| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 11/29/2007 12:25:49 PM PST by Religion Moderator, reason:
Poor behavior |
Posted on 11/25/2007 4:20:14 AM PST by Gamecock
As you say, it IS confusing.
Nothing in there about Noah and Gabriel, or Elohim & Adam, or angels becoming men becoming gods, or temples, or etc etc etc etc. There's been volumes and volumes of material - enough to fill whole libraries - spoken and written by their Prophets and Apostles, and yet according to it's absence from the official LDS "Articles of Faith", most of it (including whether or not Gabriel became Noah or vise versa) is completely and utterly without merit. So why argue about the veracity of the thread's article, based on the order of evolution from angel to god?
"I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it."
- Mormon Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley,
Time Magazine, August 4, 1997, page 56
Well, that's not biblical either, so it wouldn't have helped the story.
Find another tar baby, that one is not formed well enough to even look normal.
Yes - restornu does.
If one reads Mark 10:11 carefully, it is the man who commits adultery against the woman when he takes another woman to be wife to him ... Joe Smith committed adultery prolifically! Even taking the wives of other men to himself while they were yet married to other men. But the Mormonism adherents are blind to the breaking of the law of God where it is necessary to maintain the outward appearance of a prophet of ‘god’. Very cultish don’tchaknow.
I see that you have answered to the allegations that your church is racist, but I don't see any clarification to the article that is the subject of this thread.
The article sites many references to back up it's assertions. I do realize that words can be taken out of context, but no one has expounded on the full context of the references or shown what Mormons really believe about the circumstances surrounding Jesus' birth.
I realize that any post you make will be ripped apart by other posters, but there are some of us that will read your post and even if we don't agree with you, we will at least walk away from this thread knowing what parts of the article that you believed were not true and we will have a better understanding of your true beliefs and know why you believe as you do.
At no time was The Church of Jesus Christ ever Racist and to carry or assume that is so because many of you think with the arm of flesh is not my problem!
Just like today many of you think The Church of Jesus Christ to me racist against theMuslim because you folks measure with the Arm of Flesh, but this the Lord Jesus Christ Church, not some world organization of faith.
So God Loves all of his children but that does not mean it include the Sons of Perdition.
Give it a rest already. Look, I find a lot of Mormonism weird but you know what? Makes no difference. We aren't electing a religious leader. IMHO, Mitt is the best qualified to be president.
[Give it a rest already. Look, I find a lot of Mormonism weird but you know what? Makes no difference. We aren’t electing a religious leader. IMHO, Mitt is the best qualified to be president.]
Then bloody well vote for him. I’m just telling you a lot of staunch conservatives won’t vote for him under any circumstance. Say hello to Hillary.
You forgot to mention that Man, also, are not married in heaven, they have to do it in this life. But then again, leaving out the rest of the truth seems to be a habit.
OK Jesus was talking about ALL people, not just single folks, when He said in Mt. 22:30 Mark 12:25 reads the same): At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.
It would make absolutely NO sense for Jesus to say the following (let’s say to single folks): “At the resurrection single people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven, some of whom are married like Michael and Gabriel over there.”
Or are you saying that Jesus was talking to polygamy-lusting people when he said? “At the resurrection married people will neither marry (again) or be given in marriage (like those 11 married women given over to Joseph Smith in his earthly lifetime); they will be like the (monogamous) angels in heaven.”
+++++++++++++
I think you said you were LDS at one time, right?
If so, how did you miss souch a simple teaching?
If God has already decided, before I was born, where I am going, after I die, WHY SHOULD I CHANGE WHAT I AM DOING NOW?***
It is your duty to bow your knee before your REAL maker, not some facade of a double mint twin commercial conceived in the mind of a false prophet. Hiding behind I was predestined does not excuse you from your actions or from straying after false gods.
+++++++++++++++==
Still, no one has yet answered “what is in it for me”, As you teach,I am predestined to go where I go, right, nothing I do will change where I go, right.
Well, that’s not biblical either, so it wouldn’t have helped the story.
+++++++++++++++++=
never said it was, I was using it as an example of how the author used misdirection by leaving out an important part of our beliefs. Remember, the original article was ripping our beliefs and teachings, and choose not to give our complete teaching on a given subject.
It is alright to talk about how our beliefs differ from what you think the words in the Bible say, but you have no right to be sloppy in reporting what we believe.
+++++++++++++++++++++++=
Mark 10:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
Typical, you “forgot” to talk about the modifier, and limiter about putting away your wife before remarrying. Good try at a misleading strawman untruth.
+++++++++++++++++++===
nice quote, BUT YOU FORGOT THE QUESTION. Maybe not, you might have chosen to leave out the question.
To: MHGinTN
Mormonism has a living ‘prophet’ and twelve apostles to lead them! Can’t trust that Bible because they’ve been taught to doubt its veracity, to make room in their minds for the manuscripts originating with Joe Smith, peepstone prophet. Of course, these supposedly god-inspired leaders could not tell when someone was misleading them with fraudulent documents, so what does that tell you about the origins of their ‘leadership’?
++++++++++++++++++++
This would be a good time to repeat a question I have asked many times, but never get an answer.
You say that Gods word in the Bible is the only true word from Him. I see many good men understand the same word in the Bible to mean different things. Many good men work to reform the church as a whole to the way they understand the meaning of the words.
Which is the correct understanding of God’s word in the Bible, Youe’s, or the other guy’s, or the other other guy’s? And, why?
185 posted on 11/27/2007 12:28:42 PM MST by fproy2222 (If you want to know the truth, study both sides. To the most original source.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: fproy2222
Find another tar baby, that one is not formed well enough to even look normal.
++++++++++++++==
And what is wrong with asking you to explain why we should believe you are correct instead of the others who post here?
again:
This would be a good time to repeat a question I have asked many times, but never get an answer.
You say that Gods word in the Bible is the only true word from Him. I see many good men understand the same word in the Bible to mean different things. Many good men work to reform the church, as a whole, to the way they understand the meaning of the words.
Why do you think yours is more true then theirs?
And all because of theological hangups that have NOTHING to do with being president.
###nice quote, BUT YOU FORGOT THE QUESTION. Maybe not, you might have chosen to leave out the question###
Well here is the context of the answer, which is interesting in and of itself:
___________________________________________________________
President Gordon B. Hinckley seemed to dodge and dissemble in an August 4, 1997 Time cover story when veteran religion writer Richard N. Ostling asked him about the distinctive Mormon teaching that humans can become gods, and that God the Father was once a man (p. 56).
“At first Hinckley seemed to qualify the idea that men could become gods,” according to Time, “suggesting that ‘it’s of course an ideal. It’s a hope for a wishful thing,’ but later he added, ‘yes, of course they can.’”
On whether the LDS Church holds that, “God the Father was once a man, he sounded uncertain, ‘I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it ... I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don’t know a lot about it, and I don’t think others know a lot about it,’” Hinckley told Time.
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.