# Threatened by Mormons???



## YuccaFlatsRanch (May 3, 2004)

Why is it that so many people (especially those of the Baptist Faith who have actually held "Save The Mormons" rallies in Salt lake City) feel THREATENED by Mormons??? Don't people of the Mormon Faith have the right to worship the Religion of the Choice???


----------



## Beowulf (Aug 27, 2010)

Dunno...

I've had some wonderfully engaging theological discussions with every Mormon missionary who has come through the neighborhood. Much more than can be said for other religious folks who come knocking...


----------



## chickenslayer (Apr 20, 2010)

Well those Mormons do have their own ways of worshiping God that don't jive with mainstream Christians, that dastardly bunch.


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

Wait, now we have to worry about Mormons along with Muslims? Goodness, this list just keep growing......(I'm joking)

I can't speak for others, but I have no problem with the Mormons around here. Every time we get new missionaries, Dr. Bob brings them by to introduce them to us, and we always get a food basket up for them. Now I am Jewish and my wife is Agnostic, our kids are what they are (kids) and I don't think that we feel threatened by them.

Personally, the missionaries are a hard working group of polite folks that are welcome anytime at my door, and at our table. Which reminds me, gotta refill the water bottles we keep in the outside Fridge for them.

Where are you seeing this fear?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

The problem comes from the view that Mormons are not Christians because of their view of Christ.


----------



## chickenslayer (Apr 20, 2010)

What is a saving the Mormons rally anyway? What are they being saved from?


----------



## zant (Dec 1, 2005)

You did'nt hear much about how "evil" Mormons were...until the gov't propaganda outlets realized a RHINO like Romney might win...go on leftwing blogs..some of their articles make Mormons out to be the new Jews....


----------



## Dutchie (Mar 14, 2003)

watcher said:


> The problem comes from the view that Mormons are not Christians because of their view of Christ.


Why is that a problem?


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2011)

I do not agree with Mormon doctrine, but it never even occured to me to feel threatened by them. :shrug:


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

I was wondering about the fear thing, too. We have Mormon missionaries in our neighborhood all of the time because the local Morman church is about a quarter mile away. Many years ago, they gave me a free copy of the Book of Mormon and sat and talked with me for a long while. It was interesting to me to learn about how much of their faith had its roots in our part of NY. They still hold a Hill Cumorah Pageant near here in Palmyra NY. They were extremely well-mannered and I enjoyed their visit. 

A Save the Mormons rally in Salt Lake City makes no sense to me...It is one of the most family friendly cities in the nation and traditional Mormon teachings include prepping the household for emergencies. Some of those non-prepping folks at the rally might need help to survive if TSHTF. Maybe they should try saving seeds instead of Mormon souls!


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

As long as they take 'No', and 'Leave me alone' for an answer, I don't have any problems with any religion.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

ladycat said:


> I do not agree with Mormon doctrine, but it never even occured to me to feel threatened by them. :shrug:


I don't fear the Mormons either. Now the Amish are a different matter.


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

I think they have a problem with any one that has a policy of independent thinking. The morman preparedness policy.


----------



## YuccaFlatsRanch (May 3, 2004)

What are "Saving the Mormon's Rallies". Well the term is mine, but for several years (not sure if they have stopped yet) the Baptist Church sponsored big conventions in Salt Lake City that had the express intent on evangelizing Mormons to "save them from their false beliefs". Maybe this is in response to so many Baptists being converted to Mormonism by LDS Missionaries - who knows. I do know that the number of Mormons "converted" in Salt lake was/is very small.

Since I personally feel that one's relationship and beliefs in Christ are totally their own to make/have, I cannot understand the amount of effort expended to save the Mormons.

That said - I am LDS. Was first Baptized in the Catholic Church, was raised in the Presbyterian Church, although father was raised in the Lutheran Church and mother WAS the Catholic. My biggest problem with mainstream non-Catholic Christian beliefs is that the beliefs of these sects are constantly changing (gays, same sex marriage, etc). The second problem I have with mainstream Christianity is inconsistency. I was taught that to be saved, one has to be baptized and believe in Jesus Christ. My problem here is my assumption that GOD is a Fair and Loving God. If baptism and belief is required, why would he forsake so many people who never had the opportunity to be Baptized?? When I asked my past ministers (prior to becoming a Mormon) about this they would mumble and then tell me that it wasn't my problem so forget about it. The Mormon's answer this conundrum - why do you think that Mormon's do so much Geneaology?? There is a Bible Ordnance called Baptism for the Dead (Vicarious Baptism). In the Temples, one of the main functions is performing Vicarious Baptism for the Dead. It is the way that will account for EVERYONE who has ever lived to be Baptized in Christ.

The other reason that I think mainstream Christian Churches are so threatened by the Mormon Church is PAID CLERGY. I am not sure when being a minister became a paid profession, but as always, once MONEY becomes part of something, the money can corrupt ideas. Am I saying that Ministers are corrupt - NO, but the response of a Church Group (a faith such as Presbyterians or Baptists or) to a dropping Church membership (and therefore dropping Funds to operate the Church) sometimes will push the group to try to protect themselves or their livelihood. The Mormon Church HAS NO PAID CLERGY - all jobs in a Mormon Ward and Stake are NON-PAID Volunteers. The head of a Ward is called BISHOP and he normally is called and serves as the Bishop for a period of 7 years. His responsibilities are the same as a Minister of a Church AND since he is not paid he still has the responsibility to work a normal job to support his family.


----------



## VA Shepherd (Dec 26, 2010)

I took a class called Sociology of Religion once, it was fascinating. The professor treated every group with respect; he had been raised as a Christian Scientist, so he had experience with people telling him he was crazy. He taught from the perspective that personal faith is always worthy of respect (with the possible exception of Scientology ). 

When we got to discussing Mormons, he acknowledged some of the more... unusual (as most non-Mormons perceive them) elements of the religion, but he compared it to the early Christian church. It's new, and was considered a cult, but has clearly moved beyond that label. Its number of adherents is growing while many traditional denominations are losing ground. Some of its tenets seem bizarre, even sacrilegious to others.

Almost every Mormon I have met has been extremely polite, conscientious, friendly, and hardworking. I don't think anyone could find an individual Mormon threatening (except one I knew who had anger management issues and a machete, that was a long summer :run. 

The anti-Mormon stuff I hear seems to be rooted in one of two things: ridicule (I've heard remarks about special underwear, racism, 'alien Jesus,' etc.), and resistance that IMO is similar to the tension between African Americans and Hispanics, where the established community is losing ground while a new group is seen as moving in on their territory. 

That's the long-winded academic answer, I guess. All you believers seem the same to me...


----------



## YuccaFlatsRanch (May 3, 2004)

And one day, each of us in our own way will find out which if any are the most correct in their interpretations of what we are supposed to accomplish here on earth.

One other thing that separates the Mormon Church in general from the other religions is that Mormon's are held accountable for LIVING THEIR FAITH more than other churches. Mormon "Church Services" are typically 3 hours long. No where in the Mormon faith is there the slightest indication that just being Baptized was enough. How you live your faith counts almost as much (and in my opinion more). Plural Marriage was once accepted in the Mormon Church, but it was a product of the times as there were many many more righteous women in the church than men. The shortage of men was "at that time" solved by plural marriage. It is not part of the religion today. At one point, Blacks were not allowed to enter the Priesthood - it was wrong, but it was primarily a product of society begun during a time when it was OK for Blacks to be held as slaves. The Mormon's have always been against slavery.

It always used to bother me when I was a kid growing up in the Presbyterian Church that there was a separate room in the church building for men to go to to watch the Redskins football game until there was a break in the action and the men could rush home to see the remainder of the game. With the women it always seemed like there was a weekly fashion show. Heck - it was probably just the church I went to - it was the one closest to my home, and of course - it was the Redskins we were talking about - that is a religion in and of itself.


----------



## Del Gue (Apr 5, 2010)

watcher said:


> The problem comes from the view that Mormons are not Christians because of their view of Christ.


Mormons are not Christians, with all due respect to the Mormons, also because they are polytheists.
Actually that is a point of argument with them, they are technically Henotheists, believing in many gods, but worshiping only one.
However since they believe that every Mormon man can/will when they die attain godhood and rule their own planet and be worshiped as that planets chief deity (the same way Earth is the planet of Elohiem, only one of countless gods... its just we are here and he is THE god.) It can be as equally argued they are polytheistic.
Jesus is the brother of Lucifer and by putting Jesus and Lucifer on equal footing, this is to any good Christian blasphemy.
There are many many aspects of LDS that make it not at all a christian religion. They use the bible proper as a base but the bulk of their doctrine is from the other "scriptures" they have added.

I fond LDS no more strange or offensive than Christianity. However, one should NOT claim that LDS is a christian religion. All christian religions share a common core doctrine, the bible in the same form. LDS expands the bible with a whole other doctrine that repeatedly contradicts the bible.

Save them... from what? They are as deeply rooted in the US as any other mainstream religion.


----------



## Del Gue (Apr 5, 2010)

> My biggest problem with mainstream non-Catholic Christian beliefs is that the beliefs of these sects are constantly changing (gays, same sex marriage, etc). The second problem I have with mainstream Christianity is inconsistency


With all due respect, the LDs faith changes all the time, and has over the years depending on what prophet at the time said/say's he is lead to change.
Until the civil rights amendment came along, you excluded blacks on the basis of inferiority and being of a cursed linage. BY wrote many times of his disdain for the black race. Along comes the civil rights movement and the prophet at the time says "black, they are now OK"
Had nothing to do with the law, of course.
Same thing happened with polygamy. The law of the land changed and then, the prophet at the time suddenly had a revelation to change the doctrine. 

When one day, the law says that about LGBT, no doubt the prophet will have a revelation and then the LDS church will embrace LGBT.

LDs doctrine changes more than christian doctrine does. Christians change their interpretation of the doctrine, or, they tend to ignore/reinterpret parts of it that just are inconvenient. The core document/doctrine never actually is changed.

Every time a prophet has a revelation, LDS doctrine is altered.

Which works for the Mormons so.... God bless em. At least they don't blow up buildings trying to convert the world. I'm cool with the Mormons.


----------



## HeelSpur (May 7, 2011)

NoClue said:


> As long as they take 'No', and 'Leave me alone' for an answer, I don't have any problems with any religion.


:clap: Same here. Just think if there wasn't any religion there would have been no wars.


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

HeelSpur said:


> Just think if there wasn't any religion there would have been no wars.


I don't believe that for a second.


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

As there is only one correct form of belief leading to salvation I suspect that one group believes they have that correct belief and is trying to save the other group from hells fire.

The fact that Mormons are as pleasent hardworking and virtues is exactly the reason some people are threatened by them. 

Not much chance their freinds and family will be joining the Church of Satan anytime soon but those cleancut Morman missionaries going door to door might snare them.


----------



## Beowulf (Aug 27, 2010)

(can't help myself...)

so... which denomination of Christianity is the one correct form of belief that will lead to salvation?


----------



## WildernesFamily (Mar 11, 2006)

YuccaFlatsRanch said:


> Why is it that so many people (especially those of the Baptist Faith who have actually held "Save The Mormons" rallies in Salt lake City) feel THREATENED by Mormons??? Don't people of the Mormon Faith have the right to worship the Religion of the Choice???


Where are you getting the information that they feel threatened? I am Christian and don't feel threatened by the Mormons.. in fact I have Mormon friends. I don't agree with their belief system, they don't agree with mine.

And when Mormons go door to door which they do daily around the world by the thousands.. aren't they also trying to "save" the people they encounter?


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

Del Gue said:


> Mormons are not Christians, with all due respect to the Mormons, also because they are polytheists.
> Actually that is a point of argument with them, they are technically Henotheists, believing in many gods, but worshiping only one.


 I think, if you looked closely enough, that you'd find at least 90% of mainstream Christians believe the same but won't admit it, and the other 10% can't really define their beliefs. They skirt the issue by declaring a belief in the Trinity, yet they define the trinity as some murky "mystery" that isn't supposed to be understood. I've had people here try to explain the concept of the trinity as being like coffee and creamer, 2 separate elements that when combined make 1, (despite the fact that it's actually more akin to removing the creamer from the coffee and still having 1...it doesn't work) and others of a mainstream faith reject that view in favor of one that shows a greater separation between the Father and the Son, as is supported in the bible. So, this idea of the trinity (something never mentioned in the bible) is a way of dealing with the issues of one God with 3 different beings. Still, it muddies the waters, causing confusion (mystery?) and ultimately results in one's feelings of insufficiency or idiocy if the concept isn't totally understood. I was told by more than one mainstream Christian that nobody truly understands the nature of the Trinity. If that is truly so, than how can one have a personal relaltionship with God? Mustn't one at least have a good grasp of the nature of the Father and/or the Son to truly have a personal relationship with him?


Del Gue said:


> However since they believe that every Mormon man can/will when they die attain godhood and rule their own planet and be worshiped as that planets chief deity (the same way Earth is the planet of Elohiem, only one of countless gods... its just we are here and he is THE god.) It can be as equally argued they are polytheistic.


 By the very definition of polytheistic, we would never be considered so. My husband acknowledges many, many wives in the world, however, they are not his wives, therefore he could never be considered polygamous. And your assertion that we believe that every Mormon man can/will attain godhood is not quite accurate. Just because I say that every American male can/will be married, doesn't make it accurate. Can they? Will they? Are they the same question? Should they be treated casually as the same question?
Besides, was it not Jesus, who on more than one occasion made a promise that "ye are gods"? Was he joking? 


Del Gue said:


> Jesus is the brother of Lucifer and by putting Jesus and Lucifer on equal footing, this is to any good Christian blasphemy.


 Who puts Jesus and Lucifer on equal footing? Surely not the LDS Church, at least, not any I've ever been to in my life. Yes, we believe that the Father created Lucifer, as well as Jesus, as well as the rest of us. We believe Jesus was/is our elder brother. Does that mean we believe we're on equal footing with Him? Goodness no! Never! Lucifer was cast out of heaven, never to return, and became a fallen angel. He is in no way on equal footing with the beloved Son, Jesus Christ. That's just a blatant misrepresentation of our beliefs. 


Del Gue said:


> There are many many aspects of LDS that make it not at all a christian religion. They use the bible proper as a base but the bulk of their doctrine is from the other "scriptures" they have added.


 The bible, both old and new testaments, go hand in hand with our "other scripture". Today, Christians believe the OT and the NT go together, hand in hand, however, the Jews of Christ's time believed he was teaching blaspheme. They rejected his doctrine as being extra-scriptural. We believe that God is not done speaking to us, and he uses the same methods of communication that He always has. It's that we have stopped listening and we have rejected his words in much the same way as the Jews did with the words of Jesus, hearing them uttered from His own lips. Why would it be any less so today when we can only read them on paper?


Del Gue said:


> I fond LDS no more strange or offensive than Christianity. However, one should NOT claim that LDS is a christian religion. All christian religions share a common core doctrine, the bible in the same form. LDS expands the bible with a whole other doctrine that repeatedly contradicts the bible.


 the myriad "versions" of the bible, wherein many the words are so changed as to totally rearrange the meaning of any given scripture, is proof that the "core" doctrine is not held so uniformly by all mainstream Christians, as well, as I pointed out previously, as the myriad versions of the Trinity that is held by them all. I always am willing to discuss anything taught within the church that is a direct deviation from the teachings of the bible. As of yet, nobody has been able to prove this claim that our faith and doctrine clearly contradicts the bible to me. It often contradicts one's personal interpretation of the bible, but there's a huge difference, my friend. 


Del Gue said:


> Save them... from what? They are as deeply rooted in the US as any other mainstream religion.


 Perhaps more-so than most, but thank you for this vote of acknowledgment.


----------



## chickenslayer (Apr 20, 2010)

Beowulf said:


> (can't help myself...)
> 
> so... which denomination of Christianity is the one correct form of belief that will lead to salvation?


Wicca :grin:


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Del Gue said:


> Mormons are not Christians, with all due respect to the Mormons, also because they are polytheists.
> Actually that is a point of argument with them, they are technically Henotheists, believing in many gods, but worshiping only one.
> However since they believe that every Mormon man can/will when they die attain godhood and rule their own planet and be worshiped as that planets chief deity (the same way Earth is the planet of Elohiem, only one of countless gods... its just we are here and he is THE god.) It can be as equally argued they are polytheistic.
> Jesus is the brother of Lucifer and by putting Jesus and Lucifer on equal footing, this is to any good Christian blasphemy.
> There are many many aspects of LDS that make it not at all a christian religion. They use the bible proper as a base but the bulk of their doctrine is from the other "scriptures" they have added.


Little bits of truth ,mixed in with much misinformation




Del Gue said:


> LDS expands the bible with a whole other doctrine that repeatedly contradicts the bible.


Nowhere does teh Book of Mormon contradict the Bible. It may contradict YOUR interpretation of what you think the Bible means.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

YuccaFlatsRanch said:


> Why is it that so many people (especially those of the Baptist Faith
> who have actually held "Save The Mormons" rallies in Salt lake City) feel *THREATENED* by Mormons???
> *Don't people of the Mormon Faith have the right to worship the Religion of the Choice???[/*QUOTE]
> ************************************************
> ...


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

chickenslayer said:


> Wicca :grin:


Oh you mean the fluffy bunny slipper magik stuff!

I'm being sarcastic/teasing, don't take it personally. 

As one who follows a Norse/Teutonic path... :nana:

As to the OP I have no problem with Mormons.

When they come to the house we just show them the our altar inside or the one outside.. Then we ask questions before they even get a chance to say a word.. IT happened twice and then hasn't happened since in over 10 years..:happy:

But we also have a Mormon or 2 in our Civil War Unit.. Which isn't a problem for us..


----------



## Beowulf (Aug 27, 2010)

Fluffy bunny wiccan? Last eostre, while guests of a local kindred, my wife, a follower of The Morighan, thought to raise the horn to Hel because she thought she was the closest correspondent to the death goddess that she worships. Although the hosts understood the intent was not to invoke the daughter of the enemy who would bring about the end of the world, they thanked her to not mention that lady's name in their home...

which is to say, not all of us are fluffy


----------



## Del Gue (Apr 5, 2010)

> I think, if you looked closely enough, that you'd find at least 90% of mainstream Christians believe the same but won't admit it, and the other 10% can't really define their beliefs.


Valid point, The Trinity thing is a puzzle. You could call it polytheism. The trinity thing always did give me a headache.



> And your assertion that we believe that every Mormon man can/will attain godhood is not quite accurate. Just because I say that every American male can/will be married, doesn't make it accurate. Can they? Will they? Are they the same question? Should they be treated casually as the same question?


The belief that even if a few have and could do it, is enough to seal the argument. By doctrine they can, so.... it's the Trinity argument again. is it polytheism? It's Henotheism, and the polytheism aspect is debatable but entirely plausible. 



> Who puts Jesus and Lucifer on equal footing? Surely not the LDS Church, at least, not any I've ever been to in my life. Yes, we believe that the Father created Lucifer, as well as Jesus, as well as the rest of us. We believe Jesus was/is our elder brother. Does that mean we believe we're on equal footing with Him? Goodness no!


What you are arguing is rank. jesus in the LDS theory is above lucifer but still, his brother.
A private an a general can be both brothers. They are both human. One is no more powerful than the other except for the rank given by the superior.

So Jesus and Lucifer, equals. In Christianity Jesus is the son of a deity and Lucifer is a created angel. Not equal.



> I always am willing to discuss anything taught within the church that is a direct deviation from the teachings of the bible. As of yet, nobody has been able to prove this claim that our faith and doctrine clearly contradicts the bible to me.


It does, in many places that would take far far to long to post here. The fact that it does has no real bearing on if your religion is or is not valid to you.

It's a subject of interest to me, not a religion I have to defend. I see clear contradictions but as you say, its all in the interpretation. I'm using logic, you're using a spirit guide. (of sorts). That's why religion and science is two things you can't mix.

Religions are an interesting subject. personally I think they're all nuts, but I understand why religion is and why people cling to it. As I said unless you're blowing up buildings to convince me to believe it too, We're cool as long as we keep it on a civil exchange of opinion.



> Little bits of truth ,mixed in with much misinformation


You need to study your own religion more.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Beowulf said:


> Fluffy bunny wiccan? Last eostre, while guests of a local kindred, my wife, a follower of The Morighan, thought to raise the horn to Hel because she thought she was the closest correspondent to the death goddess that she worships. Although the hosts understood the intent was not to invoke the daughter of the enemy who would bring about the end of the world, they thanked her to not mention that lady's name in their home...
> 
> which is to say, not all of us are fluffy


:buds: I understand, I was teasing Wiccans, that is all. 

I was more referring to the fluffy bunny stuff they always claim on TV and some Shows... They call it real magic and do love spells and such... AKA Fluffy bunny slipper magik done by teenie boppers...


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

copperkid3 said:


> Del Gue gave an excellant answer regarding the *REAL* difference between Mormanism
> and Christianity and I found your own question above rather eye-opening as well.


 Let me stop you here a moment and point out that it is MORMON, not MORMAN. Thank you...carry on. (pet peave of mine, sorry.)


copperkid3 said:


> It explains a
> lot about the difference between a religion and a *RELATIONSHIP*; mankind in general
> tries to make up his own way to worship the god of his own choosing and on his own terms.......
> whereas, God, the Father, in His infinite wisdom and knowledge, knew that there was
> *NOTHING* that we could do on our own to make us pleasing to Himself.


 Yes, you're correct, this is one of the major differences between the LDS faith and most mainstream views, such as your own, obviously. You see, we believe that God created us in HIS image, therefore, we are already pleasing to Him. We fell away, surely, however, we likewise believe that He loved us so dearly that He provided a way for us to return to Him, because He wants us with him always. We believe that He created us because it pleased Him to do so. "God don't make no junk", as I've heard it been said, therefore, I take that to mean He is pleased with us, his greatest creation (mankind), made in the image of the Father. Yes, we sin, and we fell away, but it's not hopeless. We can return, if we truly want to.


copperkid3 said:


> He then
> provided the _*ONLY WAY *_ for us to make peace with Him; for *ALL* have sinned ....
> it being possible thru His only Son; Jesus, being sacrificied in our stead; having been buried
> and then arising from the grave; providing proof that He conquered death and giving us an
> everlasting hope that we also will share in the resurrection.


 You'll find no debate or dispute with any of this amongst us. 


copperkid3 said:


> Baptism will not
> save you (nor anyone else either);


 We don't believe that you are saved by anything, ultimately, other than faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and in his merciful undertaking to take upon himself the sins of the world, to atone for all mankind and die for us, and arise again, that we all may live. 


copperkid3 said:


> it is *NOT* a necessity to salvation (see the
> thief on the cross, when the Lord told him, "Truly I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise!")


 Ah yes, another disagreement here as we take the Lord's commandment to the apostles to go forth and baptize in his name to be literal. Obviously, you don't. Christ was baptized and did he not set the example for all of us to follow? I believe He did. 


copperkid3 said:


> Baptism is both a picture of what we as Christians share with the Lord regarding our death
> (and burial) of the old self; it having been buried in the grave/water and then the renewing of
> our 'new creation' (or rebirth) when we are brought up out of the watery grave. The Lord
> gave this as a commandment, to continually remind us of this important part of our lives; just as
> he gave us the commandment for communion regarding the last supper. Do this in remembrance of me.


Absolutly true, yet as you say, it is a commandment and not a suggestion. Is not a commandment to be followed as a sign of obedience and faith? We believe this to be the case. Baptism is a step to showing our desire and design to be obedient and faithful to all His commandments, and to be united with the body of believers. It is a covenant we make between Himself and ourselves, to take upon us His name. What's your problem with that?


----------



## Beowulf (Aug 27, 2010)

beowoulf90 said:


> :buds: I understand, I was teasing Wiccans, that is all.
> 
> I was more referring to the fluffy bunny stuff they always claim on TV and some Shows... They call it real magic and do love spells and such... AKA Fluffy bunny slipper magik done by teenie boppers...


I'm not sure which has done more damage - The Craft, or Charmed


----------



## chickenslayer (Apr 20, 2010)

beowoulf90 said:


> Oh you mean the fluffy bunny slipper magik stuff!
> 
> I'm being sarcastic/teasing, don't take it personally.
> 
> ...



You dare to disparage the order of the fluffy bunny, blasphemer's will be dealt with most severely by the most exalted ruling rabbit


----------



## mekasmom (Jan 19, 2010)

YuccaFlatsRanch said:


> Why is it that so many people (especially those of the Baptist Faith who have actually held "Save The Mormons" rallies in Salt lake City) feel THREATENED by Mormons??? Don't people of the Mormon Faith have the right to worship the Religion of the Choice???


They don't feel threatened. The feel that the mormons are deceived, lost, going to eternity without God. The feel pity for the mormons, not threatened by them. If you saw a wonderful child in great danger what would you feel? You wouldn't feel threatened, you would be panicked and concerned about the child's wellbeing. I use the word child because of the innocence and great desire by Mormons to follow after faith like a child follows after their parent. It's not a put down, but a complement. 
But baptists are not feeling threatened. They are scared that people they actually care about, people with wonderful hearts are lost in deception by the enemy of their souls. It is not fear of them, it is fear for them.


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

Del Gue said:


> The belief that even if a few have and could do it, is enough to seal the argument. By doctrine they can, so.... it's the Trinity argument again. is it polytheism? It's Henotheism, and the polytheism aspect is debatable but entirely plausible.


 You overlooked my quote by Jesus Himself, as he said on more than one occasion and even quotes himself, in the bible..."ye shall be gods". So then, was Christ polytheistic too, in your opinion?




Del Gue said:


> What you are arguing is rank. jesus in the LDS theory is above lucifer but still, his brother.
> A private an a general can be both brothers. They are both human. One is no more powerful than the other except for the rank given by the superior.


 Not true at all...rank brings with it power. Having been in the military myself, I can tell you that I, as a senior airman, had neither the rank, nor the power of a Sgt, let alone the base commander, a major. Yes, the rank brings with it the power, true, but the increase in power is there. And if it be Heavenly Father who hands that power over as well as what you call "rank", then I'd say Christ "outranks" and "outpowers" lucifer. It was said that we put the two on even footing, and I was showing that we indeed, do not. Unless you believe that Lucifer was created as a non-human creation by God, you'd have to recognize Jesus and Lucifer as brothers both created by the same Father. Is this not why you and I are brothers here in mortality? Is Jesus not your elder brother? Is that relationship only due to his being born into the flesh? If he remained in spirit, would he not still be your elder brother? 


Del Gue said:


> So Jesus and Lucifer, equals. In Christianity Jesus is the son of a deity and Lucifer is a created angel. Not equal.


 Again, you have failed to show me where I think Jesus and Lucifer are equals. 




Del Gue said:


> It does, in many places that would take far far to long to post here. The fact that it does has no real bearing on if your religion is or is not valid to you.
> 
> It's a subject of interest to me, not a religion I have to defend. I see clear contradictions but as you say, its all in the interpretation. I'm using logic, you're using a spirit guide. (of sorts). That's why religion and science is two things you can't mix.


 Absolutely not. I am using logic. I am not using "a spirit guide", whatever in the world that is. I'm using scripture and logic. I don't believe my religion and science, or logic for that matter, contradict one another. I don't have to rely on either/or. 


Del Gue said:


> Religions are an interesting subject. personally I think they're all nuts, but I understand why religion is and why people cling to it. As I said unless you're blowing up buildings to convince me to believe it too, We're cool as long as we keep it on a civil exchange of opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> You need to study your own religion more.


I'm not sure why you'd say this. I believe I know my religion better than you do. I may know my religion better than many LDS do themselves as I have a naturally skeptical nature and when I investigated the church, I wanted to know everything...EVERYTHING. I delved into all sorts of anti-mormon books, websites, and reviews so I could see it from both sides. Perhaps you need to study my religion more?


----------



## YuccaFlatsRanch (May 3, 2004)

"They don't feel threatened. The feel that the mormons are deceived, lost, going to eternity without God. The feel pity for the mormons, not threatened by them. If you saw a wonderful child in great danger what would you feel? You wouldn't feel threatened, you would be panicked and concerned about the child's wellbeing. I use the word child because of the innocence and great desire by Mormons to follow after faith like a child follows after their parent. It's not a put down, but a complement.
But baptists are not feeling threatened. They are scared that people they actually care about, people with wonderful hearts are lost in deception by the enemy of their souls. It is not fear of them, it is fear for them."

AS IF BEING 62 YEARS OLD I CANNOT THINK AND MAKE UP MY MIND FOR MYSELF!!!! Its the same as my last Presbyterian Minister (also my father in law at the time) telling me that worrying about how the unbaptized masses would ever be saved. Tell the Southern baptists to stay in the south and minister to their own - LEST THE BIG BAD MISGUIDED MORMON'S COME DOWN AND STEAL THEIR PEOPLE AWAY. People would not be flocking to the Mormon Church in the numbers they are IF the religion they left was not missing serving some need in them.
__________________


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

YuccaFlatsRanch said:


> People would not be flocking to the Mormon Church in the numbers they are IF the religion they left was not missing serving some need in them.
> __________________


I think that this statement is true for most religions. Most people who are feeling spiritually fulfilled do not go off seeking another church. I don't believe that there is a cookie-cutter church that fits everyone's needs. If there were, then there wouldn't be so many different denominations of Christianity.


----------



## blufford (Nov 23, 2004)

poppy said:


> I don't fear the Mormons either. Now the Amish are a different matter.


You could be condemned to ride the slow path to hell on an old mule.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

mekasmom said:


> They don't feel threatened. The feel that the mormons are deceived, lost, going to eternity without God. The feel pity for the mormons, not threatened by them. If you saw a wonderful child in great danger what would you feel? You wouldn't feel threatened, you would be panicked and concerned about the child's wellbeing. I use the word child because of the innocence and great desire by Mormons to follow after faith like a child follows after their parent. It's not a put down, but a complement.
> But baptists are not feeling threatened. They are scared that people they actually care about, people with wonderful hearts are lost in deception by the enemy of their souls. It is not fear of them, it is fear for them.


one of the main reasons i left the baptist church in which i was raised, was the vitiolic hatred they expressed for everyone who was not a southern baptist. in their eyes a first baptist, a mormon, a catholic, a jew, a muslim & a wiccan were all the same as a satan worshipper. there is no doubt in my mind they would glady have used violence to convert, if the laws would allow.
i have met maybe a half dozen baptists that felt the way you describe.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

The fear and hatred exist here also. You are not even allowed to discus Mormonism in the Bible "Fellowship" Forum.


----------



## VERN in IL (Nov 30, 2008)

YuccaFlatsRanch said:


> Why is it that so many people (especially those of the Baptist Faith who have actually held "Save The Mormons" rallies in Salt lake City) feel THREATENED by Mormons??? Don't people of the Mormon Faith have the right to worship the Religion of the Choice???


Because a lot of Baptist are Masons....:sing: In my area the mainstream Baptist Churches have Masons for the elders, preachers, etc.:teehee:

Especially true in the Southern Baptist chruches.


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

Beowulf said:


> (can't help myself...)
> 
> so... which denomination of Christianity is the one correct form of belief that will lead to salvation?


----ed if I know?


1 Corinthians 15:2

2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.


Galatians 1:8-9


8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!


The Holy Spirit was supposed to lead all believers to a perfect unity of thought and belief.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Del Gue said:


> You need to study your own religion more.


Been studying it for much of my life. Funny how people outside seem to think they know more than someone living it.

Here I'll sum it up for you:

1) Most doctrinal issues boil down to interpretation.

2) Our interpretation isn't unreasonable.

3) If you think our interpretation is unreasonable, then it all boils down to your opinion.

4) I'm not about to argue an opinion with you.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

I am a sinful creature.

I believe, I repent, I accept God as my Lord and Father and Jesus Christ as my Savior, who's blood purchased my salvation.

Did I miss anything?


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

tinknal said:


> I am a sinful creature.
> 
> I believe, I repent, I accept God as my Lord and Father and Jesus Christ as my Savior, who's blood purchased my salvation.
> 
> Did I miss anything?


If I agree with you on everything you said, does that make me Christian, or does it make you Mormon?? :hrm:


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

I only read these religion threads to make myself glad that I no longer practice religion and no longer have to worry about being saved and saving others.

If I were to be god, I'd just tell everyone to have fun and don't hurt each other, and don't waste time and money worshipping me.


----------



## therunbunch (Oct 5, 2009)

I'm Baptist.. (Southern actually) and my best friend on earth is Mormon. They are some of the finest people we have ever had the opportunity to know. Wonderful people. I can't speak of all other people, of any faith, but when you say "Mormon" I immediately think of my wonderful friends back in TX and the magnificent God-fearing family they are yielding.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

tinknal said:


> I am a sinful creature.
> 
> I believe, I repent, I accept God as my Lord and Father and Jesus Christ as my Savior, who's blood purchased my salvation.
> 
> Did I miss anything?


Nope not a thing .:bdh: But someone will be along to sell you another book to go with it or maybe free :hobbyhors


----------



## foaly (Jan 14, 2008)

thequeensblessing said:


> You overlooked my quote by Jesus Himself, as he said on more than one occasion and even quotes himself, in the bible..."ye shall be gods".


This wasn't an original statement from Jesus in John 10:34 when He was speaking to the Jews who had gathered for the Feast of Dedication at Jerusalem. He is quoting the words of Asaph in Psalm 82:6 and Jesus says, "Is it not written in your Law, I have said 'you are gods'." This Psalm refers to God presiding in the great assembly in heaven. In the NIV Bible, many OT interpretations believe these "gods" referred to the unjust rulers in Israel who were so conceited that they viewed themselves as divine beings. In Psalm 82:6, the word "gods" is in quotes, thereby IMO making light of the people being spoken to in this great assembly in heaven. Again, "ye are gods" isn't a statement that Jesus makes to believers. He is quoting Psalm 82:6 and is actually speaking to the Jews who were planning to stone Him for not declaring Himself as the Christ.

Claiming this "ye are gods" as a direct statement of Jesus referring to us is, I believe, wrong and takes the scripture out of context.

Other than John 10:34, where did Jesus say "ye are gods" (wherein He used it in referring to believers)?


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

I'm late to the party, but I'll jump in anyway. 

I'm a Baptist (and a Mason, BTW) and I don't feel the least bit threatened by Mormons. In fact, I've found Mormons to be very easy to get along with and pleasant to be around. Although I feel no more inclination to convert a Mormon than I do a Catholic, or a Muslim, or a Wiccan, I can say that a true Christian who wants to lead someone to Christ from a religion they believe to be false is doing so out of love, not fear.


----------



## dragonjaze (Sep 8, 2010)

blufford said:


> You could be condemned to ride the slow path to hell on an old mule.


ow...that made me snort soda out of my nose! that hurt! ound:


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

tinknal said:


> I am a sinful creature.
> 
> I believe, I repent, I accept God as my Lord and Father and Jesus Christ as my Savior, who's blood purchased my salvation.
> 
> Did I miss anything?



Hebrews 9:14-15


14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death,[a] so that we may serve the living God! 

15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritanceânow that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant. 


Hebrews 10:26-27

26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.


Matthew 7:22-24


22 Many will say to me on that day, âLord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?â 23 Then I will tell them plainly, âI never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!â


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

foaly said:


> This wasn't an original statement from Jesus in John 10:34 when He was speaking to the Jews who had gathered for the Feast of Dedication at Jerusalem. He is quoting the words of Asaph in Psalm 82:6 and Jesus says, "Is it not written in your Law, I have said 'you are gods'." This Psalm refers to God presiding in the great assembly in heaven. In the NIV Bible, many OT interpretations believe these "gods" referred to the unjust rulers in Israel who were so conceited that they viewed themselves as divine beings. In Psalm 82:6, the word "gods" is in quotes, thereby IMO making light of the people being spoken to in this great assembly in heaven. Again, "ye are gods" isn't a statement that Jesus makes to believers. He is quoting Psalm 82:6 and is actually speaking to the Jews who were planning to stone Him for not declaring Himself as the Christ.


 We obviously view this scripture differently. Let's look at it...
_Psalm 82:1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. 2 How long will ye judge unjustly and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah. _Ok, here we have God standing in the congregation of the mighty, the gods, and He judges them. Yes, these gods are indeed judges over Israel. But why refer to them as "gods"? (and in the KJV, which I use exclusively, it does NOT have the word gods in quotes.) Obviously, it is not to make light of them, as you suggest, because the chapter begins with the declaration that God stands among the congregation of the mighty, the gods of israel, whom God himself obviously put in their places as judges in Israel. (In Exodus, the prophets are referred to as judges in Israel, and that idea is reinforced in John, as we'll see in a minute.) He then chastises them for their unjust judgements. The chapter goes on later...
_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. 8 Arise, O God, Judge the earth for thou shalt inherit all nations. _This reiterates the word gods as applied to the judges of israel, yet draws the distinction between them, and the most High God. 
This supports what I was saying. There is but one God on High, the Father of all living. Our belief that we can be gods, is in no way, non-biblical. I don't believe any mortal will ever equal God the Father. 
Now, take John 10:34-36. The Jews were angry that the man Jesus was "a man, makest thyself God". To which Jesus answered: _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 unto the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?_
Here, Jesus is stating that if God calls those to whom the word of God came (the prophets) gods, yet when the Father sends and sanctifies His Son to come to Earth, it is blaspheme to lay claim to being the Son of God. The Jews had no problem with God calling "those to whom the word of God came" (again, the prophets) gods, yet found the idea of Jesus being the Son of God to be blasphemous. He was pointing out this hypocrisy. 
Which is precisely my point. 


foaly said:


> Claiming this "ye are gods" as a direct statement of Jesus referring to us is, I believe, wrong and takes the scripture out of context.


 How so? It might seem so if those were the only scriptures in the bible that deals with the possibility of other gods that don't/can't attain the stature of God the Father in power and glory. But even paul, in his letter to the corinthians acknowledges the existance of other gods. What he doesn't do it go on to explain exactly what/who they might be, just that some of them may well reside in heaven. Again, prophets? Holy men? If they reside in heaven and are considered gods or lords, they are immortal holy men?
_ 1 Cor.:5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 
6But 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_. 

This sums up the LDS view nicely. It makes you uncomfortable because you are assigning a definition to the word "god" that may or may not be there. I don't do that. I allow that our God on High will use the word and the office as it suits him. A judge? A Son? a Holy man? Perhaps...Obviously this is revelation that is not expanded upon, either by God or by Paul. 


foaly said:


> Other than John 10:34, where did Jesus say "ye are gods" (wherein He used it in referring to believers)?


Specifically, those are the only times it is used as spoken either by Jesus or by the Father. However, it is used many times by the mouth of the prophets or apostles, such as Paul's letter to the corinthians that I cited above.


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

Isaiah 44:8
Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.&#8221;


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I may know my religion better than many LDS do themselves as I have a naturally skeptical nature and when I investigated the church, I wanted to know everything...EVERYTHING.


The part about the rock in the hat didn't freak you out?


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

postroad said:


> Isaiah 44:8
> Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.â


i could be mistaken because it's been a while, but i believe in hebrew it is written: Is there any God *before* me?

which is the problem w/ translations by men, some things don't translate properly or the individual doing the translation make "minor" changes that suit their view. that is just when translating within the same language add a different language and it really can go astray. another example is the ten commandments, in hebrew it is thou shalt not murder (justified killing is completely acceptable). there are thousands of these through the old testament from hebrew to latin to english & in the new testament from greek to latin to english.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

willow_girl said:


> The part about the rock in the hat didn't freak you out?


that part about striking the rock & bringing forth water didn't freak you out?
or or thousands of men blowing on horns (rams' horns) to knock down the walls of a city? or how about the guy belched up by a really big fish?

i don't take issue w/ atheists questioning that because to them it's all fairy tales. but anyone of any religion questioning anything needs to remember the finger pointing thing, when you point a finger there are three pointing back at you. or you could also use the glass houses thing. either way there are miracles & actions in every religion's history that sound pretty nonsensical and singling out one over another is just as nonsensical.


----------



## NamasteMama (Jul 24, 2009)

watcher said:


> The problem comes from the view that Mormons are not Christians because of their view of Christ.


 Christians are those and believe in Christ. Can you tell me how Mormons, who belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints are not Christians, when the core beliefs are based in Christ, and the Chruch is named for Him?


----------



## NamasteMama (Jul 24, 2009)

mekasmom said:


> They don't feel threatened. The feel that the mormons are deceived, lost, going to eternity without God. The feel pity for the mormons, not threatened by them. If you saw a wonderful child in great danger what would you feel? You wouldn't feel threatened, you would be panicked and concerned about the child's wellbeing. I use the word child because of the innocence and great desire by Mormons to follow after faith like a child follows after their parent. It's not a put down, but a complement.
> But baptists are not feeling threatened. They are scared that people they actually care about, people with wonderful hearts are lost in deception by the enemy of their souls. It is not fear of them, it is fear for them.


the only one who deceives is the father of all LIES, which is Satan. contention also also born of him. Remember that before you spread untruths.

Mormons believe in the following, 


> We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
> 
> We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.
> 
> ...


----------



## PurpleMartineer (Apr 12, 2008)

All literal organized religions, beside possibly Buddhism and mystics within Judaism, are pagan to their core, and historical examination proves it. "Lucifer" and Jesus, brothers, ranking in the celestial "army", son of the Father-God--goodness knows, how is this any different than Jupiter, Saturn, Mercury....Whatever keeps your boat afloat, but my goodness, going back to the source and clearing away the centuries of corruption and politics can be revealing....


----------



## Del Gue (Apr 5, 2010)

> As of yet, nobody has been able to prove this claim that our faith and doctrine clearly contradicts the bible to me.


Jesus and Lucifer being brothers is a contradiction.
The bible says Lucifer was an angel, and Jesus was the son of god.

Thus LDS contradicts Bible.


----------



## Del Gue (Apr 5, 2010)

> You overlooked my quote by Jesus Himself, as he said on more than one occasion and even quotes himself, in the bible..."ye shall be gods". So then, was Christ polytheistic too, in your opinion?


I'm rusty on my bible reading by about 25 years... gimme a book/chapter/verse. You might be on to something.
But then again, remember nobody wrote down what Jesus said for at least 50 yrs after he died. He could have said anything, really.



> Again, you have failed to show me where I think Jesus and Lucifer are equals.


If you believe they were brothers, then at one point they were equals. This is a direct contradiction to Christian doctrine and the bible.
Give him all the super powers you like, they are still brothers and the same sort of being. That's what I mean as equals. You are talking about rank and powers, and them not being equals. They are the same being, brothers so, they are "equal", or the same sort of creature.
One being granted more powers than the other doesn't change the fact you say they are brothers and the bible says Lucifer was a created angel.
One of many contradictions between LDS's added doctrines and the bible.




> Absolutely not. I am using logic. I am not using "a spirit guide", whatever in the world that is. I'm using scripture and logic.


Impossible. Scripture is not logical. it can;t be explained using logic. That's why one uses faith, because logic and religion isnt logical.


> I don't believe my religion and science, or logic for that matter, contradict one another. I don't have to rely on either/or.


You can believe anything you like, I've shown you where it is contradictory (one example) I could point out the illogical parts all day.
No offense.



> I'm not sure why you'd say this. Perhaps you need to study my religion more?


Actually I was replying to someone else's post there. Not you.


----------



## mekasmom (Jan 19, 2010)

poppy said:


> I don't fear the Mormons either. Now the Amish are a different matter.


What concerns you about the Amish?

I don't fear for their eternity. I don't agree with all their doctrines and ways, but I don't fear for their eternity. So, I was just curious what concerns you about them?


----------



## mekasmom (Jan 19, 2010)

Pops2 said:


> there is no doubt in my mind they would glady have used violence to convert, if the laws would allow.
> i have met maybe a half dozen baptists that felt the way you describe.


I don't know that much about the Southern Baptists at all, other than the fact that I had a friend explain in determined voice one time why they were not like First Baptists at all. LOL. I really had no idea there a such a emotional feeling of division there.


----------



## Del Gue (Apr 5, 2010)

1) Most doctrinal issues boil down to interpretation.
True. 
2) Our interpretation isn't unreasonable.
Unreasonable on a logical level, not unreasonable on a faith based level.
But like I said, all religion is illogical. That's why you have faith. if it was logical you wouldn't need any faith.
3) If you think our interpretation is unreasonable, then it all boils down to your opinion.
It's not my religion to say that it is unreasonable. A reasonable explanation is of use only to those who believe the doctrine.
4) I'm not about to argue an opinion with you.
I don't recall asking to argue with anyone about anything.


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

postroad said:


> Isaiah 44:8
> Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.â


Precisely what I've been saying.  Thank you.


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

willow_girl said:


> The part about the rock in the hat didn't freak you out?


No, no more so than the ephod, or the Urim and thumim, which were used for divination purposes in the bible freak me out.


----------



## Bruenor (Oct 2, 2008)

NamasteMama said:


> Christians are those and believe in Christ. Can you tell me how Mormons, who belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints are not Christians, when the core beliefs are based in Christ, and the Chruch is named for Him?


That's a little too simplistic. Here's my view. Christians believe that all have sinned, that Jesus died to forgive our sins, that He was the ONLY one who could perform this task, and no one comes to the Father (i.e. enters Heaven) unless it is through Christ. 

That, by far, is not all that Christians believe. Now, if you want to look at another view, this comes from the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry.



> The reason Mormonism is not Christian is because it denies one or more of the essential doctrines of Christianity. Of the essential doctrines (that there is only one God, Jesus is God in flesh, forgiveness of sins is by grace alone, and Jesus rose from the dead physically, the gospel being the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus), Mormonism denies three of them: how many gods there are, the person of Jesus, and His work of salvation.


Link to full article: http://carm.org/is-mormonism-christian

For me, I do not fear Mormons. I believe that they worship a false god and teach falsehoods about the Bible. That, however, puts them in the same boat as all other religions, and with atheists as well. That does not mean that I fear them.


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

Del Gue said:


> Jesus and Lucifer being brothers is a contradiction.
> The bible says Lucifer was an angel, and Jesus was the son of god.
> 
> Thus LDS contradicts Bible.


Ah yes, now we get into the nitty gritty of it all. So you tell me, just what IS an angel, in your opinion?
The word is a translation of what, in both hebrew and greek, means "messenger". Throughout the bible the word angel has meant both spiritual messengers as well as mortal messengers. These messengers are always, as far as I can see in studying the issue out, in the form of men. So, Lucifer was an angel. On that we can agree. From the biblical evidence presented to us, we can also draw on the likely assumption, based on written accounts of other angel encounters, that Lucifer had the spiritual form of a man. Angel, generally being applied to a messenger of some sort, denotes a ranking system. Lucifer's message was not Godly and the Father obviously didn't approve, and therefore, he was cast down to Earth where he promptly continued to try to spread his message to the descendents of man. 
That being said, we're back to square one...God created Lucifer as a messenger, likely having the form of a man. Michael, Gabriel, Raphael were all angels who appeared in the form of men. Were they shape-shifters? Spiritual men? Another type of being who just happens to look like men, who were likewise created in the image of God, who walk, sit, eat, talk, etc. (according to the bible) and are often "mistaken" for men, to the point of our being warned to be kind to all for we might be entertaining angels unaware. 
I'm sorry you find it so distasteful to believe that Lucifer and Christ were/are brothers. They are both sons of God, as are we all (sons and daughters), therefore, like it or not, they are indeed brothers.


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

Del Gue said:


> I'm rusty on my bible reading by about 25 years... gimme a book/chapter/verse. You might be on to something.
> But then again, remember nobody wrote down what Jesus said for at least 50 yrs after he died. He could have said anything, really.


 This has been covered already. 



Del Gue said:


> If you believe they were brothers, then at one point they were equals. This is a direct contradiction to Christian doctrine and the bible.


 Please show me, as you say, book/chapter/verse where this contradicts the bible? Lucifer fell from grace, was cast out from heaven, and became Satan. That too is biblical.


Del Gue said:


> Give him all the super powers you like, they are still brothers and the same sort of being. That's what I mean as equals.


 Obviously the idea that Lucifer was a spiritual man bothers you greatly. Unless you can show me where in the bible it says otherwise, you have nothing but your discomfort with the notion to support you. 


Del Gue said:


> You are talking about rank and powers, and them not being equals. They are the same being, brothers so, they are "equal", or the same sort of creature.


 Yes, they are the same sort of creature, man, one spiritual and fallen from grace, the other took on the mortal form to save mankind. You see, we believe that Christ was present in the spirit form before he was born of woman. We don't believe that God the Father somehow separated a wee piece of himself and set it into the man Jesus to create the living Christ, but that Christ is really just God the Father come to mortality. He is, rather, the literal Son of God. Lucifer, on the other hand, gave up his first estate, that is, he gave up the opportunity to come to earth in mortality and now is the prince of darkness, existing in spirit only, yet still spreading his message to the inhabitants of the earth. 


Del Gue said:


> One being granted more powers than the other doesn't change the fact you say they are brothers and the bible says Lucifer was a created angel.
> One of many contradictions between LDS's added doctrines and the bible.


 Again, I don's see the contradiction. You have to satisfy me as to the fact that your idea of what an angel is, is biblical before you can convince me that the LDS church doctrine contradicts the bible. Perhaps your notion is the true contradiction?





Del Gue said:


> Impossible. Scripture is not logical. it can;t be explained using logic. That's why one uses faith, because logic and religion isnt logical.


 Faith and logic can indeed go hand in hand. They are not mutually exclusive. God is not all stuff and nonsense when it comes to logic. There is much logic to it. God is not a genie who sits in the sky handing out wishes like candy to a child. There is a profound logic to the whole concept. I'm only sorry you don't see it. 



Del Gue said:


> You can believe anything you like, I've shown you where it is contradictory (one example) I could point out the illogical parts all day.
> No offense.


 Again, you've shown nothing at all. Your word that something is contradictory means nothing. How about some proof? Some chapter and verse maybe to start?


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> No, no more so than the ephod, or the Urim and thumim, which were used for divination purposes in the bible freak me out.


How about the Book of Abraham? Seems ol' Joe's powers of translation went a bit whack on that one!


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

willow_girl said:


> How about the Book of Abraham? Seems ol' Joe's powers of translation went a bit whack on that one!


It seems to me we've been down this road a time or twenty. If you'd acknowledge points made or lost, and finish fleshing out one issue before you bring up another, I might agree to engage in your reasoning/debate points. However, when one subject is touched on, you simply bring up another, and another and another. Nothing gets "studied". It's just as if you're trying to come up with "Ah ha!" moments, and when you fail in one attempt, you simply bring up something else. it sounds like a desperate bid. I always expect better than this from you, for some reason...but you seem to disappoint me when it comes to discussing my faith.


----------



## Guest (Jul 20, 2011)

I have no problem with anybody believing anything they want to, it's none of my business. However I do find it distasteful when people deride and ridicule other people's beliefs.


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

Just for fun.

1.2 Samuel 24:1
[ David Counts the Fighting Men ] Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, &#8220;Go and take a census of Israel and Judah.&#8221;

2.1 Chronicles 21:1
[ David Numbers the Fighting Men ] Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel.

Did I just prove that the OT God the great I AM was in fact Satan?

John 8:57-59

You are not yet fifty years old,&#8221; the Jews said to him, &#8220;and you have seen Abraham!&#8221; 

58 &#8220;I tell you the truth,&#8221; Jesus answered, &#8220;before Abraham was born, I am!&#8221; 59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds. 


So in fact Jesus was the OT God who was really Satan?


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> It seems to me we've been down this road a time or twenty. If you'd acknowledge points made or lost, and finish fleshing out one issue before you bring up another, I might agree to engage in your reasoning/debate points. However, when one subject is touched on, you simply bring up another, and another and another. Nothing gets "studied". It's just as if you're trying to come up with "Ah ha!" moments, and when you fail in one attempt, you simply bring up something else. it sounds like a desperate bid. I always expect better than this from you, for some reason...but you seem to disappoint me when it comes to discussing my faith.


Actually I was curious about your feelings on the rock in the hat thing, but I kinda didn't want to embarrass you (I think you're a nice person) so I didn't spell it all out. I didn't want to come right out and say, "Do you really believe this nonsense?" I figured most people would have no idea what I was talking about, and probably wouldn't bother to Google it, so no harm done.

So I didn't say, "Historical accounts indicate Joseph Smith 'translated' the Book of Mormon from gold plates (which later disappeared before anyone but a few of his closest friends could see them). But he didn't 'translate' the plates by looking at them; the plates were several miles away at the time. Rather, he put a magic rock or rocks [this is from memory, and it's been awhile, so I'm a little fuzzy on the details] into a hat, and put his face into the hat tightly to shut out the light, and then illuminated words (that supposedly were written on the gold plates) appeared one by one inside the hat, and Smith read them aloud to be recorded by a scribe."

Now, I'd venture to guess that 95 percent of people reading the above would think anyone who finds this scenario plausible has a screw loose. 

But hey, if you want to discuss things in detail, and you're not embarrassed by your religion, what the heck! Let's talk about the Book of Abraham next. I'll turn to Wiki for this one as I'm too lazy to try to recount the controversy from memory. 



> The Book of Abraham is a purported translation made in 1835[1] by Joseph Smith, Jr. of a set of Egyptian papyri purchased from a traveling mummy exhibition. According to Smith, the book was "a translation of some ancient records....purporting to be the writings of Abraham, while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus".[2] Smith's translation of the papyri describes a story of Abraham's early life, including a vision of the cosmos.
> 
> The work was canonized in 1880 by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) as part of their Pearl of Great Price.[1] Thus, it forms a doctrinal foundation for the LDS Church and Mormon fundamentalist denominations of the Latter Day Saint movement.
> 
> ... The Book of Abraham papyri were thought lost in the 1871 Great Chicago Fire. However, in 1966 several fragments of the papyri were found in the archives of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, and in the LDS Church archives. They are now referred to as the Joseph Smith Papyri. Upon examination by professional non-Mormon Egyptologists, the papyri were found to bear no resemblance to Joseph Smith's interpretation, and were common Egyptian funerary texts, dating to about the first century BC. As a result, the Book of Abraham has been the source of significant controversy, with Mormon apologists offering a variety of explanations as to the reason for the differences.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Abraham

This isn't sufficient evidence that Smith was (pun intended) simply pulling things out of his hat? Making it up as he went along? 

I'm sure your religion is a nice one, but its founder was a charlatan and his doctrine was bunkum. It's quite possible you're in good company, because the same probably can be said about a lot of other religions. Can something good be built on a foundation that's so shaky? I happen to think that when we part from reality, we fall into grave danger. YMMV. :shrug:


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

As I said earlier in this thread, and in other, not necessarily related threads. I'm a devout Christian, and try to be tolerant of other people's beliefs, doctrines, dogmas, and approaches to God. Whether or not a particular path leads to God and salvation or not is up to Him to decide not me.

Usually I enjoy learning about other people's religions. LDS is the exception - the less I know about their doctrine, the easier it is to be tolerant of it. Based on the exposition of the doctrine presented in this thread, I would run rapidly, not simply walk out of any church that practiced it.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

After giving it s'more thought (while mopping the floors) I'm not sure doctrine is all that important. After all, there is wacky stuff in the Bible, too -- how many people believe in talking donkeys? But they're in there -- well, one, anyway. (Balaam's ass.) How many reject are going to Christianity simply because there's a talking donkey involved? I'll bet not one.

At the end of the day, human nature being what it is, people probably are going to be religious because 1) they were brought up in one, and duly indoctrinated; or 2) at some point in their life (perhaps one of trials and tribulations), a religious person was kind to them, or at least held out a good example that they were inclined to follow.


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

thequeensblessing said:


> Precisely what I've been saying.  Thank you.



Isaiah 43:9-11

9 All the nations gather together 
and the peoples assemble. 
Which of them foretold this 
and proclaimed to us the former things? 
Let them bring in their witnesses to prove they were right, 
so that others may hear and say, âIt is true.â 
10 âYou are my witnesses,â declares the LORD, 
âand my servant whom I have chosen, 
so that you may know and believe me 
and understand that I am he. 
Before me no god was formed, 
nor will there be one after me. 
11 I, even I, am the LORD, 
and apart from me there is no savior. 




As Christ claimed for himself the title of the I AM these would be his own words?

Does this mean that Jesus was the only "formed" God?


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

willow_girl said:


> After giving it s'more thought (while mopping the floors) I'm not sure doctrine is all that important. After all, there is wacky stuff in the Bible, too -- how many people believe in talking donkeys? But they're in there -- well, one, anyway. (Balaam's ass.) How many reject are going to Christianity simply because there's a talking donkey involved? I'll bet not one.
> 
> At the end of the day, human nature being what it is, people probably are going to be religious because 1) they were brought up in one, and duly indoctrinated; or 2) at some point in their life (perhaps one of trials and tribulations), a religious person was kind to them, or at least held out a good example that they were inclined to follow.


If you're asking if I believe Mr. Ed's cousin is hanging around a farm somewhere talking to the farmer about the weather, I don't. I do however, believe that an all powerful God, who spoke the world into existence and created all living things, could cause a donkey or any other animal to speak if it was His will to do so. Will Satan try to use that event to make people doubt the Bible? Absolutely.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

chickenslayer said:


> You dare to disparage the order of the fluffy bunny, blasphemer's will be dealt with most severely by the most exalted ruling rabbit


:runforhills:

:grin: You are so lucky I don't have a picture showing the Killer Rabbit from Monty Python, eating my hand.. I've used it in magic (illusions) shows..


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

NoClue said:


> As I said earlier in this thread, and in other, not necessarily related threads. I'm a devout Christian, and try to be tolerant of other people's beliefs, doctrines, dogmas, and approaches to God. Whether or not a particular path leads to God and salvation or not is up to Him to decide not me.
> 
> Usually I enjoy learning about other people's religions. LDS is the exception - the less I know about their doctrine, the easier it is to be tolerant of it. Based on the exposition of the doctrine presented in this thread, I would run rapidly, not simply walk out of any church that practiced it.


Not to be critical, but that attitude is funny (not in a haha way either)
I do understand that you don't agree with their doctrine and that you would run from a church that practiced it.. That is your choice and freedom to do so..I've done this when I went to a "Holy Roller" ( I apologize for not knowing the proper name of this denomination, but I believe it is Baptist of some type) church, these are the folks that are "healed" by the touch and use snakes and other critters depending on which State you are in... 
I've been to a few of these churches and had to leave quickly.. So I do understand!

What I find funny (same as above) is why you don't want to learn all you can about their beliefs.. That shows a closed mind /prejudice towards some.. I understand we are all prejudice is some form or another, but when it comes to a different denomination of similar religions, I don't understand why.


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

beowoulf90 said:


> Not to be critical, but that attitude is funny (not in a haha way either)
> I do understand that you don't agree with their doctrine and that you would run from a church that practiced it.. That is your choice and freedom to do so..I've done this when I went to a "Holy Roller" ( I apologize for not knowing the proper name of this denomination, but I believe it is Baptist of some type) church, these are the folks that are "healed" by the touch and use snakes and other critters depending on which State you are in...
> I've been to a few of these churches and had to leave quickly.. So I do understand!
> 
> What I find funny (same as above) is why you don't want to learn all you can about their beliefs.. That shows a closed mind /prejudice towards some.. I understand we are all prejudice is some form or another, but when it comes to a different denomination of similar religions, I don't understand why.



Well, I was trying not to be offensive. Not knowing their beliefs, it's simply a matter of philosophy to be tolerant to something I'm ignorant of. Having learned some of what they believe from this thread, and that what they believe is heresy and long established heresy at that, my first instinct is to defend the Faith. I can control that urge, but it isn't easy.


----------



## Beowulf (Aug 27, 2010)

um...

You mean like the heresy of protestantism?

All I'm trying to say is that ---- near everyone's religious practice is heresy to *some one*


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

Beowulf said:


> um...
> 
> You mean like the heresy of protestantism?
> 
> All I'm trying to say is that ---- near everyone's religious practice is heresy to *some one*


I don't believe that Protestantism, as such, is heresy.


----------



## Beowulf (Aug 27, 2010)

...unless you ask the Pope...


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

Beowulf said:


> ...unless you ask the Pope...


The Pope doesn't consider Protestants to be heretics either.


> 15. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ's disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. (17*) Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth.


 - Lumen Gentium

(I hit the submit button too soon)

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:



> 838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter." Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church." With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."
> 
> ...
> 
> 1400 Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, "have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders." It is for this reason that, for the Catholic Church, Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible. However these ecclesial communities, "when they commemorate the Lord's death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory."


----------



## Beowulf (Aug 27, 2010)

um...

Are you sure you know what heresy is?

You have defined it in your quotes. Heresy is a break from orthodox teachings and/or a denial of an article of faith.

from dictionary.com:

herÂ·eÂ·sy
&#8194; &#8194;[her-uh-see]
&#8211;noun, plural -sies.
1.
opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine, especially of a church or religious system.
2.
the maintaining of such an opinion or doctrine.
3.
Roman Catholic Church. the willful and persistent rejection of any article of faith by a baptized member of the church.

The only difference between now and 500 years ago is that heresy is viewed as a "misguided difference of opinion" instead of a burning offense...


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

Beowulf said:


> um...
> 
> Are you sure you know what heresy is?
> 
> ...


The difference, as far as the Catholic Church teaches is one of substance. Most Protestants essentially believe the tenants of the Nicene Creed - in substance if not in detail - 



> I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
> 
> And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.
> 
> ...


* this is not technically part of the Creed, but was added later, unilaterally by Bishops in Spain, and officially adopted by the Western Church. This addition, without a Council contributed to the East/West Schism

Heretical teachings, are those which contradict this Creed. Teachings that adhere to this doctrine, but break from the rest of the magisterium of the Church are considered 'schismatic', but not heretical. Thus, for example, the Eastern Church is schismatic, but in no way considered heretical.


----------



## Ann-NWIowa (Sep 28, 2002)

Mormans send out their young adults on a year's mission to try to make converts. Baptists send out missionaries to try to make converts. I'll bet there are not many who haven't had a Jehova's Witness knocking on your door. An individual believes their faith is right so they want to share it with others. Its not about anything nasty. The simple fact is becoming a Christian is a matter of individual choice and cannot be forced so its a matter of presenting your particular belief in a manner so as to encourage others to join. It isn't about fear its about faith.


----------



## Beowulf (Aug 27, 2010)

Ann-NWIowa said:


> Mormans send out their young adults on a year's mission to try to make converts. Baptists send out missionaries to try to make converts. I'll bet there are not many who haven't had a Jehova's Witness knocking on your door. An individual believes their faith is right so they want to share it with others. Its not about anything nasty. The simple fact is becoming a Christian is a matter of individual choice and cannot be forced so its a matter of presenting your particular belief in a manner so as to encourage others to join. It isn't about fear its about faith.


This is why I entertain the Mormon missionaries whenever they come by. I understand that they are simply fulfilling one of the tenants of their faith, and so far I have not had a single one of them tell me that I'm going to hell for the blasphemy that is *my* religion. As long as the conversation remains pleasant, I'm happy to help them find their Path.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Beowulf said:


> and so far I have not had a single one of them tell me that I'm going to hell for the blasphemy that is *my* religion. .


 And you never will hear one of them do that.
they go out to preach the gospel, not to argue or preach against something.
Its up to you whether you accept it oir not.


----------



## Beowulf (Aug 27, 2010)

mnn2501 said:


> And you never will hear one of them do that.
> they go out to preach the gospel, not to argue or preach against something.
> Its up to you whether you accept it oir not.


I know - I was making the statement as opposed to others who have proselytized to me


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

beowoulf90 said:


> Not to be critical, but that attitude is funny (not in a haha way either)
> I do understand that you don't agree with their doctrine and that you would run from a church that practiced it.. That is your choice and freedom to do so..I've done this when I went to a "Holy Roller" ( I apologize for not knowing the proper name of this denomination, but I believe it is Baptist of some type) church, these are the folks that are "healed" by the touch and use snakes and other critters depending on which State you are in...
> I've been to a few of these churches and had to leave quickly.. So I do understand!
> 
> What I find funny (same as above) is why you don't want to learn all you can about their beliefs.. That shows a closed mind /prejudice towards some.. I understand we are all prejudice is some form or another, but when it comes to a different denomination of similar religions, I don't understand why.




Luke 10:18-20

18 He replied, âI saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. 19 I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you. 20 However, do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.â 


Mark 16:17-19


17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.â 

19 After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God.


----------



## VERN in IL (Nov 30, 2008)

We got the "Community of Christ" folks around here, even a church camp. I've never been "knocked on the door" or "threatened" by them, ever. The only religious groups I know of that has ever done door to door evangelism is Mennonite(Eastern Pennsylvania) only ONCE, and Jehovah's witnesses, which have no meeting houses around here, they came several times. (I took a watchman magazine, not a watchman, a watch tower )

All I got to say is this; There are all kinds of people out there.


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

I know a half-dozen Mormons (at work). 

Good folks that I would love to have as neighbors...every one of them.

Tim


----------



## Del Gue (Apr 5, 2010)

thequeensblessing said:


> No, no more so than the ephod, or the Urim and thumim, which were used for divination purposes in the bible freak me out.


Those are not in the bible.
Correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

tarbe said:


> I know a half-dozen Mormons (at work).
> 
> Good folks that I would love to have as neighbors...every one of them.
> 
> Tim


I used to work with a Mormon who was a little strange, but he would have been a strange Baptist too.


----------



## Del Gue (Apr 5, 2010)

> I'm sorry you find it so distasteful to believe that Lucifer and Christ were/are brothers. They are both sons of God, as are we all (sons and daughters), therefore, like it or not, they are indeed brothers.


I don't find it distasteful, and I don't believe any of it, or any other religion's stories. 
I do find how all these religions are interconnected interesting.

However, your very long analysis of this short fact still did not explain how both ideas are the same. Religions do this, all the time.
No Christian believes, nor does the bible say, that Jesus and Lucifer were brothers. This is a Mormon doctrine injection. The bible says Jesus was the son of god, (not only his son, but his ONLY son) and it also clearly says, Lucifer was an angel, a created being as Angles are.
It's a contradiction literally, and as the commonly accepted Christian faith goes, is a contradiction.

If you only read the bible, you can never come up with this idea. Mormon doctrines inject these things into the bible in between the lines.


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

Del Gue said:


> Those are not in the bible.
> Correct me if I'm wrong.


You really don't know your bible...do you? Here ya go:
Exodus 28:30
And thou shalt put in the breastplate of judgment the Urim and the Thummim; and they shall be upon Aaron's heart, when he goeth in before the LORD: and Aaron shall bear the judgment of the children of Israel upon his heart before the LORD continually.

Leviticus 8:8
And he put the breastplate upon him: also he put in the breastplate the Urim and the Thummim.

1 Samuel 28:6
And when Saul enquired of the LORD, the LORD answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets.

Exodus 25:7
Onyx stones, and stones to be set in the ephod, and in the breastplate.

Exodus 28:6
And they shall make the ephod of gold, of blue, and of purple, of scarlet, and fine twined linen, with cunning work.

there are many, many more references to the urim and thummim, and the ephod in the bible. They go with the priestly robes of the prophets of God and were used for prophecy and revelation as well as other, symbolic things.


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

Del Gue said:


> Those are not in the bible.
> Correct me if I'm wrong.


1.Exodus 28:30
Also put the Urim and the Thummim in the breastpiece, so they may be over Aaronâs heart whenever he enters the presence of the LORD. Thus Aaron will always bear the means of making decisions for the Israelites over his heart before the LORD.

2.Leviticus 8:8
He placed the breastpiece on him and put the Urim and Thummim in the breastpiece.

3.Numbers 27:21
He is to stand before Eleazar the priest, who will obtain decisions for him by inquiring of the Urim before the LORD. At his command he and the entire community of the Israelites will go out, and at his command they will come in.â

4.Deuteronomy 33:8
About Levi he said: âYour Thummim and Urim belong to the man you favored. You tested him at Massah; you contended with him at the waters of Meribah.

5.1 Samuel 28:6
He inquired of the LORD, but the LORD did not answer him by dreams or Urim or prophets.

6.Ezra 2:63
The governor ordered them not to eat any of the most sacred food until there was a priest ministering with the Urim and Thummim.

7.Nehemiah 7:65
The governor, therefore, ordered them not to eat any of the most sacred food until there should be a priest ministering with the Urim and Thummim.


----------



## VERN in IL (Nov 30, 2008)

Hmm, interesting is this not just the old testament law that was done away with when Christ was crucified? The hollies of hollies was rent with fire from top to bottom and the old law of moses was done away with, since Jesus is our high priest?


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

Del Gue said:


> I don't find it distasteful, and I don't believe any of it, or any other religion's stories.
> I do find how all these religions are interconnected interesting.
> 
> However, your very long analysis of this short fact still did not explain how both ideas are the same. Religions do this, all the time.
> No Christian believes, nor does the bible say, that Jesus and Lucifer were brothers. This is a Mormon doctrine injection. The bible says Jesus was the son of god, (not only his son, but his ONLY son) and it also clearly says, Lucifer was an angel, a created being as Angles are.


 I suppose the irreligious are guilty of what they accuse others of doing too, eh? Ok, the bible claims, and rightly so, that Jesus was the only BEGOTTEN Son of God. When the bible talks about the ONLY son of anyone, it spells it out ONLY SON, as in God's commandment to Abraham to take Isaac and sacrafice him in the wilderness. He specifically calls him "...thine ONLY SON..." However, when the bible makes mention of the Son, Jesus Christ, he is referred to as the ONLY BEGOTTEN of the Father. 
I also agree, Lucifer was an angel. I've never denied that fact. You add, "a created being, as angels are". So then, let me repeat my prior question...What is an angel?


Del Gue said:


> If you only read the bible, you can never come up with this idea. Mormon doctrines inject these things into the bible in between the lines.


I have not used the BoM once in explaining this "idea" to you. It's all in the bible. But you have to start at 1 and then go to 2 and 3 and so forth, but you don't seem to want to do that. Answer my question above about exactly what an angel is, and we might get some where.


----------



## Del Gue (Apr 5, 2010)

> Please show me, as you say, book/chapter/verse where this contradicts the bible? Lucifer fell from grace, was cast out from heaven, and became Satan. That too is biblical.


it still never says or implies he was the brother of Jesus.



> Obviously the idea that Lucifer was a spiritual man bothers you greatly.


You mistaken me for someone who cares, or has a dog in the fight. I'm a sideline spectator fascinated at both sides. You could just as well be discussing the similarities of Greek mythology to LDS.... It doesn't bother me, it would have to threaten my faith to bother me.



> We don't believe that God the Father somehow separated a wee piece of himself and set it into the man Jesus to create the living Christ, _but that Christ is really just God the Father come to mortality_


. 

So Jesus is/was not a spirit child of Elohim as Lucifer was?



> _He is, rather, the literal Son of God_.


You just contradicted yourself.



> Lucifer, on the other hand, gave up his first estate, that is, he gave up the opportunity to come to earth in mortality


He had a choice?



> Again, I don's see the contradiction. You have to satisfy me as to the fact that your idea of what an angel is,


Not my idea. It's the bible's idea.
I will admit, the bible is so full of holes you can fill in the blanks with pretty much anything and call it the rest of the story.



> Faith and logic can indeed go hand in hand.


Sorry. It can't. The only reason you have faith is when you cannot explain the things you believe to be true.



> God is not all stuff and nonsense when it comes to logic.


Actually, the way Christianity describes the nature of God, makes God a paradox. Since a paradox can't actually exist in logical thinking, you need faith to believe it.



> There is much logic to it. God is not a genie who sits in the sky handing out wishes like candy to a child. There is a profound logic to the whole concept. I'm only sorry you don't see it.


There is part of the problem. IN the LDS doctrine God is a flesh and blood being that was once, a mortal man who attained godhood.

Christianity believes God is an supernatural being with no end and no beginning.

Another contradiction.



> Again, you've shown nothing at all. Your word that something is contradictory means nothing. How about some proof? Some chapter and verse maybe to start


You know, I don't do the chapter and verse tit for tat bickering. We both clearly know what it says. These are simple basic building blocks of Christianity, not cryptic ideas that Christians debate.

It's an interesting topic. I can see why Christians get all freaked out about LDS.


----------



## Del Gue (Apr 5, 2010)

Del Gue said:


> Those are not in the bible.
> Correct me if I'm wrong.


Ok I remember those now that you point them out.

An interesting thing I'll have to go read up on again.

Still, the stones in the hat.... really.
I guess no different than a burning bush.
lol


----------



## Del Gue (Apr 5, 2010)

> I also agree, Lucifer was an angel. I've never denied that fact. You add, "a created being, as angels are". So then, let me repeat my prior question...What is an angel?


Are you saying Jesus was an Angel also? When you look up the definition of "angel" :



> 1. A typically benevolent celestial being that acts as an intermediary between heaven and earth, especially in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Zoroastrianism.
> 2. A representation of such a being, especially in Christianity, conventionally in the image of a human figure with a halo and wings.
> 3. angels Christianity The last of the nine orders of angels in medieval angelology. From the highest to the lowest in rank, the orders are: seraphim, cherubim, thrones, dominations or dominions, virtues, powers, principalities, archangels, and angels.


Are you saying that the sons of god and angels are the same beings?

Sons of god and brothers, or angels... either or... both?


----------



## lonelytree (Feb 28, 2008)

I know a few mormons. The problem that I have is that they will hire a non-qualified mormon instead of a qualified non-mormon. Makes no sense as I was working at a mormon run establishment and they would give fellow mormons work then they would get trained up for 3-6 months and move on. 

I hate corporate religion anyway. Tax breaks for 13+ houses in Anchorage for the Babtist makes no sense..... they give tax free housing to teachers, clerks and cleaners. The preacher lives in a 1.4 million dollar home.


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

Are not angels spiritual beings that can shape shift at will?

Genesis 6

The Flood
1 When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, &#8220;My Spirit will not contend with[a] man forever, for he is mortal*; his days will be a hundred and twenty years.&#8221; 
4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days&#8212;and also afterward&#8212;when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. 

And yes they are called "sons of God"

Paul was still concerned about them in his day.


1.1 Corinthians 11:10
For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.*


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

Del Gue said:


> it still never says or implies he was the brother of Jesus.


 If that's all you want to go on is implicit confirmations and/or denials within the text then, to be fair, it never says he isn't either. It does, however, imply that they are brothers, quite strongly. As I've repeatedly stated, the "quarrel" might come from the disparate definitions of "angel", and you have, as yet, refused to give me your definition, despite my repeated requests. 




Del Gue said:


> You mistaken me for someone who cares, or has a dog in the fight. I'm a sideline spectator fascinated at both sides. You could just as well be discussing the similarities of Greek mythology to LDS.... It doesn't bother me, it would have to threaten my faith to bother me.


 I haven't mistaken you for someone who cares, you have presented yourself as someone who cares. Most folks, who have no dog in the fight, don't constantly run down all the other dogs in the ring save one. 

.


Del Gue said:


> So Jesus is/was not a spirit child of Elohim as Lucifer was?


Yes, of course he was. I didn't mean to suggest he wasn't. I was saying that we don't believe that God the Father somehow took some of his "essense" and imbued the man-form called Jesus with it and therefore, came to Earth Himself in this manner. We believe that Jesus Christ is the LITERAL Son of God. That means in the spiritual world as well as the mortal one. God the Father sacrificed his Only Begotten Son, not just a little piece of Himself. This is why the similitude of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his ONLY SON. He wasn't commanded to sacrifice himself. So it is with God the Father and His Son. Christ humbled Himself to do His Father's will, not His own will. He said repeatedly that nothing He did was of Himself, but of His Father who sent him. 



Del Gue said:


> You just contradicted yourself.


 No, you just didn't understand me. 




Del Gue said:


> He had a choice?


 Yes, of course he did. As did everyone else. As did Christ. It's called agency. Agency is what the war in heaven was about. Agency is what the fall of Adam was about. Agency is why we sin today. Yes, he had a choice. He no longer does as he lost that when he was kicked out of the heavenly realms. 



Del Gue said:


> Not my idea. It's the bible's idea.
> I will admit, the bible is so full of holes you can fill in the blanks with pretty much anything and call it the rest of the story.


 Ok, ok...have it your way. :duel: What is your view of what the bible say an angel is. 



Del Gue said:


> Sorry. It can't. The only reason you have faith is when you cannot explain the things you believe to be true.


 That is so untrue, so entirely untrue. Just as a blind man can't see the color of a summer sky, yet a second party, who has witnessed it first hand can try desperately to describe it to him, yet to no avail, having no point of reference to begin with, so too is describing what faith is and how it goes hand in hand, like a glove on a hand, with logic. If you can't see it with your own "eye", I'm at a loss as to know how to explain it to you. I only know that it's true. Take this debate about Satan and Christ for example. I'm trying to use logic, not faith to show you how I came to my conclusion, yet you fail to cooperate with me in logcially discussing even the basics, such as a biblical definition of an angel. If you are not capable/willing to even use that small degree of logic in this discussion, how can I possibly explain further logical argument to you? Milk before meat, and all that, ya know?



Del Gue said:


> Actually, the way Christianity describes the nature of God, makes God a paradox. Since a paradox can't actually exist in logical thinking, you need faith to believe it.


 I'm interested in this. Elaborate for me?




Del Gue said:


> There is part of the problem. IN the LDS doctrine God is a flesh and blood being that was once, a mortal man who attained godhood.
> 
> Christianity believes God is an supernatural being with no end and no beginning.
> 
> Another contradiction.


 Ok, now you're confusing the contradiction between mainstream christianity and Mormonism with some imagined contradiction between "the church" and the bible. I've never said, and never meant to insinuate that we "gel" with mainstream christian thinking about everything. Mainstream Christians see God as a Genie-like being. We don't. We do believe God is eternal, and we are promised that we too can return to that state from which we fell. Eternal=immortal. The bible doesn't explain God's beginning, or even his lack of one. 



Del Gue said:


> You know, I don't do the chapter and verse tit for tat bickering. We both clearly know what it says. These are simple basic building blocks of Christianity, not cryptic ideas that Christians debate.


 I take it that means you can't prove, or even support, your claims? What a pity. You won't do chapter and verse, but you'll fling accusations out there willy nilly. Interesting debate style! 


Del Gue said:


> It's an interesting topic. I can see why Christians get all freaked out about LDS.


And I'm reminded why it's a waste of time to try to have a logical, well-mannered discussion about the facts with someone who just wants to throw mud.


----------



## Del Gue (Apr 5, 2010)

The bible is packed full of all kind of contradictions and strange things like this.

It would seem by this passage above that the sons of god (angels?) have sperm and human compatible DNA, a sex drive and are flesh and blood.

Injecting might have may have could haves it the christian doctrine and making it seem "reasonable" isnt all that hard.

One has only to sit and watch the entire newest version of Battle star Galactica to see how you can inject fiction into existing religions and mythology and form totally plausible stories.

Aint religion fun?


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

Choice?


Romans 9:10-24

New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)



10 Not only that, but Rebekah&#8217;s children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad&#8212;in order that God&#8217;s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls&#8212;she was told, &#8220;The older will serve the younger.&#8221;[a] 13 Just as it is written: &#8220;Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.&#8221;* 

14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses, 

&#8220;I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, 
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.&#8221;[c] 

16 It does not, therefore, depend on man&#8217;s desire or effort, but on God&#8217;s mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: &#8220;I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.&#8221;[d] 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. 

19 One of you will say to me: &#8220;Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?&#8221; 20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? &#8220;Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, &#8216;Why did you make me like this?&#8217;&#8221;[e] 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? 

22 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath&#8212;prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory&#8212; 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

Not much for human free will.

Back to these to show that Satan is only a extension of God's will.

1.2 Samuel 24:1
[ David Counts the Fighting Men ] Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, &#8220;Go and take a census of Israel and Judah.&#8221;

1 Chronicles 21:1
[ David Numbers the Fighting Men ] Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel.


And of course this text.


1 Kings 22:19-22

New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)



19 Micaiah continued, &#8220;Therefore hear the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne with all the host of heaven standing around him on his right and on his left. 20 And the LORD said, &#8216;Who will entice Ahab into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?&#8217; 

&#8220;One suggested this, and another that. 21 Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the LORD and said, &#8216;I will entice him.&#8217; 

22 &#8220;&#8216;By what means?&#8217; the LORD asked. 

&#8220;&#8216;I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,&#8217; he said. 

&#8220;&#8216;You will succeed in enticing him,&#8217; said the LORD. &#8216;Go and do it.&#8217;*


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

lonelytree said:


> I know a few mormons. The problem that I have is that they will hire a non-qualified mormon instead of a qualified non-mormon.


You've never heard of Christians doing that?


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

Del Gue said:


> Are you saying Jesus was an Angel also? When you look up the definition of "angel" :
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Now, we're getting somewhere. Your chosen definitions of "angel" are all good, and valid in their own way, however, let's look at the definitions as they were intended in the bible. The words used to denote "angel" in both the hebrew and the greek simply means "messenger". Paul refers to himself as an angel of the Lord in his letter to the galatians because of his message.
Isreal refers to God as "the Angel who redeemed me". Mortals are called angels in the bible. Heavenly beings are called angels in the bible. Spirits (premortal? disembodied? extramortal?) are called angels. "Angel" seems to be a title rather than a race of being. It has been turned into a race by later-Christian-era writers and thinkers. It is much like the word "god", which is not so much a definition of a type of being as it is a title. Yes, in this light, we believe Satan was once an angel and we believe Christ was an angel as well, the highest of angels. Christ is regarded as a prophet, and a prophet is a messenger, and a messenger is an angel. It's not only correct according to hebrew/greek gramatics, but it's logical too!


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

postroad said:


> Are not angels spiritual beings that can shape shift at will?
> 
> Genesis 6
> 
> ...


*

I differ on that. Angels do not shape shift. They look just like we look and are often mistaken for flesh men. Their bodies look like ours but are made of a different substance. The food they eat will even sustain our bodies.*


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

postroad said:


> Choice?
> 
> 
> Romans 9:10-24
> ...


*

Of course angels have spirits just like we do. Your spirit can affect those you come in contact with too. Ever met someone you know nothing about but have a feeling you don't like the person for some unknown reason? How about a person you meet and instantly feel a genuine peace in their presence?*


----------



## Del Gue (Apr 5, 2010)

> I haven't mistaken you for someone who cares, you have presented yourself as someone who cares. Most folks, who have no dog in the fight, don't constantly run down all the other dogs in the ring save one.


I'm just having a friendly banter about different religions, I'm not out to save one or the other. if you want it bluntly, I think they both are ridiculous fiction or at best, poorly plagiarized mythology. BUT I understand the importance of religion in peoples lives, and somewhat respect that (so long as there are no bomb belts involved). The OP had to do with (If I'm still in the right thread) some imaginary threat to or from Mormons... or Mit Romeny.. I lost track, but same difference. The discussion at hand is LDS Christianity?
Clearly, it is an entirely different religion at its core. The The Christians simply don't believe the core details of the LDS doctrine. Down to the very nature OF god... it's different.
Not having a dog in the fight doesn't keep me from being very interested in the dogs.
Which spelled backwards is gods, so we probably can argue the mystical aspect of that one too.
LOL




> yes, of course he was. I didn't mean to suggest he wasn't. (ect ect)


See this hole keeps getting deeper. Jesus and Lucifer are Spirit children of Elohim, who is the spirit child of an unknown god backwards in time into infinity. More stuff Christians just do not believe and most will not admit they consider So blasphemous they wont even learn about it.

They really should. it's fascinating.



> No, you just didn't understand me.


I understood you. it was a contradiction, go re read it.



> Yes, of course he did. As did everyone else. As did Christ


if you are going to embrace logic, then I assume you understand the free will paradox. No one has a choice. Free will is a paradox.



> Ok, ok...have it your way. :duel: What is your view of what the bible say an angel is.


My view is irrelevant, it only matters what Christian doctrine says an angel is.



> That is so untrue, so entirely untrue. Just as a blind man can't see the color of a summer sky, yet a second party, who has witnessed it first hand can try desperately to describe it to him, yet to no avail, having no point of reference to begin with, so too is describing what faith is and how it goes hand in hand, like a glove on a hand, with logic. If you can't see it with your own "eye", I'm at a loss as to know how to explain it to you.


Oh I understand your viewpoint. It's wrong, but I understand it.



> I only know that it's true.


Faith.... there ya go.



> Take this debate about Satan and Christ for example. I'm trying to use logic, not faith to show you how I came to my conclusion, yet you fail to cooperate with me in logcially discussing even the basics, such as a biblical definition of an angel. If you are not capable/willing to even use that small degree of logic in this discussion, how can I possibly explain further logical argument to you? Milk before meat, and all that, ya know?


Logically, the Angels don't exist, if the bible's definition and the christian doctrines definition is used. See, you are trying to blend religion/faith with logic/science. It wont work. When you do it you're pounding a square peg into a round hole until it fits. 

This is where religious folks go all wrong... stop trying to explain your faith in logical or scientific terms. None of it makes sense, it's all up to interpretation which depending on where you are in time, is different.

See we drifted into one of us trying to prove something, when we were just comparing the differences between the two religions. This always happens.

Stop trying to prove your faith is real. You can't. Which doesn't make it any less valid to you or anyone who practices it.

I was pointing out the differences between the 2 religions and why they are not both "christian" religions. This takes little or no deep debate, just poll the Christian membership here, see who thinks their religion and you're is the same... basically.
You wont find one, because LDS is blasphemy, if you are a christian that knows what the core doctrine IS.




> I'm interested in this. Elaborate for me?


Google it. I'm making spaghetti.
lol



> Mainstream Christians see God as a Genie-like being. We don't. We do believe God is eternal, and we are promised that we too can return to that state from which we fell.


Genie like being.... oh your gonna get it for that. LOL
But you see at the CORE, both religions are different. Your idea of the nature of god itself seals that one.


> The bible doesn't explain God's beginning, or even his lack of one.


but J.Smith DID, and therein lies the problem. Only the Mormons believe Joe's story. Christians don't. if you sat and told a christian in detail the nature of the Mormon god, their head would explode.



> I take it that means you can't prove, or even support, your claims?


No it means we both know what we are talking about and dont need to play the post a verse game where every other verse is out of context and we go on endlessly nit picking at each other.

We dont NEED to quote scripture to SEE the difference in the 2 religions. it's a no brainer.
They do not believe what you believe and your core doctrine is DIFFERENT.

See the above bits. Christians don't believe god lives on a planet near a star called Kolob with his celestial ever pregnant wives. They do not believe in the endless backward regression of gods and children becoming gods with children ect ect.
They don't believe jeus and satan are brothers.

we can go on endlessly with simple, no argument doctrine factoids, which need perhaps only a slight correction here and there, but remain the same...



> And I'm reminded why it's a waste of time to try to have a logical, well-mannered discussion about the facts with someone who just wants to throw mud.


My dear IF ONLY I could get one Christian to talk in as open minded and intelligent and calm manner as you have here about their religion, I'd be as happy as a pig in slop.

I'm not throwing mud, I'm responding to the topic subject where it drifted.
Facts are not mud. I thought we were having a perfectly delightful exchange.

Your religion to me is no more valid than theirs is. I find them both equally as interesting. But they are not the same, and the more one has to post examples of why, the more it will look like your being picked on.

I assure you, I'm not. 
I think the point has been made however. LDS may use some of the doctrines of Christianity, but it is so far removed at its core from it, that it is its own unique religion.

I'm just glad you're not a Scientologist. Those people scare the bejeebers out of me.

I do thank you for your well worded calm pleasant discussion. You did good!


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

poppy said:


> Of course angels have spirits just like we do. Your spirit can affect those you come in contact with too. Ever met someone you know nothing about but have a feeling you don't like the person for some unknown reason? How about a person you meet and instantly feel a genuine peace in their presence?


The Bible even tells us "we entertain angels unaware". In other words, we never know when we may come in contact with one and never recognize it as an angel!


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

I still think the entire Mormon issue could be solved by one very simple thing. Define what we must do to obtain eternal salvation. 

Unless I've been wrong all these years, my Bible says when Christ himself was asked that question, He gave a very straight forward and definitive answer and said that we must:
1. Believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God
2. Confess and repent of our sins
3. Walk in that faith

It doesn't say a thing about how we're to believe all of scripture, we're not to have any other interpretations of our faith, nor does it say we have to even agree with God. It says to believe in Christ as the Son of God and repent of our sins, walk in faith. So yep, seems to me Mormons are Christians -- and so are Catholics, mainstream evangelicals, even a Jehovah Witnesses or two. 

Just because the fine tuning of the faith is an issue, doesn't mean the person isn't a Christian. We are called to tell others about Christ. Once they know and accept Him, it then becomes between them and God and it's no longer even our business! God becomes their judge and jury and will do the correcting. 

Gesh, wouldn't you think any Christian would be thrilled to know the Mormons believe Christ to be their only way to salvation. Instead, they have to pick apart everything else. What does it matter what else they believe if the salvation part has been accomplished? If you don't believe in the Mormon faith don't be Mormon, but you don't have pick apart someone else's faith to try to find something to come up with just so you can tell them they 'only _think_' they're saved.

When it all comes down to it, we may believe with all our heart that what we believe is the truth. But the fact is, there isn't a one of us who know that. God hasn't come down to have coffee and sit around the kitchen table with us to say, "The answer is....". Everyone of us takes our beliefs on faith. We have to give others the grace to do the same.


----------



## lonelytree (Feb 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> You've never heard of Christians doing that?


Nope, never saw any other religion demanding free haircuts at the mormon barber either. Never had non-mormons come to the door and flat out refuse to leave until told that I was calling the police while getting my guns. I told my mormon buddy about that one. He got with the guys and they were told to stay away from my neighborhood.


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

Del Gue said:


> See this hole keeps getting deeper. Jesus and Lucifer are Spirit children of Elohim, who is the spirit child of an unknown god backwards in time into infinity. More stuff Christians just do not believe and most will not admit they consider So blasphemous they wont even learn about it.


 Not blasphemous at all. No more so than any other of the Lord's truths, despite his teachings being called blaspheme. Anything mankind is uncomfortable with and that deviates from accepted "history", with regards religion, is labeled as blaspheme. Does that make it so?



Del Gue said:


> if you are going to embrace logic, then I assume you understand the free will paradox. No one has a choice. Free will is a paradox.


 I'm not talking about "free will". I'm talking agency. There is a big difference.



Del Gue said:


> My view is irrelevant, it only matters what Christian doctrine says an angel is.


 All Christians don't necessarily agree with that "Christian doctrine" as you can see from reading this thread. When in doubt, I like to go back to the original language rather than a translation of a translation. And your view is not irrelevant my friend. It is you with whom I'm discussing/debating.


Del Gue said:


> Oh I understand your viewpoint. It's wrong, but I understand it.


 So, you have no dog in this fight, yet you can tell me I'm wrong. Yeah...uh huh. You DO have a dog in the fight and the fight is organized religion, or any religion at all. It's just convenient to pit mainstream Christianity (which you believe is wrong) against Mormonism (which you likewise believe is wrong). So you use one incorrect doctrine to try to disprove another incorrect doctrine? I'm not sure I understand your reasoning, however, I do follow your motive.


Del Gue said:


> Logically, the Angels don't exist, if the bible's definition and the christian doctrines definition is used. See, you are trying to blend religion/faith with logic/science. It wont work. When you do it you're pounding a square peg into a round hole until it fits.


 Not at all. I'm just not using the mainstream Christian's self-fashioned definition of an angel. I'm using the original definition, based on the original hebrew/greek words. It's logic, and sound logic at that. 


Del Gue said:


> This is where religious folks go all wrong... stop trying to explain your faith in logical or scientific terms. None of it makes sense, it's all up to interpretation which depending on where you are in time, is different.


 Only to you because you're taking mainstream christianity's view of something (that you don't believe in to begin with) and using it as a measuring stick of what is true about Mormonism. So you are using something you consider false to measure something else that you consider false. shouldn't truth be our standard? If you don't believe in the doctrines of mainstream christianity, then why hold it up as the standard we, as Mormons, should aspire to in order to be correct in our own doctrine. Your irreligious logic makes no sense. 


Del Gue said:


> See we drifted into one of us trying to prove something, when we were just comparing the differences between the two religions. This always happens. You were trying to show how Mormons are wrong as compared with mainstream Christians by holding up the mainstream doctrines as the true and right ones. Not once did you assert that the Mormon doctrines might be right, which means you alread made up your mind which of the two "false doctrines" (in your mind) is...less false? more believable? you're comfortable with? My point is that for someone with no dog in the fight, with no religious affiliation or interest other than a passing interest, you've taken a side. Rather fascinating.
> 
> 
> Del Gue said:
> ...


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

postroad said:


> Luke 10:18-20
> 
> 18 He replied, âI saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. 19 I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you. 20 However, do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.â
> 
> ...


LOL and your point is?

IF that is what you believe, that is fine by me..


----------



## pamda (Oct 14, 2004)

ladycat said:


> I do not agree with Mormon doctrine, but it never even occured to me to feel threatened by them. :shrug:


 My view exactly. And standing on my doorstep bugging me makes me want to smack someone, but I feel that way about any religion who can't read a do not knock sign, or a no solisitation (sp) sign.


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

beowoulf90 said:


> LOL and your point is?
> 
> IF that is what you believe, that is fine by me..



Just pointing out that their veiws have some basis in scripture.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

postroad said:


> Just pointing out that their veiws have some basis in scripture.


Ok, point taken.. I understand now what you were saying.. Thank you..


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

poppy said:


> I differ on that. Angels do not shape shift. They look just like we look and are often mistaken for flesh men. Their bodies look like ours but are made of a different substance. The food they eat will even sustain our bodies.


Substance shift then?

As flesh and blood as we know it does not exist in the heavenly realm they must have been able to transform themselves into a compatible substance in order to procreate with human women.

Although on a philisophical level I realise that our form is in direct corrolation to our function so I have difficulty with the idea that any spiritual being would have as its default position a form that would serve absolutly no purpose in a spiritual dimension.


John 6:62-64


62 What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[a] and they are life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.â For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him.

Corinthians 15:50
I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.


Matthew 22:29-30

9 Jesus replied, âYou are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

postroad said:


> Substance shift then?
> 
> As flesh and blood as we know it does not exist in the heavenly realm they must have been able to transform themselves into a compatible substance in order to procreate with human women.
> 
> ...


When Christ was resurrected, where do you believe his body went?


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

thequeensblessing said:


> When Christ was resurrected, where do you believe his body went?


As an Agnostic I do not believe I only wonder.

There is some confusion as to the substance of the resurrected body as it was ably to appear and dissapear at will. At the same time he was hungry and ate food with the disciples and it bore the marks of the crucifiction.

The women were not to touch him at first because he had not yet returned to the Father so I would asume at that point he was keeping themselves from defiling themselves from touching a dead corpse so at that point the Law must still have been in effect?

Christ was not recognisable to even his own disciples at first and it was only on an act from him that they were able to recognise him and also understand scripture.

So???


Luke 24:25-46

New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)



25 He said to them, âHow foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Did not the Christ[a] have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?â 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself. 

28 As they approached the village to which they were going, Jesus acted as if he were going farther. 29 But they urged him strongly, âStay with us, for it is nearly evening; the day is almost over.â So he went in to stay with them. 

30 When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight. 32 They asked each other, âWere not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?â 

33 They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together 34 and saying, âIt is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon.â 35 Then the two told what had happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread. 

Jesus Appears to the Disciples
36 While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, âPeace be with you.â 
37 They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38 He said to them, âWhy are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.â 

40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, âDo you have anything here to eat?â 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate it in their presence. 

44 He said to them, âThis is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.â 

45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46 He told them, âThis is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day,


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

thequeensblessing said:


> When Christ was resurrected, where do you believe his body went?


On a side note When the saints were resurrected were did their bodies go?


Matthew 27:51-53


51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. 52 The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs, and after Jesusâ resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

postroad said:


> As an Agnostic I do not believe I only wonder.
> 
> There is some confusion as to the substance of the resurrected body as it was ably to appear and dissapear at will. At the same time he was hungry and ate food with the disciples and it bore the marks of the crucifiction.


 True, very true, which would indicate some sort of flesh and bone body. Obviously not the mortal flesh and blood body we dwell in, but something else, something more...celestial?


postroad said:


> The women were not to touch him at first because he had not yet returned to the Father so I would asume at that point he was keeping themselves from defiling themselves from touching a dead corpse so at that point the Law must still have been in effect?


 Do you think that's it? Or is it perhaps that because he had not yet ascended to the Father in Heaven, and no unclean thing can enter the kingdom of heaven that by being touch by an imperfect mortal, a sinner as it were, he would be unclean, defiled, and would no longer be able to enter the kingdom? A little of both, perhaps?


postroad said:


> Christ was not recognisable to even his own disciples at first and it was only on an act from him that they were able to recognise him and also understand scripture.


 I do agree and I think to some degree (although what degree exactly I'm not sure) this would be due to his ability to disguise himself, as it were. However, I also think there is some degree of plain disbelief involved. His followers didn't really understand the concept of the resurrection, never having experienced anything like it before. They had no basis and knew, logically, that once dead, a person is dead, period. I don't think they were ready, mentally, to literally see Jesus standing before them. 



postroad said:


> Luke 24:25-46
> 
> New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)
> 
> ...


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

postroad said:


> On a side note When the saints were resurrected were did their bodies go?
> 
> 
> Matthew 27:51-53
> ...


Very good point, very good indeed! This is just one of myriad reasons why the LDS believe that the resurrected body is a celestialized body of flesh and bone, albeit not a mortal one such as we have. It is obviously spirit, yet obviously too it is physical.


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

Maybe a overview of the concept of the ressurection is needed.

Not found in the books of Moses to which the Sadducees held as the only legitimate scriptures

Comes from the prophets which the Pharisees also accepted. Here Paul clevely divides his accusers.


Acts 23:7-9


7 When he said this, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. 8 (The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, and that there are neither angels nor spirits, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.) 

9 There was a great uproar, and some of the teachers of the law who were Pharisees stood up and argued vigorously. âWe find nothing wrong with this man,â they said. âWhat if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?â 

Of Interest to the LDS angle of this thread is that the cannon had not at this time been closed from the non Sadducee members of the Jewish religion

I think that at some point they did close the door on further revelation? as has orthidox Christianity.

From what I can gather the concept of the resurection begins with this text which I suspect was first meant to mean the nation of Israel and not individuals?

Ezekiel 37

The Valley of Dry Bones
1 The hand of the LORD was upon me, and he brought me out by the Spirit of the LORD and set me in the middle of a valley; it was full of bones. 2 He led me back and forth among them, and I saw a great many bones on the floor of the valley, bones that were very dry. 3 He asked me, âSon of man, can these bones live?â 
I said, âO Sovereign LORD, you alone know.â 

4 Then he said to me, âProphesy to these bones and say to them, âDry bones, hear the word of the LORD! 5 This is what the Sovereign LORD says to these bones: I will make breath[a] enter you, and you will come to life. 6 I will attach tendons to you and make flesh come upon you and cover you with skin; I will put breath in you, and you will come to life. Then you will know that I am the LORD.ââ 

7 So I prophesied as I was commanded. And as I was prophesying, there was a noise, a rattling sound, and the bones came together, bone to bone. 8 I looked, and tendons and flesh appeared on them and skin covered them, but there was no breath in them. 

9 Then he said to me, âProphesy to the breath; prophesy, son of man, and say to it, âThis is what the Sovereign LORD says: Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe into these slain, that they may live.ââ 10 So I prophesied as he commanded me, and breath entered them; they came to life and stood up on their feetâa vast army. 

11 Then he said to me: âSon of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel. They say, âOur bones are dried up and our hope is gone; we are cut off.â 12 Therefore prophesy and say to them: âThis is what the Sovereign LORD says: O my people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel. 13 Then you, my people, will know that I am the LORD, when I open your graves and bring you up from them. 14 I will put my Spirit in you and you will live, and I will settle you in your own land. Then you will know that I the LORD have spoken, and I have done it, declares the LORD.â


These texts would support a resurected body which had its beginning from the mortal bones which remained after death. Also seems that these individuals remain grounded here on earth.

Seems that a fair bit of further revealation was needed to get to the Christian position?


----------



## Del Gue (Apr 5, 2010)

> Not blasphemous at all. No more so than any other of the Lord's truths,


Ask a typical Christian if your core beliefs amount to blasphemy. Most are too polite to tell you that's exactly how they view it. 



> Anything mankind is uncomfortable with and that deviates from accepted "history", with regards religion, is labeled as blaspheme. Does that make it so?


it does to the Christians. Go ahead, post an anonymous poll. You'll see.



> I'm not talking about "free will". I'm talking agency. There is a big difference.


I was talking about Lucifer or any created being having a choice. You said he had a choice. The free will paradox says he/we dont.



> All Christians don't necessarily agree with that "Christian doctrine" as you can see from reading this thread.


Wanna bet?


> . And your view is not irrelevant my friend. It is you with whom I'm discussing/debating.


I'm not the ones who are offended by LDS calling itself a christian religion.



> So, you have no dog in this fight, yet you can tell me I'm wrong. Yeah...uh huh. You DO have a dog in the fight and the fight is organized religion, or any religion at all.


Still can't understand I'm a sideline spectator. I'm watching the dogs fight, I don't own either one. I don't even have a bet on one. I do wonder why they are fighting over an imaginary bone.

No offense.



> It's just convenient to pit mainstream Christianity (which you believe is wrong) against Mormonism (which you likewise believe is wrong). So you use one incorrect doctrine to try to disprove another incorrect doctrine? I'm not sure I understand your reasoning, however, I do follow your motive.


*sigh* I'm comparing one to the other, to show that one is not like the other it claims to be just like.
Where do you get that I am against either one? I'm indifferent to both. You could be Buddhists and Hindu for all I care.



> Not at all. I'm just not using the mainstream Christian's self-fashioned definition of an angel. I'm using the original definition, based on the original hebrew/greek words. It's logic, and sound logic at that.


That's actually mythology, that's anything but logical. and Again, the mainstream christian definition is all that matters, since that is the simplistic and current definition most of them understand and use.


> Only to you because you're taking mainstream christianity's view of something (that you don't believe in to begin with) and using it as a measuring stick of what is true about Mormonism. So you are using something you consider false to measure something else that you consider false


if I say it once more, will you understand?
I am drawing a comparison between the 2 to show why LDS is not a Christian religion, or a sect, or a cult. it uses some of the mythology and ideas but that's where it ends.

I'm not measuring one with the other. I am drawing a comparative observation.



> . shouldn't truth be our standard?


What's truth have to do with it? it's a comparison. Not a contest.



> If you don't believe in the doctrines of mainstream christianity, then why hold it up as the standard we, as Mormons, should aspire to in order to be correct in our own doctrine. Your irreligious logic makes no sense.


You just don't get it.
I'm comparing the 2. I'm pointing out why they are totally different. 


> You were trying to show how Mormons are wrong as compared with mainstream Christians


Nope, you are mistaken.



> by holding up the mainstream doctrines as the true and right ones.


They were here first. LDS was invented to embellish on the missing facts of the older one. Right and true ones? I never said any of them were right and true. One IS the original and older, and the mainstream. I'm comparing one to the other not measuring one against the other.


> Not once did you assert that the Mormon doctrines might be right, which means you alread made up your mind which of the two "false doctrines" (in your mind) is...less false? more believable? you're comfortable with


Well lets be frank, Mormon doctrine is about as right as Scientology. The older MIGHT be true to some degree, who knows? The origins are so lost to time it's an unanswerable question.
However we know very well how when where and by whom LDS was formed. Smiths epic fail with the Book of Abraham translated from a scrap of the Egyptian book of the dead (for one example) totally discredits all of his doctrinal writing. If he was that dead wrong on that one, the rest of his story has to be dismissed. 
But it has nothing do do with my comfort level. I think the idea that all the animals in the world lived in walking distance of Noah's house is an epic logic failure.

But, for this topic, what I think is or is not or could be true is irrelevant.



> My point is that for someone with no dog in the fight, with no religious affiliation or interest other than a passing interest, you've taken a side.


Wrong. One is older, the newer one has used the older one as a jumping off point. But in the act of jumping it became nothing at all like the old one.

Really, I think you're messing with me. This is easy to grasp.



> I'm not trying to prove my faith is real. I have no need.


All religious people try to prove their faith. If they didn't, there would never be any arguments about religion. You've been trying to prove Jesus and Lucifer were brothers. You'd have been far better off, as most religious people would be, to say "well, this is what we believe, despite other christian doctrines interpretations. We just have faith that it is true as we have been taught"
End of discussion.



> I'm trying to point out your errors and hypocrisies. Isnt that what you're trying to do too? sounds like it to me.


No we are on two totally separate channels it seems.



> I don't remember anyone here ever claiming, to begin with, that the two religions were the same. So you are arguing against a claim that was never made


. 

That could very well be.... I get lost pretty easy. And this is a deep dark hole. lol
But MOST run of the mill Christians think LDS is just a different flavor of their own religion, because they have no idea what you guys believe.



> But it's the differences, and often merely perceived differences, that everyone wants to discuss.


Get used to it of Mit Romney gets where he's headed. it wont be the first in depth discussion you'll see.



> A mainstream Christian who really doesn't understand Mormonism but is spewing someone elses talking points, yes. But the Jews considered Christ's teachings blasphemy and crucified him for it, because they believed his teachings deviated from what core doctrine was. That didn't make him wrong and them right, regardless of how hard they tried.


The difference is, all the main players in their respective mythologies are the same. The events are different.
LDS injects all sorts of "revelations" between the lines. It changes the entire religion into a NEW and different religion.

My fingers hurt.
lol


> Your argument has totally evolved into somehow getting the idea that we as Mormons are claiming to be identical to Christians. We know we are not


. 

My point was in part that most Christians don't know that. I'd say 99% don't know it.



> We know we are a peculiar people. We also know those truths by themselves don't make us wrong.


No, but the Book of Abraham papyri fiasco sure does. Just sayin. A large chunk of your doctrine is undeniably false due to what it is known to be with zero doubt. So at least part of those truths are indeed, wrong. 

Like it or not, your doctrines are based on the word of the man who did this.

BUT!!! If you have faith, and you're happy, God bless ya. That has nothing to do with what I was talking about.



> Like when a mainstream Christian tries to explain the Trinity or the nature of their God? Even mainstream Christians don't agree on all of that.


Oh man... please lets not go there. My nose will bleed. lol



> No, much of the core doctrine is the same. We believe in Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of man, that he is the Son of God, born of woman, atoned for the sins of the world, was crucified, buried and rose again that we might have everlasting life. That is the core doctrine, and around that we can rally together


. 

Just don't discuss the details. These things start wars. lol



> Hehe...even your attempt at ridicule shows a lack of understanding anymore than the spewed talking points of every anti-mormon hack out there. You've made several errors in your statement, and you don't even know it because you know so little about the true doctrines of the church other than the vomit you've read/heard.


Enlighten us with the truth then. Since you thought that was ridicule when it was just an example of what they dont believe.

Lets here the real story. I'm always ready to admit I'm wrong.

What I know I read on LDS websites and study guides/libraries. Most of it goes along fairly well with the Anti mormon ex mormon spew.

Please point out where that example of the things Christians don't believe is wrong.
(pretty please)


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Look, why don't you stick with one point and finish it rather than flitting around to every anti argument you hear?


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

Ok, first of all, phew...what a wall of text. I won't address everything but I'll hit the hilights.

I don't care one whit whether "a typical Christian" (whatever that is) sees my beliefs as being blasphemous anymore than Christ or his disciples/apostles cared that the Jews considered their doctrine to be blasphemy. Another's opinions don't negate truth. I'm not a blasphemer simply because some mainstream Christian, or all mainstream christians, think I am. It's not their good opinion I'm seeking. 

Regarding Satan, he gave up a tremendous amount of his agency when he fell from grace. However, as I said previously, agency and free will are not the same thing. 


Ok, so now using the original definition of the word "angel" in the original language to attempt to define what an angel was originally meant to be, is mythology and not logical? How in the world do you draw that conclusion??? And when you start relying on "Christian tradition" or "history" to create or modify the definition of an old word that is used to describe an old ideal (in this case a heavenly being), you risk losing out on what is true. You can't make a new, more current, more simplistic definition when there's nothing wrong with the old, original one. There's danger in doing so. That's akin to seeing in a 1930's book that a man was gay and automatically assuming that it means he was homosexual when in fact, it means he was happy or carefree. You run the risk of losing the truth of the word. 

Also... I've never denied that Mormonism is a sect or cult. Christianity was a cult in it's day as well. So what does that prove?


"What does truth have to do with it??" Because if truth says that the gay man was happy, and you assume he was homosexual, you would be simply wrong. Likewise, just because mainstream Christians (evangelicals particularly) don't recognize Mormons as Christians, doesn't make them correct. Just because they have loud voices and cry at the top of their lungs that it's so, doesn't automatically make it so. It makes them simply wrong. Meh.




Del Gue said:


> They were here first. LDS was invented to embellish on the missing facts of the older one. Right and true ones? I never said any of them were right and true. One IS the original and older, and the mainstream. I'm comparing one to the other not measuring one against the other.


 Ok, so by that thinking, the Jews were here first therefore, Jesus was totally wrong. His religion was invented to embellish on the missing facts of the older one. Ok, then in your opinion, both mainstream christianity and Mormonism are wrong, imposters to the title and are, therefore, the same. 
But really, if you understood "Mormonism" as you claim to, you'd also understand that "Mormonism" has been here every bit as long as Mainstream Christianity has. Again, they sprang from the same place, first Judaism, then from Christ, etc. So they began at the same beginning. Besides, Paul stated that there had to be a falling away, or an apostacy, before Christ would return. This was foreshadowed by Amos in chapter 8 vs. 11-12. So, duration means little when falsehoods creep in. 



Del Gue said:


> However we know very well how when where and by whom LDS was formed. Smiths epic fail with the Book of Abraham translated from a scrap of the Egyptian book of the dead (for one example) totally discredits all of his doctrinal writing. If he was that dead wrong on that one, the rest of his story has to be dismissed.


 ah yes, more learned conjecture, right? It wouldn't have taken you much time in researching this issue on the FARMS (maxwell inst.) website to find the answers, and you obviously know your way around a computer, so I am left wondering why you would vomit more falsehoods with not even a miniscule attempt to double check your facts. It's things like this that make you appear to have a dog in the fight. I don't mind discussing this with you at all, but I won't give it a mere paragraph buried in the middle of a wall of text. It seems rather disingenuous and desperate. 


Del Gue said:


> All religious people try to prove their faith. If they didn't, there would never be any arguments about religion. You've been trying to prove Jesus and Lucifer were brothers. You'd have been far better off, as most religious people would be, to say "well, this is what we believe, despite other christian doctrines interpretations. We just have faith that it is true as we have been taught"
> End of discussion.


 I'm glad you're finished. I'm not. 
Despite your assertions to the contrary, you'd love for me to rely solely on faith with nothing else to bolster my beliefs. I don't simply follow what I've been taught, and I know, it's nearly impossible for the uninitiated to understand how someone intelligent can not only look beneath the covers of Mormonism, but throw the covers off entirely and come away with the satisfaction of understanding, of logically understanding, and being comfortable with the tenets of the faith. And because of that discomfort, all I've gotten is that I should disregard the original definitons of a word in favor of the new, improved, and more convenient definitions, yet that the older version of a religion should hold the position of priviledge. So on one hand we have to disregard the old and on the other hand we have to disregard the new. And you say I contradict myself? 





Del Gue said:


> No, but the Book of Abraham papyri fiasco sure does. Just sayin. A large chunk of your doctrine is undeniably false due to what it is known to be with zero doubt. So at least part of those truths are indeed, wrong.


 Zero doubt? Now that is rather funny, in a warped sort of way. Zero doubt according to whom? You seem to have your own sort of personal revelation into the events that transpired around that book, that you can deem them worthy or not. It's funny because no other human on Earth can claim that priviledge. 
You seem to continually confuse my assertions that we are indeed Christians, with your own assertions that we are not identical twins to mainstream Christians. I know we aren't. I know many of our beliefs are different. Our core beliefs are much the same, however, my point is that we are equally as deserving of the title as they are, even though I don't care a whit if they recognize me as such or not. I'm not seeking mainstream Christianity's approval on my faith. I'm not asking their permission to use the term "Christian" in describing myself. I'm doing so proudly, happily, and confidently, whether it makes them comfortable or not. 


Del Gue said:


> Lets here the real story. I'm always ready to admit I'm wrong.


Here are some good places to start, if you're willing to do the work needed.
http://www.fairlds.org/ or mormon.org


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

TQB while we're at it Judaism is wrong because Zorastiranism (sp) was here first.
Del just insists on continuing an argument he has lost by redirecting as often as possible.


----------



## Del Gue (Apr 5, 2010)

> Ok, so by that thinking, the Jews were here first therefore, Jesus was totally wrong.


Yup, probably could do that. plenty of Jews around who feel Christians ripped off their religion too I imagine. for a second there I think you almost get my drift. However, that case is all in the interpretation not the invention of a whole library of doctrine out of thin air.
or Hat-air.... which is kinda funny. lol



> But really, if you understood "Mormonism" as you claim to, you'd also understand that "Mormonism" has been here every bit as long as Mainstream Christianity has


That's LDS doctrine speaking. Mormonism came into being only recently when Smith had his alleged visions and revelations. To claim Mormonism is as old as Christianity is preposterous. Mormonism is not that old, before Smith, it did not exist. Now SMith claims it did and created a history to back it up BUT we know now we have to dismiss everything Smith said as invalid. -> see Egyptian book of the dead fail.



> ah yes, more learned conjecture, right?


That's not conjecture or vomit, it's an inconvenient truth.
We could wander all over this boneyard, from where is one shred of material from the giant cities of the Americas built by the old Mormons and the lost tribes (indians) to those same Indians whos DNA prove...they aint who Smith said they were.
The doctrine is littered with inconvenient truths that prove it as false...
Which, for the purpose of THIS topic, has nothing to do with "Do Christan think LDS is a Christian religion?
A baptist and a Nazarene and a Catholic all disagree to the point of a fistfight but, they are all Christian religions and see each other as such. Not so with LDS.
Which is the subject here. Drift happens when you dance around the burning bush too long.



> I don't mind discussing this with you at all, but I won't give it a mere paragraph buried in the middle of a wall of text. It seems rather disingenuous and desperate.


Because defending it will dig the hole deeper.



> I'm glad you're finished. I'm not.


yeah see, there again you misread. "End of discussion" should be the last comment about you or anyone's faith when asked to explain it.... is what I said.



> Despite your assertions to the contrary, you'd love for me to rely solely on faith with nothing else to bolster my beliefs. I don't simply follow what I've been taught,


Then I submit your faith is meaningless. if the spirit has spoken to your heart and enlightened you, then faith is the only thing you need.

Proof denies faith, remember? Once the spirit of the god has touched your heart then you need no proof and no more thought.... you have faith.

Once you try to prove your faith, you blow it.



> all I've gotten is that I should disregard the original definitons of a word in favor of the new, improved, and more convenient definitions, yet that the older version of a religion should hold the position of priviledge. So on one hand we have to disregard the old and on the other hand we have to disregard the new. And you say I contradict myself?


You still just dont get the point of the topic I outlined repeatedly above. if I do it again, I may have a stroke.



> Zero doubt? Now that is rather funny, in a warped sort of way. Zero doubt according to whom?


Every Egyptology and linguist since the Rosetta stone was translated, that's who. What the papyrii says is not a mystery it's now common fact... Hieroglyphics is not a dead unknown language anymore. 
This is a topic that's pointless to defend, or discuss. We know what it was he was "translating". On that single event, facts have him nailed.



> You seem to continually confuse my assertions that we are indeed Christians, with your own assertions that we are not identical twins to mainstream Christians. I know we aren't.


Wrong... you keep coming back to that and I keep telling you differently. What you think is not in question, it's what the general Christian population thinks.... when they go vote, they have no idea that if the candidate is a Mormon, that that doesnt = Christian.
The 2 faiths are as different as Islam and Christianity. Nobody would call Islam a christian religion.
But most look at LDS as one, I think the jesus Chirst of latter day saints tittle throws them into thinking "they said jesus chirst.... its a christian religion." and forget it.
But they freak out over Islam if the candidate says he's Muslim.
They should be as equally freaked out over LDS. It's that different. They just don't know it.
Does that make it bad? Not at all. But my entire point was (and I refuse to say this again) Mainstream Christians generally consider LDS as another Christian religion, when it is not. it's as different from Christianity as Islam is. They just don't realize it. When you see them do realize it, they freak out.

Last time I'm gonna clear that up. Really.



> Here are some good places to start, if you're willing to do the work needed.
> http://www.fairlds.org/ or mormon.org


Yeah that's where I got most of my online info. and cors checked the Ex-mormon stuff with it.
I'm not stupid. 
LDS doctrine is mind bogglingly complex and extensive. But yup... that's where I real a lot of my LDS research.



> TQB while we're at it Judaism is wrong because Zorastiranism (sp) was here first.
> Del just insists on continuing an argument he has lost by redirecting as often as possible.


Yes, exactly..... that's all I'm doing.

Thanks for the conversation, but this is going nowhere.
I was once a really rabid christian, so I really do understand why you don't/won't get what I'm talking about.

Forget it, the ones reading it that got it, great. Sheeze.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

> Forget it, the ones reading it that got it, great.


:grin:


----------



## VERN in IL (Nov 30, 2008)

In the eyes of man, the Mormons seem very respectable, but the light of God's word reveals the true wolves behind the sheep clothing... as most religions prove IN THEIR DOCTRINES.

Jesus said, "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." (Mat. 7:15) Don't look at their nice families, their clean-cut hair, and their friendly "missionaries." LOOK AT THEIR DOCTRINES!

The Pearl of Great Price, claims that all other Christian groups are "corrupt" and are an "abomination" in God's sight (Joseph Smith, 2:19). In fact, Joseph Smith taught his people to doubt the accuracy of the Bible. Such claims as this are based on the unscriptural assumption that the Lord Jesus Christ has a specific religious organization on the earth today, complete with a name, a membership, and a leadership, which makes up His "true church." This doctrine is found nowhere in God's word. This doctrine is EXACTLY what the Roman Catholic Church uses to give herself(the whore in the book of Revelations) the authority to claim that the pope has power from above. Everyone who has received Christ as their Saviour is a member of His church, which is a spiritual body of born-again believers.

As I learn, I am finding that ANY church that teaches, "if your not a member of our church you're going to hell, we are the right church, etc". Those churches are NOT the true church. For Example in the Ellen White writings of the Seventh Day Adventist movement, we believe that the majority of God's people are in the fellowship of other churches, but as the end approaches, there will be on Shepard and one fold.....once persecution starts, then you find out who the hypocrites are.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

VERN in IL said:


> As I learn, I am finding that ANY church that teaches, "if your not a member of our church you're going to hell, we are the right church, etc". Those churches are NOT the true church. .


Good thing the LDS Church does NOT teach that. In fact we're the only Church I know of that says most people will be in heaven, even non-LDS.

You take a quote out of context, skip a few words or even sentences with ellipses, you can prove just about anything about anyone.
Sad!


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

VERN in IL said:


> The Pearl of Great Price, claims that all other Christian groups are "corrupt" and are an "abomination" in God's sight (Joseph Smith, 2:19).


 Actually no it doesn't, but then you don't want to give the entire quote, do you? Anyone who would like to do some HONEST research will see you are misinformed at best.


----------



## Del Gue (Apr 5, 2010)

While looking for that entire passage (because I do that) I found that book of abraham proof TQB said didnt exist in LDS literature.

Here ya go, right from the LDS.org library.
Read this stuff, supposedly translated from "ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt".

Go on, click the links. Read the second links explanation of what is on the hypocephalus.

There is no debate here. It's not true. This makes all Smiths revelations suspect.

With all due respect, TQB, here is the proof you said was just conjecture and vomited falsehoods "with not even a miniscule attempt to double check your facts."

With all due respect, here ya go.



> A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, _written by his own hand,_ upon papyrus. (See History of the Church, 2:235&#8211;36, 348&#8211;51.)


*(written in his own hand? Really??)*
http://lds.org/scriptures/pgp/abr/fac-1?lang=eng
http://lds.org/scriptures/pgp/abr/fac-2?lang=eng
http://lds.org/scriptures/pgp/abr/fac-3?lang=eng

For some backgrounds info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Abraham

Scroll down to Facsimile No. 1 & 2, you will see a side by side chart with what Joseph Smith Explanation is and what Egyptologists say it is.

Since smith was no Egyptologist. I think we can trust the modern day translation.

We could deconstruct pretty much every aspect of LDS like this.
I don't think we should, out of respect for the Mormons here and because, it's already common knowledge.

I posted this because, you said repeatedly, it was falsehood and conjecture, and said I did no research.
lds.org, it doesnt get more mormon than that.

Plus all that other stuff you said wasnt there, is there too. 
No ex-mormons websites. (unless you think the wikipedia and its extensive source links are anti-mormon)


----------



## Del Gue (Apr 5, 2010)

Just because I'm a little irritated today, consult the wikipedia on Mormon cosmology.
It's fascinating to read.
Don't fret, most of the reference links are back to LDS.org and other LDS scripture sites.
Christian religion? You decide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_cosmology#Cosmic_divinity


----------



## HOTW (Jul 3, 2007)

postroad said:


> And yes they are called "sons of God"


My Bible calls them "the Sons of Adam"


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

HOTW said:


> My Bible calls them "the Sons of Adam"


How could angels be sons of Adam?


Genesis 6:2-4

New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)


2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, âMy Spirit will not contend with[a] man forever, for he is mortal*; his days will be a hundred and twenty years.â 

4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those daysâand also afterwardâwhen the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. 



Genesis 6:2-4

Young's Literal Translation (YLT)



2and sons of God see the daughters of men that they [are] fair, and they take to themselves women of all whom they have chosen. 

3And Jehovah saith, `My Spirit doth not strive in man -- to the age; in their erring they [are] flesh:' and his days have been an hundred and twenty years. 

4The fallen ones were in the earth in those days, and even afterwards when sons of God come in unto daughters of men, and they have borne to them -- they [are] the heroes, who, from of old, [are] the men of name. 



Genesis 6:2-4

American Standard Version (ASV)




2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all that they chose. 

3 And Jehovah said, My spirit shall not strive with man for ever, for that he also is flesh: yet shall his days be a hundred and twenty years. 

4 The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them: the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown. 



Genesis 6:2-4

King James Version (KJV)




2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 

3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 

4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown


Which Bible are you using?*


----------



## HOTW (Jul 3, 2007)

I'l check when I get home- I use several Bibles and each casts a different interpretive light according to the words used...which is my point even the Bible is open to very different interpretation.


----------



## Del Gue (Apr 5, 2010)

Oh look, a cricket.

*chirp*


----------



## VERN in IL (Nov 30, 2008)

mnn2501 said:


> Good thing the LDS Church does NOT teach that. In fact we're the only Church I know of that says most people will be in heaven, even non-LDS.
> 
> You take a quote out of context, skip a few words or even sentences with ellipses, you can prove just about anything about anyone.
> Sad!


Wadda bout this? 

*âBehold there are save two churches only; the one is the Church of the Lamb of God (the Mormon Church) and the other is the church of the devil ( the Christian Church) wherefore whosoever belongeth not to the church of the lamb of God belongeth to that great church; which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.â (The Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 14:10).*



> Joseph Smith 2:19: "I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; and those professors were all corrupt."


So MMN is that correct? I'm not even going to quote bible, since we have this fresher revelation.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

VERN in IL said:


> Wadda bout this?
> 
> *âBehold there are save two churches only; the one is the Church of the Lamb of God (the Mormon Church) and the other is the church of the devil ( the Christian Church) wherefore whosoever belongeth not to the church of the lamb of God belongeth to that great church; which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.â (The Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 14:10).*


YOU (or others of your ilk) put in "(the Mormon Church)" and "(the Christian Church)" as descriptors in that verse.
They are not in the verse nor are they even implied. In fact neither the LDS NOR the Christian Church even existed in approx 600 BC when those words were written by the Prophet Nephi. Christ had not yet come. 

Here is a link for those wanting to do HONEST research and find out for themselves what that verse actually does say.

http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/1_ne/14


----------



## VERN in IL (Nov 30, 2008)

mnn2501 said:


> YOU (or others of your ilk) put in "(the Mormon Church)" and "(the Christian Church)" as descriptors in that verse.
> They are not in the verse nor are they even implied. In fact neither the LDS NOR the Christian Church even existed in approx 600 BC when those words were written by the Prophet Nephi. Christ had not yet come.
> 
> Here is a link for those wanting to do HONEST research and find out for themselves what that verse actually does say.
> ...


You're right, what was I thinking arguing with a LDS'er over the book of Mormon. That's like arguing with the Jews over the Torah and the Talmud.:smack

I'll stick with the Bible, that I know is infallible.


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

VERN in IL said:


> You're right, what was I thinking arguing with a LDS'er over the book of Mormon. That's like arguing with the Jews over the Torah and the Talmud.:smack
> 
> I'll stick with the Bible, that I know is infallible.


The Torah is part of the OT

How about the books of the Prophets?


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

There is no need to put someone down or try to denigrate their belief system. An honest discussion about basic religious tenets is one thing... a peeing contest is quite another. While I have found some of the posts here to be quite informative, others serve only to force the Mormons to defend their practices and beliefs.

I've never been a Mormon, nor do I know any personally. I just see a few in the neighborhood from time to time. I have found the posts by thequeensblessing to be quite informative. I cannot imagine trying to "educate" her on what her religion is about. I assume that she knows more about it than I do. I assume that she is more of an expert on the subject than someone who is not a member of the Mormon Church. When you do not believe in something (in this case Mormonism), you tend to look for all of the things that you don't agree with and attack it. There is nothing that an anonymous internet poster can say that will change TQB's beliefs and if there was something, then that would just prove that she wasn't a true believer!

Regardless of what religion anyone believes in, they put their trust in something that is not always easy to prove in a tangible way. It is called having faith for a reason...


----------



## Del Gue (Apr 5, 2010)

I look at it this way.... The stuff in Mormonism is no more odd than the stuff in the bible.

It's different. It's new. 

I can tell you, I was appalled when I saw "the passion of the Christ" I thought MY GODS who would show this to their kids...

The stuff in most religions is pretty warped. As long as it's practitioners non-violent, one is about the same as the other, really.

Would I vote for Mit Romeny...... Sure. He's pretty harmless compared to the rest of the GOP stable of candidates. If The Dem ticket was full of losers, and the only viable candidate was Mit...
Sure. His religion wouldn't bother me. There are lots of LDS politicians, None of them I see push their religion ahead of their politics anywhere NEAR what the Christian ones do.
Seems like anymore, that all these GOP twits do is push their religion ahead of their politics.
I have yet to see Mit mention religion. Score one for the LDS folks.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

Karen said:


> I still think the entire Mormon issue could be solved by one very simple thing. Define what we must do to obtain eternal salvation.
> 
> Unless I've been wrong all these years, my Bible says when Christ himself was asked that question, He gave a very straight forward and definitive answer and said that we must:
> 1. Believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God
> ...


 An extremely reasonable and well thought out response Karen, well done.


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

From the Mormonism thread.



willow_girl said:


> I'm sure your religion is a nice one, but its founder was a charlatan and his doctrine was bunkum. It's quite possible you're in good company, because the same probably can be said about a lot of other religions. Can something good be built on a foundation that's so shaky? I happen to think that when we part from reality, we fall into grave danger. YMMV. :shrug:


After I gave up religion, I went through a period of thinking religionists were crazy for "denying reality".

After awhile, I realized we all do it in many different ways in order to surivive and have motivation. We all believe some of the following:

Government will take care of us and will never run out of money.

More money will make us happy.

Our spouses love us for who we are.

War will bring peace.

Homesteading saves money.

Public education and college is essential to survival.

My particular job is important.

Others lie, but I do not.

Everybody likes me (except the idiots).

Without current agricultural practices, we cannot survive (e.g. dairy cows only lasting a couple lactations).

etc


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

VERN in IL said:


> I'll stick with the Bible, that I know is infallible.


Which Bible would that be? Cause I've read many versions and there is not one yet that does not contradict itself in one way or another..


----------



## Callieslamb (Feb 27, 2007)

I've stayed way out of this discussion to this point. Vern- I think your real intent here is very apparent - you're started the other thread about the LDS church. I'm sorry you feel the need to drag another church down - in my book, that isn't a very Christian thing to do. I'd rather spend my time finding things we all have in common. I strongly believe that every man must worship God in the way his conscience directs him. I hope that I will prove to be as willing to defend your way of worshiping as I would of my own. 

"Your" thoughts are right out of all the anti-Mormon literature. We've all heard it before. Every so often on this forum, we have this discussion. Some are interested in understanding and others in defaming. Interestingly enough - I have had two friends accept the church from discussions on this forum. 

We believe in the Bible as far as it is translated correctly. I will echo the question -there are many versions of the Bible out there - which one do you refer to as being totally infallible? I believe that if every church were given a copy of the exact same Bible -there would be many different interpretations from that group too. And again- that interpretation is every man's right to seek and know for themselves.

We believe that we lived before we came to earth. We were taught by God there and coming to earth is our time to experience living what we were taught. Each of us was given the light of God to guide us. Our actions in this life either strengthen that light or weaken it. As per Revelation 12- we believe that while in heaven we had to choose to follow God or Satan. God and Satan each presented a plan for us. At that time, Satan was a favored son of God, but he wanted God's glory for himself. Satan was cast out and lost his place in the kingdom of God. He became the Satan we refer to today. Those who chose to follow God's plan knew that a Savior would be prepared for us so we could live the plan God had for us - the one of choosing for ourselves what we believe to be right. This is a basic belief of our church.

I understand why people have a problem with our belief that Satan was, at one time, essentially, our brother. Oh well. If you look at it from our eyes - everyone on earth is, in that respect, our brother. Hitler, Obama, Mother Teresa....everyone.

We also believe that we can receive personal revelation and in fact, should actively seek it. We have an open cannon of scripture - meaning, we believe that God still has things to say to man. When God wants to talk to Callieslamb - he speaks to me. When he wants to talk to the church as a body, he speaks through a prophet. When the term 'prophet' is spoken, many think of a Nostardamus-type person. That just isn't so. Perhaps that's what we want a prophet to be? Or maybe it's the only tangible thing that a prophet can be related to? These are just normal men. They have families. They at one time, held jobs. They were called to do a specific task in the church. We believe that calling came from God. They devote their lives to serving in the church. They are not paid for their service. There is no jockying for position or favor. A prophet is the one designated to interpret scripture for the church. If the prophet were to say something to us that we hadn't heard before - we are each supposed to go to God for a confirmation of the truth of that direction. Mostly, they tell us to read our scriptures, say our prayers, be dedicated to the Lord. And it is my belief that they don't tell us more because we are not prepared to live it. We are given line upon line, precept upon precept as we are prepared to hear (and live) it.

Put the word "ritual" into any church service and we know exactly what connection people will make with it. Peraps this is why the only place I hear the term "ritual" connected with our temple services is from anti-literature? I suppose technically, it is correct. Isn't a 'ritual' simply a religious service that you repeat regularly? People make a big deal about the 'secret' nature of the temple service. Oh if you only knew - all of you would say, "what's the big deal about that?" Whatever is the fuss over? It makes me laugh to hear people discuss it when they really have NO idea what they are talking about. Especially given where it's obvious where they get their information. In the temple we make personal covenants with God. They are all right there in the Bible so none should surprise anyone and I believe most people in this discussion already believe and do the things included in the covenants. But it is sacred to us because it is personal. Yes, we wear white clothing - it's symbolic as many things in the scriptures are. Is white clothing that strange to people? Or is it only when the term "ritual" is conveniently placed before it. 

You take exception to the Book of Abraham- 3 or is it 4 chapters - found in a scroll. How many scrolls presented to Joseph Smith were rejected as being of any importance? Any idea? Where did the books of the Bible come from if not from scrolls? Iis there any doubt to their authenticity? Are they totally sure of even who the authors are of some of those scrolls? A group of men got together and put together what they thought was most important for man to know, read, use of what they had of God's word. I think they did a pretty good job of it. I am sure it wasn't an easy task for them. We should all thank God that those man lived and accepted that task. I believe that God blessed them so they could include what He intended for them to use. But I am not sure that it was all that Christ taught while he was on earth or all that God directed to man via what we call the Old Testament. If it won't disturb you too much - we also believe that when the 10 'lost' tribes of Israel are restored, they will each have their scriptures - how God dealt with them - made available to each of us to learn from.

Well, this is getting entirely too long. But one more thing- yes, we do believe that all men with the exception of those that have given their lives to Satan will have a place in heaven. You are wrong to say that we don't believe that. Yes, our belief in heaven is different that other churchs' beliefs. We believe heaven and hell as described in the Bible is a temporary state between death and resurrection. Upon the resurrection, we will all be given kingdoms of glory according to the degree of truth that we accept. So while we believe some will be ----ed- they will have had to have denied the inspiration of the Holy Ghost having a full knowledge of what they were doing. We believe that all churches hold truth and that the Lord works with the people in other faiths just as he does with ours. He will inspire them as he will anyone that is working to understand his word.

I wish you the best with your church and your beliefs.


----------



## Del Gue (Apr 5, 2010)

> You take exception to the Book of Abraham- 3 or is it 4 chapters - found in a scroll. How many scrolls presented to Joseph Smith were rejected as being of any importance? Any idea?


Who knows. We do however know;
The papyri in question and the Hypocephalus are known, common works of Egypt. There is no room for debate. They do not say what Smith said they say. All the talk in the world wont change the facts. This HUGE error makes anything smith said suspect.
No offense.

But we only have to consider Scientology and L.Ron Hubbard. There isn't a religious leader in history that we can say for 100% certain they are raving lunatics who were from the start up to no good like we can point a finger at LRH and be sure it's the truth.

Yet, how many people are perfectly happy Scientologists and relatively decent people?
Millions.

Like I said unless there are bomb belts involved, I'm fine with whatever you think is the truth.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Like I said unless there are bomb belts involved, I'm fine with whatever you think is the truth.


I'll add that it also would be nice if your church didn't spend hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to pass laws preventing people like me from marrying the partner of our choice. 

If you want to tell church members that they can't have a same-sex partner -- that's fine with me.

If you threaten to kick them out, or whatever, if they disobey -- I'm OK with that, too.

When you start trying to influence laws that affect the rest of us -- I have a problem with that. Sorry.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Del Gue said:


> Who knows. We do however know;
> The papyri in question and the Hypocephalus are known, common works of Egypt.


 Actually which scrolls were used are up for debate. If you actually kept up on scholarly work, you would know that, however you really are only interested in tearing down, rather than knowing the Truth.


----------



## Del Gue (Apr 5, 2010)

Let's not go into that evasion tactic.

Lets assume for the moment you're right. it was a totally different scroll.

Smith said "A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands *from the catacombs of Egypt. *The writings of Abraham *while he was in Egypt*, called the Book of Abraham, *written by his own hand, upon papyrus.* (See History of the Church, 2:235&#8211;36, 348&#8211;51.)"

1, If it came from Egypt in a tomb, it wasnt of mormon origin.
2, Smith at the time had no way of dating anything. he couldn't even read the writing and had no idea about Egyptian history.
3, to say it was written in Abraham's own hand is pretty presumptuous.
4, considering there is hand drawn copy of what he had in hand, draw by him (IIRC) matching the scraps found later and the ones he drew is fairly easy.

If he had simply said "I heard the words of the lord in a vision and wrote them down" even I would be hard pressed to argue with it.
I can't argue what John saw and heard on the island, that became the book of Revelations in the bible. he may very well have seen and heard something supernatural.

The fact that Smith attempted to legitimize his revelation with some physical proof shows something is off. The story of the gold plates, I could maybe believe on faith, as there is nothing to examine.

I think at the time, the idea that anyone would eventually be able to read that script as easy as Greek or Latin was unimaginable. 
Long term planning fail.

Lets not use the "well, they arent sure it was that scroll he translated" argument. It really doesn't help you position.

And I have to keep repeating this, because you seem to think I'm up to no good; I don't care what you think is true. if it makes you happy, god bless ya. Just don't be offended when people present proof your faith has factual errors. 

Nobody is picking on you. Nobody is picking on your faith. I was drawing a comparison to show why LDs is not a Christian religion.... which most people think it is.

There's no sinister plot under this discussion. We're just talking. Don't make it into something it isnt.


----------



## VERN in IL (Nov 30, 2008)

mnn2501 said:


> Which Bible would that be? Cause I've read many versions and there is not one yet that does not contradict itself in one way or another..


The King James Version printed in year 1611 is the only Bible that contains all of God&#8217;s Word in the English language. Anyone who disagrees with my position, cannot honestly believe in an infallible, inerrant Bible.

God has given us only one Bible, not a multitude of Bibles. Only the KJV represents God&#8217;s Word, thus,any other translation that will alter the reading of the KJV in either updating language or any translational revision is in essence changing the Word of God. 

God has made clear promises to preserve His _Word_ for ever. This promise of preservation is seen in such passages as Psalm 12:7 and Matthew 5:17,18.

This promise of preservation goes _beyond_ just the general message of the scriptures to the very words. God did not promise He will preserve His Word, but His _Words_. If not every word God breathed out is preserved, then we cannot say with certainty that the scriptures are pure and inerrant, can we?

The King James Bible is translated from the best original manuscripts. They represent the majority of ancient, manuscript witnesses. The ancient manuscripts were used consistently and with out interruption by God&#8217;s believing people. The ancient manuscripts were never lost to the &#8220;sea of time&#8221; or ever laid aside by God&#8217;s people. They were continually copied and re-copied and show signs of being worn out from use, thus indicating the confidence God&#8217;s people placed in them as being God&#8217;s holy Word.

On the other hand, the original language texts used to translate modern versions must be rejected because: 

The manuscripts utilized by modern translations are few and represent the minority of witnesses

These manuscripts have their origin in and around Alexandria, Egypt, an area known for false teaching.

The manuscripts utilized by modern translations are in pristine condition, indicating they were never used by God&#8217;s people. These manuscripts give the appearance they were altered or corrupted by heretical men who desired to undermine Christian doctrine.

The King James was translated by the greatest textual scholars in all of Church History. All of the men who helped to translate the King James Bible were the world&#8217;s experts in the fields of biblical languages and theology. God specifically directed these men by divine providence to use their expertise so as to provide His people with the best translation that represents His holy Word.



> Gesh, wouldn't you think any Christian would be thrilled to know the Mormons believe Christ to be their only way to salvation. Instead, they have to pick apart everything else. What does it matter what else they believe if the salvation part has been accomplished?


Because salvation has *NOT* been accomplished, at least not until the second coming. It is really simple, a Christian is a follower of Christ, agree? So here is the question, Would Jesus be a Mormon? If for some reason Jesus showed up next Sabbath(Saturday) to go to church, would he find the Mormon temple, or the vast majority of churches open? He would find most of them CLOSED. Not only that, he would find graven images of *him* that look nothing like him... If you love Jesus, you will Keep his commandments. The commandments, the Ten Commandments, found in the infallible KJV Bible.


----------



## whiskeylivewire (May 27, 2009)

Would Jesus be a Lutheran? Afterall, he wouldn't be able to take communion unless he was a member of the church...

Would Jesus be a Baptist? After all, He wouldn't be able to become a member unless he was RE-baptized.

Would Jesus be a....you get the picture.

I go with what Queen Elizabeth I said in regards to religion(and if you remember she was in the middle of the Catholic and Church of England stuff) "There is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, the rest is just trifles".


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Vern. I wasn't aware that Jesus spoke the Kings English.
Are you aware that you've probably never even seen the 1611 KJV?
It certainly can not be purchased today (well unless you are very rich and know an antique book dealer) The KJV that is commonly in use today was revised in 1769
And it does contradict itself in a number of places.
Here is a link to a sample page of the 1611 version - don't worry Vern, nothing controversial there, just a sample page scanned in to show what it looked like, and I guarentee no Church today uses it. Not even you Vern.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/kjv-heb.html


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

willow_girl said:


> I'll add that it also would be nice if your church didn't spend hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to pass laws preventing people like me from marrying the partner of our choice.
> 
> If you want to tell church members that they can't have a same-sex partner -- that's fine with me.
> 
> ...


 Just out of curiosity and not bashing (I am not one who feels he can judge others) but arent you married? It sounds like you wish you could pursue another avenue and that intrigues me.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Yes, I'm married to a man, and I'm happy. But I just as easily could have fallen in love with a woman (I'm bi) ... and in my home state, we wouldn't have been able to marry.

Isn't it rather ludicrous that the U.S. government gave its seal of approval to my four marriages to men, but wouldn't have approved a single union with a woman? Does that make ANY sense?


----------



## pamda (Oct 14, 2004)

I married a Mormon. I have not nor will I join this church...I am so turned off by the whole, we are are the only and the best,ha! fat chance, I also made sure he knows and his family knows, if I die and they try the join the church after death thing , I have money in an accout to sue the crap out of the church and family who trieds it. How insulting. If my choice is my religion they have no business doing something so ----ingly arrogant.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Sounds like a real 'happy' family situation pamda.


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

Besides, if you feel that baptism after death has no value, no merit at all, as most mainstream Christians do, then what's to be afraid of, or sue over? In your opinion, isn't it just a bath? And because it's done by proxy, isn't it just a bath for someone else?


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

willow_girl said:


> Yes, I'm married to a man, and I'm happy. But I just as easily could have fallen in love with a woman (I'm bi) ... and in my home state, we wouldn't have been able to marry.
> 
> Isn't it rather ludicrous that the U.S. government gave its seal of approval to my four marriages to men, but wouldn't have approved a single union with a woman? Does that make ANY sense?


 Interesting and I basically agree with you. I am always amazed that so many people want the government out of their lives except in this instance that unless they are inclined that way, wont personally affect them. I also agree with the posts about polygamy, if the Mormon faith (and I know they officially rejected polygamy years ago) or any other belief system espouses polygamy then as long as its between adults...who cares. I guess I dont understand the vehemence and ill will directed at Mormons and Catholics on this forum by some and I sure cant see why anyone would be or feel threatened by them. Even though I dont agree with it the animosity against Islam is a little more understandable....but Mormons and Catholics?


----------



## Del Gue (Apr 5, 2010)

I think The point is, what right does any religious organization have to tinker with one's soul when they are dead?
If I die tomorrow what right do you have in forcibly baptizing me? By proxy or anything else? 
Would you be ok with me, after you die, adding you as a posthumous member of the church of Satan?

It's a privacy invasion issue. And a wee bit creepy.


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

thequeensblessing said:


> Besides, if you feel that baptism after death has no value, no merit at all, as most mainstream Christians do, then what's to be afraid of, or sue over? In your opinion, isn't it just a bath? And because it's done by proxy, isn't it just a bath for someone else?


Interestingly enough the early Christians baptized for the dead, though what it meant is unclear.

1 Corinthians 15:29
Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

Del Gue said:


> I think The point is, what right does any religious organization have to tinker with one's soul when they are dead?
> If I die tomorrow what right do you have in forcibly baptizing me? By proxy or anything else?
> Would you be ok with me, after you die, adding you as a posthumous member of the church of Satan?
> 
> It's a privacy invasion issue. And a wee bit creepy.


Because we view things differently, I'd say if it made you feel better to baptize me into the church of Satan, then go ahead. I believe in agency, thereby giving me the opportunity, in the hereafter, to decline your "generous" offer on my behalf. It's not forcing anyone to do, or become, anything. We believe agency is not a mortal characteristic alone, but is a God-given, eternal principle. You can't tinker with my soul. I have the right, and priviledge to reject anything you've done on my behalf, as do you, if I were to baptize you after death. You wouldn't be "forced" into becoming a Mormon.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Del Gue said:


> Would you be ok with me, after you die, adding you as a posthumous member of the church of Satan?


I would have no problem with that whatsoever. Why? because I believe it would have no effect. The only way it could possible have an effect would be if that is what God wanted for me and who am I to deny God?


----------



## PurpleMartineer (Apr 12, 2008)

> But *the Jews* considered Christ's teachings blasphemy and *crucified him* for it, because they believed his teachings deviated from what core doctrine was. That didn't make him wrong and them right, regardless of how hard they tried.


The Christian bible claims it dovetails with the Hebrew texts and prophecy, but Jesus does not fit the requirements of the Jewish Messiah, so he cannot be messiah, so , in fact, the Jews were right. They may have been wrong about some things, and the man Jesus may have been right about some things, but ultimately, Jesus was not the Messiah, so the Hebrew texts, the God of Israel, and the prophets are true while Christianity is mistaken. 

The Jews did not crucify Jesus, the Romans did. It was the Romans who used crucifixion to kill. Just because the "NT" says the Jews did it, doesn't make it so. The "NT" is full of lies, distortions and both careless and deliberate mistranslations (yes I said lies). Of course the *Jews did it,* according to the "NT"--the "NT" which is the so called "word of God" but teeters very creakily and dangerously on a foundation of untruths. It's pathetic how Christians always sell out the Jewish people, while defending the Romans. Telling.


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

PurpleMartineer said:


> The Christian bible claims it dovetails with the Hebrew texts and prophecy, but Jesus does not fit the requirements of the Jewish Messiah, so he cannot be messiah, so , in fact, the Jews were right. They may have been wrong about some things, and the man Jesus may have been right about some things, but ultimately, Jesus was not the Messiah, so the Hebrew texts, the God of Israel, and the prophets are true while Christianity is mistaken.
> 
> The Jews did not crucify Jesus, the Romans did. It was the Romans who used crucifixion to kill. Just because the "NT" says the Jews did it, doesn't make it so. The "NT" is full of lies, distortions and both careless and deliberate mistranslations (yes I said lies). Of course the *Jews did it,* according to the "NT"--the "NT" which is the so called "word of God" but teeters very creakily and dangerously on a foundation of untruths. It's pathetic how Christians always sell out the Jewish people, while defending the Romans. Telling.


You know, it's interesting that you should post this...I've been doing a lot of research for some sort of Jewish website that will help to clarify the Jewish version of the crucifiction of Jesus. Some historical perspective if you will.  I have yet to find anything other than blanket statements such as you posted above. Can you point me in the direction of some factual historical writings on the crucifiction of Jesus from the Jewish perspective?


----------



## PurpleMartineer (Apr 12, 2008)

Excuse me, but the burden of proof is on you. Since you are claiming the Jews are guilty, then YOU must provide the evidence. And the "NT," full of holes, lies and twisted distortions, does not count as proof. Romans crucified people, as is evident by the historical record.


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

PurpleMartineer said:


> Excuse me, but the burden of proof is on you. Since you are claiming the Jews are guilty, then YOU must provide the evidence. And the "NT," full of holes, lies and twisted distortions, does not count as proof. Romans crucified people, as is evident by the historical record.


Pardon me, but the burden of proof is equally upon you as it is me. Yes, I made a claim and used scripture to back it up. I can use other written history of the day as well, if that is any more reliable. You refuted my claim and my methods of evidence, and furthermore made a claim of your own. I only ask that you give me some evidence as to your own claims. How can you reject one persons claims as being groundless when you refuse to provide any grounds at all to support your own claims. Is that not hypocrisy in it's finest form? I only asked what evidences you could refer me to because I truly want to learn. If there is another side to this story, I want to know it. I only wish people would be so generous with my own faith. But what do I get for it? Seeming hostility. 
Yes, Romans crucified people as evident by the historical record. I never disputed that. However, the person who testifies against someone in a death penalty case is as guilty of executing the condemned as is the hangman himself.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

Actually Pontius Pilate wrote of his concerns in his dispatches to Rome. He was very upset about having crucified a person in whom he could find no violation of roman law based entirely on the popular will of the Judeans.


----------



## Del Gue (Apr 5, 2010)

Promise me you wont tinker with my soul when I'm dead.
Wherever I end up I don't want it wrinkled.

I might get somewhere really nice, and they say "oops! sorry sir, you can't come in.... you've got LDS stamped on your soul. You'll have to go with group M. have a nice trip"

Just leave my soul alone...k?

lol


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

Keep in mind that the Jews started the long history of blaming themselves for the failure or delay of the promise to Abraham. They also started the process from a literal interpretation to a ever more complex spiritualised concept of the promise.

Keep in mind that Christianity has its roots firmly in Judaism.

Jesus, Paul and the Apostles were all Jewish.

In fact Christianity is in many ways Evangelical Judaism.


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

PurpleMartineer said:


> The burden of proof is on you as the prosecutor, not anyone else.


 Look, I made an assertion, not an accusation. I provided support for my claims. You reject my claims and support out of hand, making "accusations" of your own, yet offering nothing but opinion as support of your claims, thereby shifting the burden of proof upon yourself. Just as with any law case, if the defense puts forth a proposed defense (insanity or what have you), they DO have the burden of proof on that claim, seperate and apart from the burden of proof held by the prosecution. You have placed yourself in the role of defense and have put forth your own defense. Now, it's up to you to prove it, or at the very least offer up some sort of supporting evidence. Just saying "this is how it happened" isn't good enough. 


PurpleMartineer said:


> The only document that claims Jews killed Jesus is the NT, and it does not even claim that it was solely the Jews.


 The New Testament is one cornerstone of evidence, one that you dismiss out of hand. Ok, that's your right and priviledge. You then counter that it was solely the Romans who crucified Jesus but when asked for some supporting evidence for those claims, you simply say you don't have to provide any. I think you do, if you want your claims to be taken seriously. 


PurpleMartineer said:


> My claim is that it is telling that Christians are always selling out the Jews in favor of Rome.


 That's not even remotely what I was doing, not even a little bit. I'm sorry that's what you read into it. Let me apologize right now for not being more precise. This is obvioiusly a sensitive subject for you, one that inadvertently stepped in big time. Now, let me clarify, again if I can, what I was attempting to say.
The Romans saw the man Jesus as a threat of sorts as he was setting himself up, in their opinion, as a leader of the peoples, the Jews, and was being considered a revolutionary. No few people regarded him as the Messiah, a figure the Jewish people saw as being a revolutionary. This was a direct threat to the governorship of the people by the Romans. The Jews that held their own high positions within the temple, the government, etc. also saw the man Jesus as a threat, and didn't for a moment believe he was a messiah of any kind. They saw him as a blasphemer and a cult leader, a false prophet even for many of them. He was a threat to the stability of the Jewish law and the jewish people by drawing people away from strict adherence to the law and bringing to Judaism some "new" or "higher" law. People were being converted and there was much talk of this man Jesus and the "miracles" he performed. Vast crowds were gathering to listen to him and his fame was spreading. He was considered a threat. When the government (Romans primarily) threatened to execute the man Jesus, the Jews didn't interfere. When given the choice as to which prisoner they wanted to be pardoned or released (as was a historical custom), they (the Jewish people and leaders) didn't pick the man Jesus. They chose another. 
Yes, the Romans crucified Jesus. The Jews turned a blind eye and allowed the blasphemer to be put to death. They share responsibility. I don't "blame" the Jews. I don't "blame" the Romans. I don't think they did this "terrible" thing. This was a wondeful thing. I believe the man Jesus gave his life willingly. I don't hate the Jews at all. I don't hate the catholics (who descended from the early Roman Christians). This was something that HAD to happen, regardless of who was responsible. 


PurpleMartineer said:


> My claim is that Christianity converted to Rome and not the other way around and there is a major bias there that stems from way back and it must be considered as part of the equation when determining the validity of both the NT and it's claims against the Jewish people.


 There has been a lot more than Roman tinkering with the NT, which is why our faith believes in the bible only so far as it has been translated correctly. We believe that over the centuries, there has been a degree of error creep into the bible. Yes, that offends our mainstream Christian friends, but it is fact that has been shown to be true, time and time again. Just the myriad translations of the bible that exist today that contradict each other in so many ways shows that's true. 


PurpleMartineer said:


> Since the burden is on you to prove your case in vilifying an entire people, you might want to start with proving your NT is true and proves out against the Hebrew texts, and my claim is that they do not.


 As I asked you, point me in the direction of these hebrew texts so I can learn more and see for myself how they stack up. How can I give you an assessment of that if I have no knowledge, yet when I asked for help with this, you simply shut me off. Furthermore, I am villifying no one. I don't regard the Jews as villains in anyway whatsoever. There has been a wonderful relationship between the LDS church, and the Jews in this country. We're encouraged to learn and understand our Jewish brethren. Here in Ohio, many of LDS churches and stake centers are right next door to Jewish synagogues. Judaism is fundamental to Mormonism. 


PurpleMartineer said:


> If you want to read more on my position on this you can check out the posts in the thread titled "If Jesus returned how many would accept him?" I could go on and on showing the holes and insertions, inaccuracies and flagrant purposeful mistranslations of prophetic text within the NT, but I don't have the time to sit here writing it all down for hours and hours. If you really want to know, you will find the answers regarding all that.


 I appreciate your efforts to educate me, honestly I do. But I want to go to the horse's mouth, so to speak. Just as I have various places where I can refer people who want to learn more about my beliefs, about my church, about the historical accuracies of events such as the Mt. Meadows Massacre, and other misunderstood events in our history, so too do I want you to refer me to such a site that expains the historical evidences you have for your claims. You want me to supply evidence of my position, yet you simply want me to take your word as evidence that your defense is indeed truth. 


PurpleMartineer said:


> Does the NT hold up as a historical document? Sure, on some accounts. But on who killed Jesus, the Romans were the only ones who would authorize such an execution. The Romans killed him. Now I wonder why everyone says the Jews did it when the Roman govt had control over who got killed in this manner?


 I've attempted to explain one small aspect of this, which is that the Jews could indeed have stopped Jesus from being executed. (Thank God they didn't!) Therefore they share in the "blame" (should they not be thanked instead in some way?) 


PurpleMartineer said:


> Could it be that the winner in history always creates the story? _(Interestingly as an aside, why anyone even gives a rip about pointing fingers at all on this account? Didnt Jesus want to die, wasnt that the whole big plan anyway? Didnt he state that no one was to blame? And why arent you all giving the the accusers a big ole hug for providing you with the ultimate blood sacrifice and your eternal salvation? Whats all the fuss over the laying blame for killing your savior anyway? No death, no savior. Be happy. Or do Christians just enjoy this? what a funny world we live in..._


thank you! You just underscored my point in this whole thing. There's enough blame to go around everywhere and for everyone. Was it not an early "Christian" who betrayed Jesus into the hands of the government? One of his own inner circle? Did not another even deny knowing him? I only spoke of the Jews in responsibility in my original comment that was so offensive to you because I was pointing out the dichotomy of the situation involving those same Jews. I never said they acted alone, or were the sole guilty party or anything of the sort. I'm sorry it appeared to you that I was saying such.


PurpleMartineer said:


> And finally, if you make an accusation about an entire people that hurts and vilifies them (both then and now) and perpetuates falsehoods and lies about them based on what you think you are reading in a book that is extremely questionable on it's claims of divine origin, than what you are doing is hurting and vilifying on faith, on a choice to believe what you think is true. When you are talking about hurting a people, and therefore potentially real people in real time, you should make dang sure that what you are saying is true.


I agree, and I've apologized for my clumsy wording and I hope I've clarified myself on this. Now, you have likewise villified an entire people and dragged their faith down as being totally in error and have provided no solid basis for support of your comments other than opinion, something you've accused me of doing. Would you like an opportunity to likewise clarify your comments or is it ok to defend the Jews at the expense of the Christians while offering no supporting evidence, but no one better dare to been seen as defending the Christians at the expense of the Jews even with supporting evidence? You simply toss out the supporting evidence as being unreliable without offering anything to support your own assertions other than opinion.
I don't mean to sound hostile. I am not at all. I find this all fascinating and I sincerely want to learn more, yet you seem so resistant to providing me with links whereby I can learn more. That doesn't take a lot of typing. Cut and paste the addresses and I can go learn.


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

Midrash is another concept held dear to the Jewish people and something that they themselves started.

It means a deeper meaning embedded within the text which does not have a clear translation from the literal reading of the text.

Seems a little disingenuous to condemn a certain Jewish sect (Christianity) and not the rest.

Most certainly from a literal reading of the OT God is an abject failure.

That said so is the NT.


Luke 24:44-46

New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)



44 He said to them, &#8220;This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.&#8221; 

45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46 He told them, &#8220;This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day,


Matthew 5:19-21

New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)


19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. 

So absolute obedience in spirit and letter was necessary. Something not possible in the flesh but supposedly possible through the intervention of the Spirit through those who clothed themselves in the body of Christ.

Paul calls "times up" to observance of the Law as a means to righteousness.

Galatians 3:10-23 (New International Version 1984)




Galatians 3:10-23

10 All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: &#8220;Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.&#8221;[a] 11 Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, &#8220;The righteous will live by faith.&#8221;* 12 The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, &#8220;The man who does these things will live by them.&#8221;[c] 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: &#8220;Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.&#8221;[d] 14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit. 

The Law and the Promise
15 Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say &#8220;and to seeds,&#8221; meaning many people, but &#8220;and to your seed,&#8221;[e] meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. 
19 What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one. 

21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22 But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe. 

23 Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed


And yet faith in Christ has not yielded the righteousness that was prophesied in the New Covenant. Nor has the body of Christ become on body united in hearts and minds as was his own prayer to the Father.*


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

I've been MIA for awhile and decided to pop in to see what was going on when I came across this post. I'm not sure why the topic came up, but I personally don't feel threatened by Mormons. I don't agree with their doctrine, but then again, I don't agree with many mainstream Christian doctrines. The Bible tells us to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. Each of us in accountable for our own actions and faith and how we go forward in that faith. So for me, Mormons are free to worship however they want.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> And yet faith in Christ has not yielded the righteousness that was prophesied in the New Covenant. Nor has the body of Christ become on body united in hearts and minds as was his own prayer to the Father.


If you read between the lines of Paul's letters, it clearly was a train wreck right from the start!


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

willow_girl said:


> If you read between the lines of Paul's letters, it clearly was a train wreck right from the start!


Oh yeah!! He was forever correcting them on matters of doctrine and combating the influence from the Jerusalem church. Those that had actualy talked to Jesus in the flesh.

Non of this should have been neccesary had Christ really ushered in the New Covenant.


Jeremiah 31:31-34

New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)



31 âThe time is coming,â declares the LORD, 
âwhen I will make a new covenant 
with the house of Israel 
and with the house of Judah. 
32 It will not be like the covenant 
I made with their forefathers 
when I took them by the hand 
to lead them out of Egypt, 
because they broke my covenant, 
though I was a husband to[a] them,*â 
declares the LORD. 
33 âThis is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel 
after that time,â declares the LORD. 
âI will put my law in their minds 
and write it on their hearts. 
I will be their God, 
and they will be my people. 
34 No longer will a man teach his neighbor, 
or a man his brother, saying, âKnow the LORD,â 
because they will all know me, 
from the least of them to the greatest,â 
declares the LORD. 
âFor I will forgive their wickedness 
and will remember their sins no more.â*


----------



## PurpleMartineer (Apr 12, 2008)

Unbelievable Chuck. Really now. Are you a Lutheran? Because its clear what the father of the protestant reformation said about Jews. I didnt say it, I just quoted him. Nothing I said was untrue. You are perpetuating lies. What part of my post touched your nerves that you had to delete it?


----------



## Jenn (Nov 9, 2004)

1- I've never met a Mormon I didn't like. Maybe it's the prepping for mission work that makes them so polite and friendly. I've been friends with several, more easily so than with the average American (or Brit), perhaps because like me they feel like an outsider in most groups outside Utah.

2- The Mormon Church has funded some 'political' fights on 'morals' issues such as Prop 8 which I am distressed at them for interfering in- esp. in Calif not in Utah. I consider it a threat to me and my country when corporations and churches with lots of money start lobbying on issues. Let each individual Mormon in Calif vote as they wish on Prop 8 and stay out of it on public airwaves; keep the discussion in your church if at all.

3- As I said in 1 Mormons are outsiders. Like Catholics in the South barely considered Christian. As a raised Atheist, grew up in a Jewish neighborhood, mom now Buddhist _non-hunter_ living in the South I can identify, and think it oughtta stop. But then I actually think even an Atheist or Muslim should be allowed to be, or voted for for, President without any consideration of their religion.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Jenn said:


> 2- The Mormon Church has funded some 'political' fights on 'morals' issues such as Prop 8 which I am distressed at them for interfering in- esp. in Calif not in Utah. I consider it a threat to me and my country when corporations and churches with lots of money start lobbying on issues. Let each individual Mormon in Calif vote as they wish on Prop 8 and stay out of it on public airwaves; keep the discussion in your church if at all.


 My only question would be: Shouldn't Churches be able to take a public stance on moral issues? 

When you get down to it, isn't that the reason for their entire existance?


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

nevermind


----------



## lilmizlayla (Aug 28, 2008)

i think the biggest problem people have with the Mormon religion is that Jesus is viewed as a man who became a God......this goes against what most have been taught. The Bible is also the final word, whereas I understand that if there is a conflict..the Book of Mormon takes Precedence....


----------



## lilmizlayla (Aug 28, 2008)

PurpleMartineer said:


> Unbelievable Chuck. Really now. Are you a Lutheran? Because its clear what the father of the protestant reformation said about Jews. I didnt say it, I just quoted him. Nothing I said was untrue. You are perpetuating lies. What part of my post touched your nerves that you had to delete it?


HAHA...he did the same to me on the Catholic Thread. Thou shalt not repeat the truth....even if you can google it and have 10 million hits. Allow people to be delusional


----------



## lilmizlayla (Aug 28, 2008)

mnn2501 said:


> My only question would be: Shouldn't Churches be able to take a public stance on moral issues?
> 
> When you get down to it, isn't that the reason for their entire existance?


Not when it interferes with the life and happiness of others. Case in point...the Catholic stance on birth control and use of condoms. In africa, 1 in 9 women die in childbirth....and babies are born with Aids. They die horrible deaths of sickness and starvation. Just??? sounds more like something Satan would condone. (but thats another topic). Word was the Pope reversed himself on the condom usage...which proves once again, he can make up his mind as he goes long....AFTER millions of women and babies have starved and died horrible deaths.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

lilmizlayla said:


> Not when it interferes with the life and happiness of others.


We'll have to agree to disagree on this one





lilmizlayla said:


> Case in point...the Catholic stance on birth control and use of condoms. In africa, 1 in 9 women die in childbirth....and babies are born with Aids. They die horrible deaths of sickness and starvation. Just??? sounds more like something Satan would condone. (but thats another topic). Word was the Pope reversed himself on the condom usage...which proves once again, he can make up his mind as he goes long....AFTER millions of women and babies have starved and died horrible deaths.


Not even anywhere near the same thing as campaigning against same sex marriage - theres no camparison between the two. Mormons don't even care if you have gay civil unions, just don't call it marriage and then make laws about Churches having to sanction it.


----------



## PurpleMartineer (Apr 12, 2008)

> Keep in mind that Christianity has its roots firmly in Judaism.
> 
> Jesus, Paul and the Apostles were all Jewish.
> 
> In fact Christianity is in many ways Evangelical Judaism.


Christianity has its roots in the Roman Empire and pagan traditions. It is about as far from Judaism as you can get. Most of these early Jewish people who accepted Jesus were assimilated and therefore lacking in any kind of deep uderstanding of the the Hebrew in the "OT," as is evident from some of the shoddy translations that are quoted in the NT. And finally, the claim that Christianity is some kind of Evangelical Judaism is flat out ridiculous. If you knew anything about Judaism you would say nothing of the sort. Christianity and Judaism are as far apart as Islam and Buddhism. Christianity may claim roots in Judaism, but they threw the God of Israel out with the so called "law." Jews claim no relationship to Christianity, the Christian OT isnt even the same as the true Hebrew bible. Jews lives are immersed in the God of Israel and the Oral and Written Torah, the biblical festivals including Sukkot/Pesach/TuBShvat,etc , their own lunar calendar, Shabbat, Shechinah. The Judaism that Jesus practiced, the Judaism of today, it's timeless, and has nothing in common with Christianity with it's fear-focus on blood/hell, satan and sin. Judaism is a religion of creating a sacred space for God in this beautiful world, Christianity is a system of reward and punishment in the next. Israel means "people who wrestle with God." Christians are people who believe a man called Jesus was a god. They are polar opposites.


----------



## lilmizlayla (Aug 28, 2008)

mnn2501 said:


> We'll have to agree to disagree on this one
> 
> 
> 
> ...



its none of their business unless they are the ones wanting to marry the same sex. Churches already marry couples who never should be united in marriage. so what is the difference? How can a church consider it an "oopsie" when the couple breaks up when it is a supposed to be a sacred ceremony? I dunno..but they do it......ALL THE TIME. So gay marriage is offensive? what hypocrites 
Both issues are considered moral issues..so It IS the same church and same pew. Its none of the churches business. they need to stick with teaching the truth about what God said..not waving street signs and sentencing people to a early and painful death.


----------



## PurpleMartineer (Apr 12, 2008)

To Postroad: 

On the point of slavery in Torah, postroad. I had wanted to write a dissertation on this but I am not finding the time. Basically, it is this, and you can read more about what I am going to write at this web address www.chabad.org/library/.../Torah-Slavery-and-the-Jews.htm -

Ok, the Jewish people go by the Written Torah and the Oral Torah. Understanding that al these biblical stories were always Oral Traditions, way back, way way back--the continuation of the Oral tradition is a continuing unfolding of Truth. Written Torah was once Oral Torah. Once there was only Oral Torah, until it was forced into a locked state of being written down during the Babylonian Exile. So. basically Written Torah is a guide to life, with laws and statutes, and the Oral Torah is how to do those laws. This is not based on one persons understanding, like for example, Warren Jeffs of FLDS, the unquestioned prophet who decides for himself that God spoke to him revealing that, for instance, it is ok for him and other men to keep 12 year old girls for wives, etc etc etc. This is many learned sages, hashing and rehashing, arguing and telling and retelling, going round and round determining the meaning and the way to go on the individual laws in the Written Torah (OT to Christians). This is in honor to God, and also in which way to best fulfill the commandment, which again, in Hebrew actually means "means to connect). 

So when you look at the slavery stuff in Torah, what you basically find is that God is forever telling the people of Israel to REMEMBER when they were slaves. That is a CONSTANT theme in Judaism. Remembering the slavery in Egypt. To this day there is this remembering. In the holidays, in Shabbat, in the teachings, oftentimes there is this theme of remembering our enslavement, which carries over to everyday life, and why, on Shabbat, it is a commandment (or way to connect to the Creator) to create a space out of time, to abandon our work, to stop using things that in our everyday lives that may enslave us (such as TV, computers, etc). We may think we are free, but if we cannot live without a computer for 24 hrs, we are it's slave. Just pointing this out to let you know that enslavement of any kind is abhorrent to Judaism as a way of life.

Now when you look at Written Torah, you find that God was making this commandment to remember the enslavement, but to also give any slaves rights. Bodily rights, and right to be set free in the 7th year. What do you think most slaves endured at that time of history? Certainly not any rights at all, and probably an early death. What we see in Written Torah is that God prefers we do not have slaves, but that seeing we are fallible humans, and that there is probably the inevitable and regrettable liklihood that we will keep slaves. So, knowing that, He set the guidelines in Written Torah for at least their legal rights. 

Its kind of like the Noachide Laws. Before Noah God offered us that we could eat a vegetarian diet. In the Garden of Eden, we ate seeds of trees, nuts, vegetables and fruits. No meat. After Noah, seeing that humans were incapable of that level of purity (in a way), allowed us to eat meat, specifying ways in which we should treat the animals we consumed. We were not to just strangle an animal, or eat parts of it while it was still alive, etc. Anti-cruelty laws were set out by God, with the greater message being that in a perfect peaceful world, meat-eating is not what God prefers from us. If it were otherwise, in the Garden, we would have been eating meat. We were not given that as an option, therefore God does not want that from us. He makes allowances and wants us to peel back the layers to find the Truth of what he really desires. If we cant choose both, we aren't really exercising our free will to do the true will of God. We can see laws laid out that we are allowed to eat meat, if we take the utmost care to provide a painless death to the animal, and keeping in mind that God prefers us to eat a vegetarian diet, as he provided in the place of perfect peace, the Garden. It is up to us what we should do.

Now here is where the importance of the Oral Torah comes in on slavery. We should remember our slavery in Egypt. We, in contrast to others who hold slaves, must give slaves right to body and freedom after 6 years. Whats the message? God doesnt want us to keep slaves.

In an ongoing oral tradition you can find these Truths, in an evolving world, in an evolving humanity, you find these Truths through experience and understanding, in the hard way, or you can study and argue over Torah and find the Truth somewhat easier. If you are locked on a literal, mistranslated set of syllables in a book, locked in a place in time which is 2,000 years ago, you are stuck. 

Which is why Christians used the OT/NT to quote from when enslaving Africans during the foundations of our country. I find it sort of interesting, as you can imagine, that you are already condemning Jews, for some place in the future, when you imagine they will be enslaving anyone who is not a member of the Abrahamic covenant, yet you failed to realize that Christians have used what they think it says in a locked and dead document to support the enslavement, murder and torture of millions of people. At the very least if they believed in the God of ISrael, they would have set the slaves free at the 7th year. Maybe they thought Jesus threw those verses out?


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

lilmizlayla said:


> its none of their business unless they are the ones wanting to marry the same sex. Churches already marry couples who never should be united in marriage. so what is the difference? How can a church consider it an "oopsie" when the couple breaks up when it is a supposed to be a sacred ceremony? I dunno..but they do it......ALL THE TIME. So gay marriage is offensive? what hypocrites


no church considers divorce an "oopsie" ! it is considered a huge moral failure on the part of the people involved. *good* churches however, do not push judgements on those involved but approach the situation w/ the attitude of how can the people involved recover and become spiritually healthy again. clearly you have not experienced a good church. 



lilmizlayla said:


> Both issues are considered moral issues..so It IS the same church and same pew. Its none of the churches business. they need to stick with teaching the truth about what God said*..not waving street signs and sentencing people to a early and painful death.*


and god said that if a man lies with another man as he lies w/a woman THEY are guilty of abomination and their blood is on their own head (meaning they must atone for that themselves not through the blood sacrifice of the lamb).
however god also said if two women are together they are guilty of wickedness & wickedness is a sin (which is atoned for by the blood of the lamb). very interesting distinction if you think about it.
and yes fighting the propagation of immoral behavior as normal is PRECISELY church business.
but seriously what are you talking about in the rant in bold it doesn't really make much sense in context. but then your whole rant here is erratic and kind of difficult to comprehend


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> and god said that if a man lies with another man as he lies w/a woman THEY are guilty of abomination and their blood is on their own head (meaning they must atone for that themselves not through the blood sacrifice of the lamb).
> however god also said if two women are together they are guilty of wickedness & wickedness is a sin (which is atoned for by the blood of the lamb). very interesting distinction if you think about it.


I'm guessing this is God's way of allowing good Christian men to hate *insert slang term for homesexual fellows* while still enjoying a bit of girl-on-girl porn.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

lilmizlayla said:


> Both issues are considered moral issues..so It IS the same church and same pew. Its none of the churches business. they need to stick with teaching the truth about what God said..not waving street signs and sentencing people to a early and painful death.


Different Church, different teachings on the subject, different issue - no comparison.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

willow_girl said:


> I'm guessing this is God's way of allowing good Christian men to hate *insert slang term for homesexual fellows* while still enjoying a bit of girl-on-girl porn.


:rotfl:
I find that comparison funny.. That's a good one WG!

This is not to denigrate any religion.. That isn't my intent..


----------

