Posted on 05/04/2007 5:46:36 AM PDT by Saundra Duffy
I love Jesus Christ and I am not ashamed of Him, nor am I ashamed of my Church. By the way, you are not God. Only God knows my heart.
Maybe you F15Eagle, are not able to connect the dots.
Lucifer fell from grace meaning he no longer under the covenant that the Lord made.
Lucifer has become one of Sons of Perdition by his choice and action.
Therefore no longer subject to the refiners fire an is vanish to outer darkness
I am glad you are not ashamed of the Cross or of Christ (that is correct isn't it, you are not ashamed of the Cross where your Lord purchased your salvation?).
That you love the fellowship of your church is good for you. Just don't dig too deeply into the doctrines of Momronism because it may cause you some pause to find that the D&C has been dramatically changed early on, to reflect a consensus beyond Smith's assertions. And don't read the Bible in comparative ways with the book of Mormon, because there are too many subtle contradictions. But enjoy your life and remember Whom is the power in your life to transform your soul.
You might want to look at your motivation in posting a 'we're the victims of oppressive comparisons just because we claim to be Christian' thread though ... buying into victimhood doesn't uplift anyone, despite your talented writing.
Deuteronomy 21:10-14
"When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her AS YOUR WIFE. Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her."
The Law of Moses was opposed to marriage alliances with pagan families, as these would tend to lead the Israelites away from the true faith. As can be seen from this passage, it had nothing at all against individual gentile women being married (as long as their families were all dead).
It was a religious concern, not a genetic one.
We have the names of very few women from the OT.
It is interesting that three of these are gentiles who married into Israel, apparently with the delighted approval of all concerned, especially God, as two of them wound up as ancestors of Christ.
Zipporah became the wife of Moses, despite her apparently being what we would today call "black." Miriam, Moses' sister, tried some apparent black-baiting and was stricken with leprosy by God in punishment.
Rahab was a Canaanite prostitute who repented and converted and married a prince of Judah.
Ruth was a Moabitess who married a descendant of Rahab and became the great grandmother of David, who was of course an ancestor of Christ.
Exodus speaks of a "vast mixed company" that left Egypt with the Iraelites. After a short time they are no longer referred to as such. Why not? Because they had been assimilated into the nation of Israel.
I am not going to get involved here in some long winded rant about Mormonism and drag out all of the Walter Martin articles on refuting LDS doctrine. I am just going to state that Mormonism has been considered since its inception to be a deviant Christian cult, not a branch of Christianity, not an arm of the church, not a Christian sect, but a cult, and a Satanic one at that.
Mormonism classifies itself as a cult by holding the following unbiblical positions (these two are pivotal and representative, not exhaustive):
1) It denies the doctrine of the distinct divinity of Jesus Christ, who is equal to and of one substance with (homo-ousia) with God the Father and God the Spirit. Mormonism substitutes a sort of polytheism and attributes to God himself a progression in His nature.
2) It denies the clear teaching of justification by faith ALONE, replacing it with a sort of reduction to "ground zero" by the death of Christ, and leaving us to work out our own salvation from there. This doctrine is not only unbiblical, but will damn forever those who hold it.
So what? Well, if Mitt Romney truly believes LDS teaching, could I vote for a member of a soul destroying cult? Sure. I am not voting for a pastor, but a president. However, I do find myself in the camp of those whom Sandra labels of holding Mormonism "1. Just too weird." I confess, I do. I couldn't vote for a sincere Mormon for president NOT because I think them infidels (I have the greatest respect for Thomas Jefferson, as an example), but because I find their teaching to be weird, bizarre, and well, just strange. Multiple wives in heavenly realms, the condemnation of ALL churches as "of the devil (I Nephi 14:10), the teaching that God and Lucifer are spiritually brothers, the teaching that the urim and thumim were a giant pair of spectacles(!), the claim that the tablets of Moroni were written in "reformed egyptian hieroglyphics" (no such language has ever existed), the fanciful and uncorroborated archeological claims of N American peoples before the Europeans...., they are all just too bizarre for me.
It is like asking me if I would have voted for one of the Stargate cult members if s/he espoused conservative principles. Sorry, just TOOOOO weird for me.
Are you ignoring me Saundra?
I’ve asked you several times, What does Jesus save you from?
and...
Now, How long have you been a Mormon.
I’ve not received an answer to either question. While recognizing the first question can be difficult for you to answer, the second should be very simple.
After 38 years of traditional religion I am a convert and I have turn all the LDS standard works inside out and those things you MHGinTN hold in you head are distortion, false notions of the LDS!
You have freewill to embrace those lies I choose not too!
Distortions? I can read the materials at the foundation of Mormonism without confusion, Resty, making the spin cycle from Mormonism Apologist even more stark ... nice try, Resty. I still forgive you and before posting this response have prayed for your enlightenment.
I'm afraid I wasn't thinking of the description of "history" in the BOM as being doctrinal in nature, but rather history and therefore as appropriately subject to historical criticism as any other history.
But on second thought, if the history is not true then the BOM and everything in it, including its doctrine, is equally not true.
I now better understand why you defend its historicity so ferociously.
Don't take it personally. I've also gone round and round with a good many of the neo-confederates when they attempt (from my perspective) to distort history to support their position (political in their case, not religious).
Since I have no desire to damage anybody's faith, I've decided henceforth to stick to history since 1800 when discussing Mormonism.
I trust you won't object to that.
Q. How should members of the church respond to efforts of some other religious groups to convert them to other beliefs and religions?A. Well, I say this: We don't downgrade any religion. We recognize the good they all do. I say to those of other faiths: 'You bring all the good that you have and let us see if we can add to it.' Now that's our attitude reduced to a very short statement, and it works.
I don’t need to make the apologist spin as you like to accuse of me.
I have received a testamony from the Power of the Holy Ghost, before I ever step into the Church or knew anything about the Church, so no one was able to spin to me.
It was a one on one with the Lord on my knees!
Well I pray for your enligtenment MHGinTN, that you can break free of the the traditions of men!
I am witnessing a new side of you....
How so?
Don’t question, CC, you’re supposed to feel shame and be repentant to the Mormonism Apologists and shut up, sit down, and leave them to their heretical proselytizing.
In John 10, Jesus is citing Ps. 82.
Who did LDS apostle James Talmage (author of Articles of Faith & other LDS books) say Ps. 82 was referencing, true gods?
No way! Talmage said that since Ps. 82:1-7 clearly references “unjust judges” as these gods, they couldn’t be referring to true divine gods (unless you think gods are unjust).
Also, Jesus said they were gods already (”ye are gods”). Not “ye will become gods.”
So unjust judges are already gods, eh? That’s your theology?
Not only that, but Jesus should know that Psalms is NOT part of the law.
I guess??
Sometimes in these discussions it is easy to get lost, or led astray.
I’m not always sure which it is.
We believe in Grace through our Lord Jesus Christ. Without His Grace, our sins would be upon our heads forever and we could not dwell in His presence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.