peter 3:19 - 20)

Here is where, according to revelation from the Prophet, the ministry to the dead was started.

This is but a minute (one of the more apparent to those not in our faith) examples of such harmony in his "constructions" of doctrines. I believe this is why when people actualy study indepth and honestly Mormonism they come to the conclusion that what Joseph did was either inspired of God or Satan's best fabrication because of the interior harmony of all of his revelations. Again this does not prove it but I think it moves it beyond the bound of simply finding obscure scripture and building a doctrine around them. It goes into taking all the inspired words (those obscure and less so) and creating a harmonizing paradadigm in which (unlike any other proposed by any other theologean of which I am aware) the Gospel of Christ not only harmonizes like never before but to a degree never seen before the restoration is made more reasonable and plausable than ever before.

While I know you think these are sacred. I have little patience for those who intentionally twist God's word and add to it at their own pergogative.

I appreciate your discretion and desire to discuss things without offending where you view it possible. Again it is not just adding to it at ones own perogative. Such a 'fabrication' would have had to been assembled on a macro scale that I don't believe many if any on earth can fathom entirely.

I KNOW you don't see it that way... but it is that way.

Again you are entitled to your belief though I can't agree.

You can not see the falacies in your own system and you have been trained (well I might add) to look for the holes in someone else.

I mean not sound arrogant but imagine you had, as we claim to, the truth concerning the gospel. Not parts or not just you thought you had it but that you actually had God come to you and give it to you personaly. Now imagine you looked at everything else in the world. How much easier would it be to see the problems in the arguments of those who did not have the advantage you do of having received all pertinent information. Again I am not saying you would know everything or know ALL truth (for we do not claim such) but you had the capacity to discern as well as the early disciples of Christ's church the difference between truth and error. Again I mean not to take the position of a know it all because I am not. I lack much when it comes to the department of knowledge and wisdom and I am nowhere near perfect. In fact I understand why the following...

8 And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.

(New Testament | Luke 16:8)

...is true. Sadly it has been so much in my life that I have sat on my laurels with regard to learning as much as I could have learned had I been more dilligent in my studies. Kind of like if you were to have followed Christ around as the apostles did. I can imagine that I would likely, in succuming to my frailties as a natural man, be lax in certain areas because of the feeling of safety of knowing that I could always see Christ and ask for assistance if I found myself in a bind.

You are amazingly absent when trying to share with a Budhist or a pagan on this sight.

I (I realise you did not address this to me specificaly) have approached Wickwoman and many others when time has permited. I would again ask you if you would be as anxiously engaged in promulgating your beliefs if your faith was being maligned and you were quite outnumbered AND had a family and kids to provide for as King David does. For me anyway I can understand a bit more when you look at his (King David's) and mine (and now b-baggins) context as being lone Latter Day Saints in such a site. Kind of like shooting at someone then asking them why they aren't shooting at a common enemy you both have (not that you, Chiliece, are exchanging anything like bullets, I mean to allude to nothing more than the relationship in such an analogy than to imply a conection with the context I set it in, <imagine instead a water ballon fight than a real fight!>)

What irks me most about mormons is they let Christians do 90% of their work for them and then they "head-hunt" looking for recent converts or seekers trying to convince them they don't quite have it all.

Now to state such is quite misleading. I have been out enough among the Christian community to know that such 'head-hunting' is done by all sides. You show me a christian pastor or preacher or evangelist that doesn't seek to convert people to his particular frame of thought and I will show you a leader that will not last long because they will not attract very many followers and hence (lest they do it not for money) loosing their ability to survive. I can see the frustration comming from the fact that many of our teachings seem quite a bit more different than the differences in between other sects but the truth is still that converts have always been sought from other Chrisitan churchs that if not deemed sufficient at the very least are deemed sufficiently different to avoid the merging together of the bodies.

All the time careful to present the "gospel" in such a way that it won't set off too many sirens before you get to the kicker. Get 'em baptized first and then we can teach them the "finer points"

You do not even teach the finer points of the bible before converting someone without a history in the bible. Why the hypocrisy? I have yet to hear of a man converting to Christianity because He was told that God made a donkey talk, as contained in the bible. Nor have I seen any christian hand out a tract that proclaimed at all that God commisioned the complete genocide of entire nations by his chosen people. I don't see the making sure that before they make a profesion of faith that they know that God might call upon them to be tested like Job was or that God could strike one dead for simply placing their hand on an inanimate holy object to help keep it from falling to the earth.

the ones that have nothing to do with original Biblical Christianity.

Of course you omit that they do not contradict the Bible. Absense from the Bible is assumed in your argument to mean it is false. A logical fallacy that would destroy Christianity itself if actually applied to all.

I have seen it over and over again... even baptisms in the middle of the night. Missionaries who admitted time and again to trying to get those baptism numbers up. Sure you give them a Book of Mormon, sure they feel a burning in their bosom ( bad tacos probably) and then you convince them that J. Smith Jr. got all the answers.

Not the whole 'stomach problem' explination. It is explinations like this that epitomize the streaches made in many of your arguments. I have had a GREAT many experiances with stomach problems, pains in the chest, the bowls etc. Essentially I can guarentee that the answer is SO different that if you are confusing the two then you in all likelyhood do not understand the difference between getting smacked in the most sensitive of places and the utmost of physical pleasure.

I mean I have alwayas respected my Mormon friends as people, but lately, more than ever I have lost all respect for their religion. It is a religion of convenience...

I would like you to explain to me what exactly is convenient about it. True it makes those who live it happy and it explains ALOT but so did the gospel of Christ to his followers yet I'd hardly dexcribe their journies as one of 'convenience'.

...and science fiction

Now that's one I don't see you comming up with ANY real evidence for. I see us getting closer to aligning with science and I see no proof that anything in our religion is in opposition to pure science.

wrapped up in an all-american pull yourself up by the bootstraps faith that uses Christian terms and twists them horribly.

You cannot even consider that they are simply being untwisted? If one has never seen something 'un-twisted' then when it is they can easily claim that it has been 'twisted' (cause technicaly it has but to the betterment rather than real distortion).

Then to make matters worse (the missionaries especially) will agree with every cotton-picken thing you say to make themselves seem more Christian than Christ.

You imply that our agreeing is somehow a lie. It is not. We believe in Christ. No matter how many say otherwise that does not change the fact that we believe that he is our Saviour, Redeemer and Creator and hence we think it not robery to be called after his name and to be called Christian.

And if one doesn`t already know the D&C and Pearl of Great Price it can sound convincing.

I have talked to a convert that was converted, as he claims, by the Pearl of Great Price. He was an extreemly intellegent man.

But it irritates the tar out of me that you nearly have to back a mormon against the wall to own up to his own beliefs.

If you call refering to our actual scriptures rather than quoting the likes of Ed as backing us up against a wall then that's what you have to do.

I have many more things to say to you, which if the world were full of books there would not be enough ink to tell you. (semi-biblical :-))

If it would help you see the light I would wish the same.

But for now I just wish you could see beyond your blinders. I wish the word grace (not your indoctrinated version of it) would truly be known to you. Liberation would come.

I agree that if you, Chiliece, were to do such then you would cease to contend with us.

Here we are at an impase. I pray God breaks the impase by softening your heart and opening your eyes and ears that you may both see and hear and be saved.

King David

May 25th, 2004, 11:33 PM

Originally posted by rene

Here is what I found with just a tad of searching about their view of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.

Mormonism teaches that the Persons of the Trinity are not three Persons in one being, as historic Christianity has always taught (from the Bible); rather, Mormons say the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate beings — they are three separate, distinct Gods (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 319).

Bruce McConkie reasons that "as each of these persons is a God, it is evident, from this standpoint alone, that a plurality of Gods exists. To us, speaking in the proper finite sense, these three are the only Gods we worship. But in addition there is an infinite number of holy personages, drawn from worlds without number, who have passed on to exaltation and are thus gods" (Mormon Doctrine, p. 576).

Did Joseph Smith teach the doctrine of the plurality of Gods? Though references in the Book of Mormon (published early in his prophetic career) attest to the existence of only one God, Smith eventually went on to teach the plurality of Gods not only in his writings but also in his public speaking. In one message Smith said this:

"I will preach on the plurality of Gods. . . . I wish to declare I have
always and in all congregations when I preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the Elders for fifteen years. I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! We have three Gods, anyhow, and they are plural; and who can contradict it?
(Joseph Fielding Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 370).

Joseph Fielding Smith adds that "Joseph Smith taught a plurality of gods, and that man by obeying the commandments of God and keeping the whole law will eventually reach the power and exaltation by which he also will become a god" (Doctrines of Salvation, 1:98).

Spencer W. Kimball, a former president of the church, made the following remarks to a group about how they can become gods: "Brethren, 225,000 of you are here tonight. I suppose 225,000 of you may become gods. There seems to be plenty of space out there in the universe. And the Lord has proved that he knows how to do it. I think he could make, or probably have us help make, worlds for all of us, for every one of us 225,000" (The Ensign, November 1975, p. 80).

Brigham Young said, "How many Gods there are, I do not know. But there never was a time when there were not Gods and worlds, and when men were not passing through the same ordeals that we are now passing through. That course has been from all eternity, and it is and will be to all eternity" (Discourses of Brigham Young , arranged by John A. Widtsoe, pp. 22-23).

Mormon apostle Orson Pratt said, "If we should take a million worlds like this and number their particles, we should find that there are more Gods than there are particles of matter in those worlds." (Journal of Discourses, 2:345).

It is critical to recognize that in Mormon theology, just as Jesus has a Father, so the Father allegedly has a Father, and the Father of Jesus' Father has a Father. This endless succession of Fathers goes on and on, up the hierarchy of exalted beings in the universe.

Joseph Fielding Smith expresses the Mormon logic behind the concept: "If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that he had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a Father? ... Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that he had a Father also?" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 370, 373). Smith ponders, "Is this not a reasonable thought, especially when we remember that the promises are made to us that we, may become like him?" (Doctrines of Salvation, 1:12). Hence, there is a Father of the Father of the Father of the Father of the Father, ad infinitum.

ALL TRUE! But within the context we are placed-- This life, this earth -- there is but ONE GOD we are concerned with -- God the Father (the father of OUR spirits).

Note again, Rene, that Jesus told Mary--

...I ascend to my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

(New Testament | John 20:17)

Who is the God of Jesus Christ? Our Father in Heaven. Is he a separate personage from Jesus Christ? If not, why would Jesus need to ascend to him before any mortal could touch him?

At Jesus baptism, did the voice of God come from the water, where Jesus was? No, it came from heaven. And where