Posted on 12/07/2007 8:10:37 AM PST by ZGuy
Wait....I thought you just said..it's the Savior's province to judge.
You do not agree with the concept of the Trinity because you have a very different definition of Whom God is. We can so quickly show you why your definitiion of God is anti-Biblical and thus a specious definition when measured by Biblical teaching, but you choose to reject the clear thruth and believe lies fabricated through Joseph Smith. Answer the question I posed to Edward Watson: Did Jesus (The Word) make the flesh and bone you Momrons claim appeared to Joe Smith ... did Jesus make the flesh and bone body of God The Father Almighty?
Exactly. Which is why I cannot rightfully look at you and say you are not a Christian; neither can you do so with me and be in tune with Christ. I claim to be a Christian, and I try to live accordingly. It is Christ’s province to tell me whether or not I’m right. Not yours.
This is a surprisingly accurate article. Thank you for posting.
~”You do not agree with the concept of the Trinity because you have a very different definition of Whom God is.”~
That is true.
~”We can so quickly show you why your definitiion of God is anti-Biblical...”~
No, you can quickly show why our definition is extra-Biblical. Our point of view, however, is backed by Biblical scripture just as solidly as yours. The resulting confusion is why modern revelation is so crucial.
~”...but you choose to reject the clear thruth and believe lies fabricated through Joseph Smith.”~
I choose to believe that Joseph Smith was a prohpet of God, because the Holy Spirit has testified such to my soul. What is taught in the name of God, therefore, -is- the clear truth. That’s the way prophets work. If I ever doubt it, God has offered to verify to me the truth of any principle.
~”Did Jesus (The Word) make the flesh and bone you Momrons claim appeared to Joe Smith ... did Jesus make the flesh and bone body of God The Father Almighty?”~
No. God the Father existed - physically, as well - prior to the creation of the universe. Jesus, by divine commission, created the universe. He went by the name “Jehovah” back then.
Christ Himself is a child of God the Father, just as you and I are. Christ, however, was endowed with attributes of divinity and was given the mission to be the Savior.
~”What is taught in the name of God”~
Rather, what -he- (Smith) taught in the name of God.
Has anyone suggested that we elect Presidents because of their faith? I don't think so. But that doesn't mean we should ignore a man's faith, either.
You can't have it both ways....( Which, IMO is a common theme...with mormons..) You stated that it's Christ's domain to say who's a Christian..But then you stated bluntly..that the LDS church is exactly that.
You aren't the judge of that.....
You are misrepresenting and twisting the meaning of my words, and I’m not in the mood for it.
You know precisely what I said, and you know precisely what I mean. This is not a topic for debaters’ points.
So, when he taught in the "name of God"..it's truth.
So, let's extrapolate this out some.....
When a mormon prophet say's it's Holy Spirit lead..and in the name of God..and calls it scripture it's also truth?
But, I'm misreading nothing.
I am reading exactly what you said.
You were perfectly clear in your statement.
A man's beliefs are a direct product of his discernment. If a voter DOES NOT take into consideration a candidate's ability to discern when he may end up making decisions as the most powerful man in the world, the voter is not being true to himself or his country.
Voters have the right, by seeing details of his beliefs, to judge Mitt's beliefs for themselves, and to DISCERN for themselves whether their vote will be affected by this.
Some FReepers would have this information censored on FR. Thanks to JR, it has not been. But there are those who are still calling for censorship.
When Mitt threw his hat into the ring, he involved those beliefs, whether anyone thinks it fair or not. As an example,
This is just a sample of what awaits the Republicans if Mitt is the nominee.
John 1:1 - “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
To paraphrase, according to the LDS interpretation:
In the beginning of the universe was Christ, and Christ was with God the Father, and Christ was endowed with the power and authority of God the Father.
You do not interpret the verse in that way. That’s fine. But it’s a valid interpretation nonetheless. Your assertion that this verse disproves the claims of LDS doctrine is unfounded.
I’m off to church for my weekly brainwashing.
You were saying — “It is not for you or any earthly being, StarTraveler, to take from us our joy in our Savior. It is His exclusive province to judge who is Christian and who is not. I am Christian. The LDS Church is a Christian faith. No matter how you rail against the claim, it stands true and independent.”
It’s pretty simple. The Mormons actually admit it themselves (in the end, in any case). Everyone acknowledges, without a doubt, that the teachings and doctrines of the Mormon Church are completely different than the teachings and doctrines of Christianity (as has been held, as you indicate, too, over the centuries, from the past to the present), which is the basic, historical and foundational teachings.
Your church describes a “god,” in very specific ways, that is *not* the “description” of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (the description of the God of Christian teachings and doctrines).
And then, your church describes a “Jesus,” in very specific ways, that is *not* the description of the Jesus of Christian teachings and doctrines.
The Mormon church describes a different Jesus in characteristics and origins than the Jesus of historic, basic and foundational Christianity. The Mormon church describes a different “god” in characteristics and origins than the “God” of historic, basic and foundational Christianity.
So, the most generic and unobtrusive thing that we can say about this — is that you believe in a different Jesus and a different god than — the Jesus and God — of historic, basic and foundational Christianity. Those are simply the facts and facts that the Mormon Church itself *acknowledges* by its own teachings and doctrines.
It’s like saying that I know a guy named Ralph and a guy name Joe — and you tell me (for sake of example and illustration) that you know two guys by those two names, too. And you describe a different Ralph and a different Joe. Now I would not doubt your *sincere belief* that you *really do know* these two guys. I would have no doubt about that.
BUT, what I could easily find out — by your detailed descriptions of these two guys — is whether you’re talking about the exact same two guys I know or not.
No amount of ranting and railing about those subjects changes the radical differences in those two *main characters* of historic, basic and foundational Christian teachings and doctrines (God and Jesus) — from Mormon teachings and doctrines.
What can be clearly said is that while you may have “joy” and “happiness” in knowing the God of Mormonism and the Jesus of Mormonism — we all can be clear on the fact that you *do not know* the God of historic, basic and foundational Christian teachings and doctrines and *do not know* the Jesus of historic, basic and foundational Christian teachings and doctrines.
So, while I’m glad that you know the god of Mormon teachings and doctrines and I’m glad you know the Jesus of Mormon teachings and doctrines — I can be *absolutely sure* that neither this god (of Mormonism) and neither this “Jesus” (of Mormonism) is the God or Jesus of historic, basic and foundational Christian teachings and doctrines.
To put it plainly and simply — you know a different Jesus and a different god (or Mormonism) than the God and Jesus of the Christians from historic, basic and foundational Christianity and its teachings and doctrines.
In other words, it’s like you know a different “Joe and Ralph” than the Joe and Ralph that I know. And while I would not object to your sincere faith in *your* Joe and *your* Ralph — I do know that you don’t know *my* Joe and *my* Ralph — without a doubt.
We are talking about *completely different beings* — totally.
I have no objection to you being happy with the beings of your own choice and your own teachings and your own doctrines. They just don’t happen to be the beings of the God of the Bible and the Jesus of the Bible (of historic, basic and foundational Christian teaching).
—
After we have *clearly established* that we are talking about *two different beings* (totally) — with God and Jesus — then we can get into — *another completely different* discussion — of which of those “beings” actually has the ability to “save” as is said by “each” (of those differing “teachings and doctrines” [that is of Mormon teachings and theology versus Christian teachings and theology]).
But, at this point (where we are right now in this particular discussion), we seem to be still stuck on the fact that some Mormons still try to put across (either ignorantly or on purpose for deceptive purposes) that we are talking about the same God and the same Jesus — which we are not.
Regards,
Star Traveler
I bought one of his books several years ago, with really no idea of who he was and was quite impressed.
Deliver Us From Evil is the book I have and I highly recommend it.
On the inside of the book jacket the first paragraph reads, “Evil does not come only in the garb of a masked murderer,” writes Ravi Zacharias. “In its most cunning and destructive form, evil comes as an idea dressed in sophisticated attire, rationalized by the prophets of the wind.”
And should he become the nominee, we must nonetheless be prepared to fight for him to get elected, regardless of what his Church may be... I have no great love for mormonism, but I will not vote for the Manchurian/Muslim candidate, the Hildabeast, or the Breck Girl over a Republican...
Nice to finally see true confessions....:)
"Intent is prior to content, because to give truth to him who loves it not is to only give him more multiplied reasons for misinterpretation." George McDonald
There are a few secrets in other religions as well. But to say anybody who keeps any secrets is comparable to Scientology is to ignore quantity and quality.
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.