OK.
Do you agree or disagree with the LDS Prophet?
Do you agree or disagree with the LDS Apostle?
Do you agree or disagree with the LDS prophet?
Posted on 04/27/2006 3:03:34 PM PDT by restornu
>>Okay, I was a little careless here in that I didn't qualify this as I should have
You got that right!
If you read the whole article, the point is now that original sin is out of the way, it is up to us to repent of our sins and gain exaltation, this does not diminish Christ’s work, it affirms it.
It always amazes me that those who quickly read a piece, then misinterpret it to mean it’s opposite, and then try to beat up other’s with their ignorance (a poor weapon at best)
>>So, indeed, I'm not lying, right? (I was just overbroad in my assertion)
Lying, that takes intent, and I will not presume to judge intent, merely correctness you may only be mistaken.
< Snip for Brevity > but as soon as you find out some LDS leader has published it under the official LDS publishing outlet, and sudden silence??
Since he did not say what you say he said, this goes the way of the dodo. (To quote one of my favorite films, that word you keep using, I do not thinking it means what you think it means Big Big Grin)
>>So, allow me to ask you: the LDS belief seems to be that Christ's atonement as it
>>applies to salvation is that it covers personal sins in addition to original sin. However,
>>Christ's atonement as it applies to exaltation does not apply, correct?
Christ’s atonement as it applies to exaltation Please define this for me as I do not want to give an inaccurate reply.
I’ll try without the Definition. Christ’s atonement (at one ment) or to bring to gather as one) Allows man to leave his current sinful state and become one with god. Note the word allows, we have the ability to choose. This is from one of our hymns “For this eternal truth is giv’n that God will force no man to heaven”. Since the price has been paid, the original sin negated, even death has been overcome we are free to chose to return to that God who gave us birth, or refusing to partake in the atonement go to the Devil as it were. Does this clarify it for you?
>> My citation for the latter is based on the official Gospel principles manual, which I
>>received when I went through an LDS class. On p. 135, it reads that Jesus "became our
>>savior and he did his part to help us return to our heavenly home. It is now up to each
>>of us to do our part and to become worthy of exaltation."
Your manual, being published by the church, is of course correct (this one is too easy, is this a trick question? :-)
>> So, even mainstream LDS materials convey this idea that Christ has won "salvation"
>>across the board for all men, cancelling Adam's sin. Now all ya gotta do for godhood
>>status is yank yourself up. It's almost like, "There. The door's been opened for you. If
>>I'm going to find you worthy, then show me." [I guess that's the Missouri strain of
>>theology showing thru, eh?]
You almost had it. There is no “Pulling your selves up” ( http://scriptures.lds.org/2_ne/25/23#23 ) we are “Saved by grace after all we can do”. We must do all in our power, and then Christ makes up the difference, whether large or small.
>>Your debating method here is quite ineffective.
I am not debating yet, as there is nothing to debate, I get so many un-sourced quotes that I look up and half the time they don’t exist or are misquoted that I won’t even bother to debate an un sourced quote that I am asked to confirm or deny, it’s a matter of time, not knowledge.
Source or don’t post. Presumably you got the quote from somewhere, post the link. LDS.org is a great resource for this.
>>Regardless of whether or not these guys were correctly quoted, do you agree or
>>disagree with what they are quoted as saying?
Context before conjecture I do not yet know what they were saying if this was taken out of context.
Bingo...what the BoM is saying here is that Grace only kicks in AFTER all you can do.
My question: "When can you say you have ever done all you can do?"
Hint: Never. We'll never do everything we can do. For we all fall short of the glory of God (Romans).
Sorry, that was CF not CC you guys need to go duke it out somewhere for the color part of your names, or get used to getting confused.
>>I'm sorry but you must be confused, I've never called anyone my "Allies."
My Bad CF in post 61 of this thread.
>>Everything on this thread is confused and confusing. I'll make it simple: THERE IS
>>BUT ONE GOD...ANYWHERE...ALWAYS. To believe otherwise makes you a
>>pagan and NOT a Christian. You however are free to believe any way you choose
>>to believe.
Thanks, but the OT disputes you, God himself speaks of other gods, and warns Israel away from them. When Steven saw Christ standing on the right hand of God, was Christ standing on his own hand? When Christ was baptized, was he practicing ventriloquism? This would be funny if it were not so serious.
OK.
Do you agree or disagree with the LDS Prophet?
Do you agree or disagree with the LDS Apostle?
Do you agree or disagree with the LDS prophet?
>> Sorry. Doesn't compute in an absolute way.
Few analogies stand up to being twisted, they only go as far as the point being made at the time, unless you are capable of infinite recursion, I’m not right now, maybe after I recover from this Flu…
>> So, if your immediate gods are limited in their authority either by planetary boundaries … then they are limited.
What is 1 / 2 of infinity? (Did you ever get to higher math?)
In my opinion, the rest of your post is hyperbole.
>>>>You are not creating; procreating is not creation, but close. That is why your
>>>> authority is not absolute.
>>Hold it, hold it. Would you "enlighten" me, please, if you hold positions counter to
>>LDS theology?
Sorry to be unclear, our procreation is not absolute creation, because we are not self sufficient, Gods is creation because he is self sufficient. (He also creates planets’ but not though procreation although that would be a sight to see. :-)
This is taken from the tanners which is suspect!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1622778/posts?page=385#385
>>>>we are “Saved by grace after all we can do”.
>>Bingo...what the BoM is saying here is that Grace only kicks in AFTER all you can
>>do.
>>My question: "When can you say you have ever done all you can do?"
>>Hint: Never. We'll never do everything we can do. For we all fall short of the glory of
>>God (Romans).
Who said anything about earning the Glory of God? That comes “by grace after all we can do”. I can do everything in my power, then I know that Christ will save me when I die, he does not require that I run faster than I have strength, only as fast.
If you are asking when I can rest on my laurels, the answer is Never. We do not rest while tending the flock, nor on the battle field, after this life is over there will be plenty of time to “Rest up”, but I believe only those in hell will be bored (think of it eternity after eternity with nothing to do.. Hell)
When Steven saw Christ standing on the right hand of God, was Christ standing on his own hand? When Christ was baptized, was he practicing ventriloquism? This would be funny if it were not so serious.
So ... are you saying that ... because your finite mind cannot understand how the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost ... can all be the One Eternal God, ... that it is impossible ?
Praise be to God ... that all does not depned upon your understanding.
That’s not a link, this is (http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech8.htm )
1) There are many gods, God was once a man.
2) Christ is the literal son of God the Father.
3) I do not Believe that Adam is God the Father (personal Belief here), but this doctrine was once taught, and now is not.
From the site I linked (an anti-Mormon site I might add).
“In all fairness to the Mormon leaders it should be stated that they no longer teach the Adam-God doctrine, even though some members of the church still believe it. Anyone who is caught teaching this doctrine is liable to be excommunicated. This, however, shows the inconsistency of the Mormon church, for they say that Brigham Young was a prophet, and at the same time they will excommunicate a person for believing in his teachings.”
(Teaching and Believing ar two different things)
We do not now teach this, it was once taught, we both admit that it was taught, and that it is now not taught, we also at one time practiced polygamy, now we do not. This is one of the challenges, and blessings of having continual revelation, things can be changed as our ability to ask better questions of the lord increases. Have you never had an epiphany that expanded your understanding?
Why did you ask this?
Are you trying to Shake my faith? (Not even Close).
If you were trying to shake anyone’s faith, what a despicable thing to attempt.
So don't respond to the substance of what your prophets have to say, but attack the messenger who draws it to your attention? Is that the best debating tactic you guys have?
Ok, if you mistrust the "tanners" then here is a link to the Journal of Discourses:
>>>> When Steven saw Christ standing on the right hand of God, was Christ standing on
>>>> his own hand? When Christ was baptized, was he practicing ventriloquism?
>>>> This would be funny if it were not so serious.
>>So ... are you saying that ... because your finite mind cannot understand how the
>>Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost ... can all be the One Eternal God, ... that it
>>is impossible ?
>>Praise be to God ... that all does not depend upon your understanding.
My finite mind is not the question here, and boy am I glad that all does not depend on my understanding.
We are commanded to get to know God and Chist, (John 17: 3 http://scriptures.lds.org/john/17/3#3 )
John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
“Knowing God” kind of implies knowing that he and Christ (both listed separately here) are not the same personage.
No I would rather read what he said the pages before and after...
Brigham always spoke in a way to keep folks awake and focus on what he was saying and many time when he finish it was not always what excerpt that are selected!
You know this you are been around for a long time on this forum!
As now I don't have my Gospel CD to verify!
I'm merely trying to get some clarity here. As Dennis Prager always says, I prefer clarity to agreement. You seem to claim that you worship the same God and the same Jesus that I worship. I believe that in light of what your Apostles and Prophets have had to say on the subject, that it is inconceivable that we both worship the same God or the same Jesus.
Are you trying to Shake my faith? (Not even Close). If you were trying to shake anyone’s faith, what a despicable thing to attempt.
I'm not trying to shake your faith. That is not my job. I'm simply trying to show that the faith that you have is not the same faith that I have. I'm merely trying to show that the Jesus of mormonism and the Jesus of reformation Christianity are not the same person. I am simply trying to show that the God of Mormonism and the God of traditional Christianity are not the same God.
You may very well be right and I may very well be wrong. But both of us can't be right. We worship two entirely different beings. I think that Brighan Young and just about every Mormon prophet before him and after him made that point and I am in agreement with Brigham Young that what you guys believe about the Nature of God and what I and most of my protestant friends on this thread believe are wholly incompatible.
It's a shame you can't see to agree on that point. I don't know why you think that we all believe alike. We don't. We're not even close. That apparently was why Joseph Smith was supposedly called to restore the Church, wasn't it? Because all of us Protestants were teaching what was abominable to the God that you worship?
Look Delphi, we simply do not worship the same God. At least one of us is wrong. Maybe we're both wrong. But it is impossible that we are both right.
Now that being said, do you agree or disagree with your prophets who were quoted in the Journal of Discourses? If you disagree, then perhaps you can explain why you are correct in your doctrinal beliefs and the "prophet of God" is wrong.
Let's try and get a little clarity here. I am not attempting to get you to agree with me. I simply want to show people who are reading this what the essential differences are between Mormonism and traditional and reformation Christianity.
I can assure you I worship the same Godhead that is in the Bible I moved from Presbyterian to the fulness of the Gosple!
But you do not worship the same God as me or any of the other protestants on this thread. I moved away from Mormonism and only found God (the real one) after I heard the real gospel preached (which is not the same gospel that the Mormons preach).
I no longer worship the god of Mormonism. The god of Mormonism is not the same God I worship now. Not even close.
I answered in the post you are responding to.
He is the Same Jesus Christ, but our perception of him is different (do you know the parable of the five blind men and the elephant?)
>>Now that being said, do you agree or disagree with your prophets who were quoted in
>> the Journal of Discourses? If you disagree, then perhaps you can explain why you are
>>correct in your doctrinal beliefs and the "prophet of God" is wrong.
What does this have to do with your stated purpose?
>>I'm simply trying to show that the faith that you have is not the same faith that I have.
Are you being entirely truthful in stating your motives here?
These appear to be carefully engineered “When did you stop beating your wife?” questions.
Have you ever researched the council at Nice? (The Nicene Creed came from there) They discussed some of the same things we are (plurality of God, Mary’s Immaculate Conception, etc).
Have you ever looked into the sale of indulgences?
How about the behavior of the early popes?
There are things there that would curl your hair (if it’s not already curly) (GRIN)
In my opinion these things are not an indicator of the faith of the Catholics I meet and I would not ask any one of them how they feel about that, or if they agree, it would be just plain rude.
>> I no longer worship the god of Mormonism. The god of Mormonism is not the same
>>God I worship now. Not even close.
So it is truly said they can leave the church, but they just can’t leave the church alone.
The “Mormon God is a god of accountability, the perception I have of the protestant God is that all you have to do is say “I believe” and go on sinning, because “God will take care of it.” and you have no responsibility to do anything.
But even so, I believe we are talking about the same “Historical” figures, the same people. As for who is right, we’ll have to talk about that after judgment day
(or you can watch South Park)
(I have the clip of them saying it was the Mormons here somewhere)
Apparently the Jesus that you believe in is not even the same Jesus that Brigham Young believed in. Brigham Young apparently taught that Jesus was the child of Adam and Mary (one of his celestial wives).
Apparently you don't believe that, so in essence the Jesus that Brigham Young believed in was a fairy tale Jesus of his own mind and not the real Jesus. Likewise the Jesus that I believe in is not the same Jesus that you believe in. There is the real Jesus and the fairy tale Jesus.
The fact is that at least one of us believes in a fairy tale Jesus, because we certainly don't both believe in the same Jesus.
The Jesus I believe in was always God and was never anything less than God. He created (he didn't form but he created from nothing) everything that now exists or ever existed in the universe. Your Jesus was not God from all eternity, but was somehow exalted to that position after he was created as a spirit child of God the Father-- who Himself used to be a man like us.
I think it is safe to conclude that the Jesus that I believe in is not the same Jesus that you believe in.
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.