Posted on 05/04/2012 9:51:48 AM PDT by C19fan
Well, gee, there ya go again.
It was not the LDS that first referred to themselves as Mormon - and within the congrations, they still don't - they are LDS.
Mormon was a name hung on them by outsiders, in reference to the Book of Mormon.
Of course, they also beleive in, read and study the Bible from cover to cover - so hmmmmmmmm?
Everything you posted agrees with what the LDS church teaches. Trying to force everything into a belief in grace vs. a belief in works outlook with a wall in between the two does not lead to understanding.
Thanks for an interesting discussion, but I’m on my way out the door.
And you believe in the Bible “as far as it is translated correctly”...
Not exactly a vote of Confidence in the word and abilities of God.
Of course from the LDS perspective God is only human...
Does it? Funny you are unable to provide an answer to the VERY simple questions. The Apostle Paul repudiates mormonism's having to earn their 'grace'. Did that some how slip by? Or is it possible that the purpose was to slip it by the lurkers? Well since you don't answer the questions. . . ..
Guess you forgot about the fact that Jesus Christ was left out for the first 8 years - or perhaps the mormon god was too busy to reveal it to smith.
It has nothing to do with “being saved after all we can do” as the LDS have made it out to be that is simple a gift from God.
Read the Bible, its in there...
And stop using the “them” and “they” be proud enough to use “we”...
Are you saying there is nothing conflicting in the New Testament?
For example: are you in agreement with Paul, who after 10 years as a Roman General slaughtering every Christian he could find - and was responsible for the stoning of Steven. It was a losing battle.
So He 'saw the light' up in Damascus - and declared himself now an Apostle - and without deigning to go to Jerusalem to meet and/or confer with the leaders there - particularly James, Peter and John, he set about to write his own interpretations of the Gospel. He had and expressed disdain of James, Peter and John, whom he referred to as "the so -called pillars of the church." and they thought of him as the false Apostle - etc - etc
Much Paul wrote is in conflict with what Jesus taught. And it's all there in black and white - and red.
I prefer the red letter Bible so I can skip on through and read what JESUS said and taught.
I believe Him when He said "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
I am not alone in believing, as many have for 2,000 years, that Jesus, the Son of God, was capable of saying and teaching what we need to know, to learn and to do to follow the Way. Did He, does HE, need others to translate or interpret?
I use the red letter Bible and I have two other books I treasure. One is a book titled "His Words" and is JUST the red letter sections and beautifully illustrated in the old Bible 'Illuminations" style.
The other is what has been mis-titled "Jefferson's Bible" - a tiny volume. Jefferson was another one who had disdain for Paul. He took scissors and paste and cut out all the sayings, acts of Jesus and put them into a book by themselves.
Jesus spoke and taught in parables, for the most part, so that the pearls don't get trampled by the pigs. But for anyone who reads in the right spirit, His teachings are plain and beautiful - and would take our whole lives to fully learn and practice. I do not believe that because He was crucified, He wasn't able to finish His mission and teachings. That would be, to me, absurd. That would be to ascribe limitations to Him. And THAT would be ludicrous.
He , therefore, gave us all we need to follow Him to the Father - without the pomp and circumstance, the fancy robes and all the other trappings that He did not take up.
Peace...
Are you saying there is nothing conflicting in the New Testament?
For example: are you in agreement with Paul, who after 10 years as a Roman General slaughtering every Christian he could find - and was responsible for the stoning of Steven. It was a losing battle.
So He 'saw the light' up in Damascus - and declared himself now an Apostle - and without deigning to go to Jerusalem to meet and/or confer with the leaders there - particularly James, Peter and John, he set about to write his own interpretations of the Gospel. He had and expressed disdain of James, Peter and John, whom he referred to as "the so -called pillars of the church." and they thought of him as the false Apostle - etc - etc
Much Paul wrote is in conflict with what Jesus taught. And it's all there in black and white - and red.
I prefer the red letter Bible so I can skip on through and read what JESUS said and taught.
I believe Him when He said "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
I am not alone in believing, as many have for 2,000 years, that Jesus, the Son of God, was capable of saying and teaching what we need to know, to learn and to do to follow the Way. Did He, does HE, need others to translate or interpret?
I use the red letter Bible and I have two other books I treasure. One is a book titled "His Words" and is JUST the red letter sections and beautifully illustrated in the old Bible 'Illuminations" style.
The other is what has been mis-titled "Jefferson's Bible" - a tiny volume. Jefferson was another one who had disdain for Paul. He took scissors and paste and cut out all the sayings, acts of Jesus and put them into a book by themselves.
Jesus spoke and taught in parables, for the most part, so that the pearls don't get trampled by the pigs. But for anyone who reads in the right spirit, His teachings are plain and beautiful - and would take our whole lives to fully learn and practice. I do not believe that because He was crucified, He wasn't able to finish His mission and teachings. That would be, to me, absurd. That would be to ascribe limitations to Him. And THAT would be ludicrous.
He , therefore, gave us all we need to follow Him to the Father - without the pomp and circumstance, the fancy robes and all the other trappings that He did not take up.
Peace...
Let me ask you a question then: What did Joseph smith add (that was necessary) IF Jesus was God (the only God) and that He is made of Father, Spirit, Son, AND Jesus COMPLETED His works for us on the cross??
“Is the Nicene creed the word of God,”
Yes, it is the word of God in the sense that it is the proper interpretation of the word of God.
Everything in it is backed up with scripture.
It resolves the dual nature of Christ.
bttt
Well that's nothing new for the faith by works crowd. Got to keep that control.
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.