I could not agree more, the Writers of the new testament were trying hard to keep the Greeks and the Hellenists from changing the church, they even prophesied that they would fail. 2nd Thessalonians 2:3 You understandably misinterpret the passage, the son of perdition has not been revealed yet, therefore it is not related to anything Smith may have seen....context, context.
If they have faith on Christ then they are in fact Christian regardless of your labels.
Just because I place a label on a bottle of grape juice and call it champaign doesn't make it so. They are defined as two different things even though they share one thing in common - grapes.
The Momrons Temple is for Mormons, not Christians. this is yet another specious argument.
Lets see here Mormon = Christian while Christian doesn't = mormon, right, who's being specious.
Yes, and that Challenge culminated in the Council of Nicea, go read the record.
No, the challenge has continued on through the ages. Nicea was in response to one of many challenges and at Nicea the teachings of the apostles was reaffirmed.
Now you see exactly what i have been saying, but the fact that you believe a lie does not make you a non Mormon for you believe in him who is mighty to save, even if you misunderstand him.
What a bizzaro twist, so now I am a mormon? You sound confused.
BTW, you wave the Flag of Orthodoxy like it legitimatizes what you are saying, it is merely consensus, the majority belief is "Orthodox" it's the establishment of truth by voting on it. Jesus was many things one of them was unorthodox, that is one reason the Jews kept trying to stone him.
You are apparently ignorant of its use within this context. It is the core teachings of Christianity common to its primary branches, not to confuse it with the denomination or any minor theological differences. These are the things that one believes as a Christian. Any voting (probably a reference to Nicea) was to confirm the construct of the doctrinal statement, not establish new doctrine but confirm existing doctrine. IIRC, nothing becomes mormon doctrine with out a vote too.
Regarding Jesus' 'unorthodoxy', be clear. You are inferring to the mormon doctrine that Jesus was a being separate from God. However, according to mormonism, one only becomes a god after passing from this physical life having all the boxes checked off (readers digest condensed version). Jesus had yet to go through this process, so he could not legitimally claim godhood like he did. Spirit children cannot become gods if I understand correctly, and this cannot happen until they have been born and given flesh and bone. Althought McConkie says that Jesus some how attained godhood while still in pre-existance, I've been told by mormons here that he cannot be relied upon for doctrinal teaching of lds. According to what I've read Jesus first had to become flesh and then work our his salvation, then eventually after his resurrection he attained godhood, and thus couldn't claim such at the time. To maintain that Jesus was a God in his preexistence, before He eternally progressed,contradicts the LDS fundamental doctrine of Eternal Progression.
Now, having contorted my mind, what does the Bible really say? Jesus claimed: ‘I and the Father are one’, meaning in essence not just purpose (from the Greek construction), a statement the Jews clearly understood because they "took up stones again to stone Him" (Jn. 10:30-31). Jesus allowed Himself to be worshipped, despite the biblical edict that 'only God may be worshipped' (Acts 10:25-26; Rev. 19:10; 22:9). Jesus was not unorthodox here, only lds interpretation.
Actually, Joseph rejected the creed as an abomination, not the people, and the "Church" is not Christianity, it's an earthly construct, like a club or a business.
The context of the passage doesn't lead one to believe that. A Christian is a professor - one who professes - and we are refered to as 'gentiles' in a derrogatory manner as a result.
This is yet another place where you are wrong, we believe protestants are Christian because, you believe in Jesus Christ. We just have more we can add to your existing faith.
Straight up, the additional things are suspect.
1. Teachings of a documented peep stone viewer.
2. Manuscripts (BOM and POGP) with absent MS or contradictory MS support, absence of archaelogical support and highly questionable justifications for changes in the absence of such.
3. Polytheistic, quasi gnostic theology.
Thats just for starters. Nothing there I want to associate with.
we are members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter day saints, it is you (non members) who have nicknamed us Mormons.
Ummmm better take that up with your church leadership, they are the ones who have adopted the phrase and keep it in the forfront, as well as those here refer to themselves as such.
I Said: I could not agree more, the Writers of the new testament were trying hard to keep the Greeks and the Hellenists from changing the church, they even prophesied that they would fail. 2nd Thessalonians 2:3
U Said: You understandably misinterpret the passage, the son of perdition has not been revealed yet, therefore it is not related to anything Smith may have seen....context, context.
there will be many who will fulfill this prophecy in smaller ways culminating with "The Anti Christ" who will come shortly before Jesus see
2 Thessalonians 2:7-8 7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
so, as I said, it was happening then.
I Said: If they have faith on Christ then they are in fact Christian regardless of your labels.
U Said: Just because I place a label on a bottle of grape juice and call it champaign doesn't make it so. They are defined as two different things even though they share one thing in common - grapes.
Why not? the french do it all the time.
I Said: The Mormons Temple is for Mormons, not Christians. this is yet another specious argument.
U Said: Lets see here Mormon = Christian while Christian doesn't = mormon, right, who's being specious.
Um, are you familiar with the concept of subsets and supersets? Baptists are Christian, Methodists are christian but baptists are not Methodists and neither one are Momrons even though Momrons are also Christians. Baptists methodists and Mormons are churches, and Christianity is a faith Churches can share a faith. Faiths don't share churches. (normally, nowadays there will be an odd duck, I just know it...)
I Said: Yes, and that Challenge culminated in the Council of Nicea, go read the record.
U Said: No, the challenge has continued on through the ages. Nicea was in response to one of many challenges and at Nicea the teachings of the apostles was reaffirmed.
It was one culmination, there have been several, but since it resulted in the church affirming a mistake it was a significant change in doctrine. I know you believe the doctrine didn't change, and that's really quaint, but not backed up by the facts. Go back to new advent.org and look up Hippolytus and "Against one Noetus"
here is the link I Said: Now you see exactly what I have been saying, but the fact that you believe a lie does not make you a non Mormon for you believe in him who is mighty to save, even if you misunderstand him.
U Said: What a bizzaro twist, so now I am a mormon? You sound confused.
No confusion, I was illustrating the twisted logic you were using on me, it sounded exactly as I intended it to sound.
I Said: BTW, you wave the Flag of Orthodoxy like it legitimatizes what you are saying, it is merely consensus, the majority belief is "Orthodox" it's the establishment of truth by voting on it. Jesus was many things one of them was unorthodox, that is one reason the Jews kept trying to stone him.
U Said: You are apparently ignorant of its use within this context.
There are many things i am indeed ignorant about, the finer points of brain surgery for example, language, however, I am an avid student of.
U Said: It is the core teachings of Christianity common to its primary branches, not to confuse it with the denomination or any minor theological differences. These are the things that one believes as a Christian. Any voting (probably a reference to Nicea) was to confirm the construct of the doctrinal statement, not establish new doctrine but confirm existing doctrine. IIRC, nothing becomes mormon doctrine with out a vote too.
Actually, Orthodoxy has nothing to do with Christianity per se, There is for example an orthodox way of programming, there is an orthodox way of painting a wall Orthodoxy, is conforming to convention or what is considered standard. I was specifically correct Jesus was an unorthodox Jew, he condoned his disciples plucking food from a field while traveling on the sabbath, he spoke as an authority (and the Jews always appealed to Moses or some other prophet for authority) he ate with publicans and sinners, and worst of all, he worked miracles on the sabbath! all of this made them hate him for making a mockery of their orthodoxy carefully built up around the Gospel over centuries. They would have gladly stoned him just for that.
U Said: Regarding Jesus' 'unorthodoxy', be clear.
I just was.
You are inferring to the mormon doctrine that Jesus was a being separate from God.
Actually Jesus
is separate from God, for he lives.
However, according to mormonism, one only becomes a god after passing from this physical life having all the boxes checked off (readers digest condensed version). Jesus had yet to go through this process, so he could not legitimally claim godhood like he did. Spirit children cannot become gods if I understand correctly, and this cannot happen until they have been born and given flesh and bone. Althought McConkie says that Jesus some how attained godhood while still in pre-existance, I've been told by mormons here that he cannot be relied upon for doctrinal teaching of lds.
Bruce R McConkie is a distant cousin of mine, and his works were not perfect neither are mine there is only one who was perfect in all his works, Jesus.
As for all this complicated mish mash you are making of our Doctrine, Jesus is the exception to many rules no one else could have resurrected himself from the grave for example. Jesus was indeed a member of the God head form before time itself was created, for he was the creator of it. as for the rest of us, we cannot become Gods for some time if we will make it at all for we need for Jesus to save us by his grace for we are not perfect as he is. As for check boxes, I assume you mean things like Baptism, etc? All will have an opportunity to accept the ordinances for God has so decreed it, that is why we perform vicarious ordinances for the dead, much as Jesus Variously suffered for our sins. Anyone who accepts the atonement has already accepted the principle of vicarious work, so such a concept it should not seem strange to a Christian.
U Said: According to what I've read Jesus first had to become flesh and then work our his salvation, then eventually after his resurrection he attained godhood, and thus couldn't claim such at the time. To maintain that Jesus was a God in his pre-existence, before He eternally progressed,contradicts the LDS fundamental doctrine of Eternal Progression.
You have this wrong, it's simply not our doctrine that you are spouting here, it's your own ignorance of that Doctrine that you are promoting here. In short. you are wrong about what we believe, and you are obviously lacking in the fundamentals and will not understand until you go back and learn those. If you will allow me an analogy, your question reminds me of a beginning algebra student who wants to understand Calculus without taking all the interim classes, it's not that the answers aren't there, you just are not ready to understand them if I gave them to you, you'd just get more puzzled.
U Said: Now, having contorted my mind,
Truly, you did that on your own.
U Said: what does the Bible really say? Jesus claimed: ‘I and the Father are one’, meaning in essence not just purpose (from the Greek construction), a statement the Jews clearly understood because they "took up stones again to stone Him"
Yeah, I covered this, Jesus himself gave an analogy of this oneness, if you don't want to accept his word but follow after your won interpretation, there is nothing I can do for you.
U Said: (Jn. 10:30-31). Jesus allowed Himself to be worshiped, despite the biblical edict that 'only God may be worshipped' (Acts 10:25-26; Rev. 19:10; 22:9). Jesus was not unorthodox here, only lds interpretation.
Because he is and was a member of the Godhead, that makes him "God". BTW, wasn't allowing yourself to be worshiped a bit unorthodox? The Jews thought so.
I Said: Actually, Joseph rejected the creed as an abomination, not the people, and the "Church" is not Christianity, it's an earthly construct, like a club or a business.
U Said: The context of the passage doesn't lead one to believe that.
It does to me.
U Said: A Christian is a professor - one who professes - and we are refereed to as 'gentiles' in a derrogatory manner as a result.
Are you a descendant of Abraham? If not, you are a gentile.
In Joseph's day a professor was a teacher, you can apply alternate meanings all you want in a search to be offended where none was intended, you waste your time, there is plenty for you to be offended about in Mormonism without stretching meanings.
I Said: This is yet another place where you are wrong, we believe protestants are Christian because, you believe in Jesus Christ. We just have more we can add to your existing faith.
U Said: Straight up, the additional things are suspect. 1. Teachings of a documented peep stone viewer. 2. Manuscripts (BOM and POGP) with absent MS or contradictory MS support, absence of archaelogical support and highly questionable justifications for changes in the absence of such. 3. Polytheistic, quasi gnostic theology. Thats just for starters. Nothing there I want to associate with.
Lets see, Jesus was a documented heretic, blasphemer, who hung about with sinners, tax collectors and semi retired fishermen. He writes new scripture from thin air, and reinterprets old scripture freely in ways that are not approved by the Sanhedrin. Jesus is a disrupter of the peace and may be plotting to rebel against the Romans, and you know what they do to states that rebel! I heard he thinks he's God, if we play our cards right we may be able to get him to say tat in open court!
Your tactics sound familiar.
Did you know that Urim and Thummim are Biblical?
can you show me the original text of say revelations,you know the parchment written upon by John the Beloved? and your theology has twisted God into an incomprehensible being when we are commanded to know him.
You see how easy this is? All your arguments and your "Reasoning" is easily reversed if I just assume that I am orthodox and you are the upstart, thus it is nothing but
demagoguery.
I for one am not so easily swayed by an emotional appeal.
I Said: we are members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, it is you (non members) who have nicknamed us Mormons.
U Said: Ummmm better take that up with your church leadership, they are the ones who have adopted the phrase and keep it in the forfront, as well as those here refer to themselves as such.
Are they? The churches official abbreviation is LDS. They would love to use that, but people keep asking us if we are Mormons, so here we are.
I do have one serious question, how do you know that Jesus is your savior?