This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
Locked on 07/12/2009 6:01:45 AM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Locked. |
Posted on 05/08/2008 5:04:47 PM PDT by Grig
I am posting this on behalf of many LDS freepers. They will post their own 'signature' to this in the comments below. --- Some of you have noticed lately a lot of LDS (ie: Mormon) threads here on FR. I'm going to tell you why.
For many years there have been several active LDS freepers here. We post to all the forums on relevant issues, and were happy to have a site where conservative values were so openly welcomed.
Those conservative values include faith in God, and freedom of religion. We fully respect the rights of all posters to express their opinions and views on religious matters, even when people choose to use those rights to express criticism of our own faith. We also support the ideas embodied in FR rules against religion bashing. There is no need for hostility and there should be no room for bigotry on FR. Every religion has it's miracles and mysteries. Every faith has things in it that are not or can not be proven, and things that run contrary to what secular science would have us believe. Someone mature and confident in their own faith generally doesn't feel the need to belittle the faith of others.
We have, to the best of our ability, conducted ourselves with civility and dignity. We do not feel that that respect has been returned by some posters (putting it mildly).
When Mormon missionaries were murdered, the moderators were kept busy pulling jubilant posts off the thread. When Elizabeth Smart was abducted from her home, we contended for months with posters who appeared to be motivated by religious bigotry doing all they could to smear the family and accuse the father. Several posters openly admitted their religious motivation in opposing Mitt Romney and confessed that no matter how conservative any Mormon was, they would never vote for one for President of the USA. When the Pope died, I don't think any Mormon poster posted anything unkind, yet the thread about the passing of our President recently needed many comments removed.
Nearly every thread having any connection with Mormons, or Utah winds up being hijacked by anti-Mormon activists who copy and paste the same false accusations over and over even when it has been clearly and factually pointed out to them on multiple occasions that they are bearing false witness against our faith. Everything possible is done by these activists to make FR a hostile place for Mormons, and for at least some of them, bashing Mormonism is all they do here. Their most recent project is trying to blur the fact that the polygamous FLDS is a separate and distinct religion from ours, just as Lutherans are a separate and distinct religion from Catholicism.
In our opinion, such poster do a great disservice to FR and to their fellow freepers by spreading disinformation and promoting hostility towards a people known for walking the walk of conservative values.
Why the moderators here don't see the behavior of these anti-Mormon activists as religion bashing is a mystery to us, but it is the moderators call to make and we respect their right to do so. That doesn't mean we have to be passive however. We have all spent many hours refuting the accusations leveled at our faith, but these wind up buried deep in a flood of comments, effectively shouting us down.
Recently some of us have decided to take a more proactive approach. Rather than try to wrestle the pig into taking a bath, we are just going to hose it down. We will actively define our faith here rather than just respond to accusations.
So expect to see lots of Mormon threads, now and for as long as we see fit to keep posting them (although probably not as many as there are Catholic threads). They will be about our basic doctrines and responses to common accusations. If you want to know what our faith is about, read the articles we post. We will post them as open threads and I encourage you to compare the difference in tone and spirit between what we post and what our critics say.
I'm sure whomever this was is back with a different screen name. lol.
Not since the beginning, but 400 years after Christ, written in creeds. The early Fathers certainly didn’t hold such doctrine, it’s not scriptural.
If you want to point out references of them being of one substance, I will yield.
Signed by Lady Lawyer
Joh 10:25-30 MKJV
(25) Jesus answered them, I told you and you did not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me.
(26) But you did not believe because you are not of My sheep. As I said to you,
(27) My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.
(28) And I give to them eternal life, and they shall never ever perish, and not anyone shall pluck them out of My hand.
(29) My Father who gave them to me is greater than all, and no one is able to pluck them out of My Father’s hand.
(30) I and the Father are one!
Joh 5:17-18 MKJV
(17) But Jesus answered them, My Father works until now, and I work.
(18) Then, because of this, the Jews sought the more to kill Him, because He not only had broken the sabbath, but also said that God was His father, making Himself equal with God.
Joh 14:9-11 MKJV
(9) Jesus said to him, Have I been with you such a long time and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father. And how do you say, Show us the Father?
(10) Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in Me? The Words that I speak to you I do not speak of Myself, but the Father who dwells in Me, He does the works.
(11) Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the very works themselves.
1Ti 3:16 MKJV
(16) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among nations, believed on in the world, and received up into glory.
Tit 2:11-15 MKJV
(11) For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men,
(12) teaching us that having denied ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live discreetly, righteously and godly, in this present world,
(13) looking for the blessed hope, and the appearance of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,
(14) who gave Himself for us that He might redeem us from all iniquity and purify to Himself a special people, zealous of good works.
(15) Speak these things, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no one despise you.
Oh, and what exactly makes one different Christian doctrine ok, but other different Christian doctrines a bad thing? There are 30 thousand different Christian denominations, teaching different doctrines. Is the “trinity” the one sure doctrine and all else doesn’t matter? You seem to not have any problem with the other religions that teach different things.
John certainly did believed it. It’s been settled doctrine for eons. It’s definitional. It’s what Christian believe. It’s what seperates us from non-Christian.
I can’t convince you of the truth, only the Holy Spirit has that power.
Why the scare quotes around the word Trinity?
Clearly He’s talking about North America.
WITHOUT QUESTION, MORMONS ARE POLYTHEISTIC
Stephen E. Robinson, a Brigham Young University professor of ancient scripture, states on page 132 of his book How Wide the Divide (between Christianity and Mormonism) that it would horrify the Saints to hear talk of polytheism.
Nevertheless, by definition Mormonism does fall under the category of being a polytheistic religion since polytheism basically means to believe in or worship many Gods.
In light of that definition, consider the following:
As man now is, God once was. As God now is, man may become.
One final point. Since Mormons insist they worship only one of those Gods (Elohim), it would probably be more technically accurate to say Mormons are henotheistic. Henotheism is term describing a form of polytheism wherein an individual worships one God while believing in the existence of many gods. Both polytheism and henotheism are unbiblical.
More on this topic HERE.
Hat Tip Zakeet
It's foundational.
If the LDS organization canNOT say just what was UNTRUE about PRESBYTERIANISM, then why listen to ANYTHING they have to say?
I just keep waiting, and waiting, and....
Like the Energizer Bunny with no drum.
Spoken like a True Believer®!
The Official Scriptures of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints © 2006 Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved. |
A good example in the Bible which distinguishes the different physical natures of the Father and Son can be found in Acts chapter 7. Stephen, the first Christian martyr, having told the Jews they had crucified their Messiah, was stoned to death. However, before he died he had a marvelous vision.
"He, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God." (Acts 7:55-56,Eph 1:20)
It's pretty clear. Stephen saw God the Father and Jesus standing at his Father's right hand. This scripture contradicts the doctrine of the Creeds, for they are not one substance. Several other scriptures prove this as well. Matthew 3:16-17, for example, describes the Savior's baptism:
"Jesus, when he was baptized, went straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
Here again the Bible mentions three separate beings--God the Father, who's voice came down from heaven, Jesus the son, who was in the water, and the Holy Ghost which descended upon him as a dove would. Jesus also spoke profound truths to Mary:
"Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren and say unto them, I ascend to my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God." (John 20:17)
Here Jesus clearly delineates that they are separate. What is the difference between them and the holy Ghost? Well the Bible is also explicit in that the Holy Ghost cannot be considered Jesus or the Father in any fashion at all other than purpose. In John 16:13-14 we read: ":
When he, the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whosoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and show it unto you."
Here the Holy Ghost is said to glorify the Son only and not of himself, neither will he speak of himself. John 14:26 tells us that this spirit of truth is indeed the Holy Ghost. And in John 16:7-8:
"It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment."
It is understandable how many will choose to "stay put" with what is considered traditional doctrine as the Trinity, but what concerns me is that disagreeing with others about the Trinity isn't usually enough. Many Trinitarians nowadays believe that those who do not accept this doctrine that God is three in one in some paradoxal way, should in no way be considered Christian by themselves or anyone else. Most scholars and theologians admit that the trinity cannot be explained and dismiss arguments of it solely on the basis that God is mysterious as are his ways. We however choose to believe that the Bible is clear in telling us that however mysterious God's ways are, his His relationship with Christ and the Holy Ghost is a simple doctrine, as is the doctrine that we are saved through his Son Jesus Christ, thus the Trinity does not dictate who is and who is not Christian in any form.
That is a subtile and important point.
John didn’t teach that doctrine, I repeat, where is the reference to one in substance?
You'd been get another seeing eye dog; for THAT one will lead you in front of a bus!
Ah... them good, ol' SI swimsuit issues!
Not scare quotes, just pointing out that the doctrine of the trinity seems to be the only doctrine that matters. Everything else is irrelevant, or else you would have issues with all other CHristian denominations, not just Mormons.
But could they say WHY it wasn't 'true'?
(Neither can MORMONs)
He doesn’t say does he, but he also said that His mission was to the Jews and not the Gentiles, so what people do you think he was talking about? Clearly is wasn’t the Jews of that fold.
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.