Posted on 03/01/2010 5:56:02 PM PST by greyfoxx39
Seriously. Been doing a lot of facepalming here.
My only reply can be from the enlightenment I have recieved from so many who endlessly post on Mormonism...
Because mormans, hinckley is an absolutely evil man that was willfully deceived by Satan and wishes to deceive others. There is no other explanation. Don't even get me started on that 'ole joey smith.
There has only been One that has exhibited 'Good' works, and it sure ain't me. Yet I have still have hope to be in the presence of God because of the works by my Savior Jesus Christ.
I have never called Hinkley evil, I loved ETB and like Monson. I was a big McConkie and Nibley fan too.
But how do you explain this quote:
The LDS Church News reported: “In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints ‘do not believe in the traditional Christ. No, I don’t. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak.”
So, if it is all about grace, then what about this?
From the article:
Latter-day Saints believe that other aspects of Christ’s gift are conditional upon obedience and diligence in keeping God’s commandments. For example, while members of the human family are freely and universally given a reprieve from Adam’s sin through no effort or action of their own, they are not freely and universally given a reprieve of their own sins unless they pledge faith in Christ, repent of those sins, are baptized in his name, receive the gift of the Holy Ghost and confirmation into Christ’s church.
What about baptism into the LDS, LDS priesthood, membership and temple rites? How do those fit in? They certainly are not Biblical requirements for justification.
I have a lot of stubble scratches on my hands...
LOL. Good thing I don’t have any stubble. :D
It is a figure of speech. It means that Latter-day Saints and traditional Christians often differ in how they describe Christ.
It does not mean that there are literally two distinct beings called Jesus Christ, who may share some qualities or characterisitics but not others.
But yet they do....
As we were changing, he saw that I was wearing a cross under my dress shirt. I was astounded by how offended he was by it. It greatly puzzled me as I thought then that Mormons were just an sect of Christianity.
- — - - - - - - -
The hatred of the Cross when I was LDS made sense to me, the running ‘gotcha’ question was “If Jesus was killed by a firing squad, would you wear a gun around your neck?”
After I became a Christian, I saw how condescending that was, how insulting it was to Christ’s sacrifice and how the Cross is central to Christianity.
Regarding the ‘gotcha’ question, I now respond with “If that is how God chose my Savior to die for me then, yes I would!”.
I have also had LDS spit on me for wearing a Cross. THAT was disturbing.
“It does not mean that there are literally two distinct beings called Jesus Christ, who may share some qualities or characterisitics but not others.” Actually, my FRiend, where Mormonism is concerned, they do see two different Jesus Christs, by their own descriptions of Him. You see, Momronism teaches that Jesus is the borthe rof Satan, is not The God but one of three at the top of Earthly godhood, and was so feckless while on Earth that He was deceived by leaders in Judaism and was exploited while walking among humankind. I’m sorry to make this point, once again, but the Christ in the title of this religious cult is not the Christ described in John Chapter One, or in any of the Gospels. You may not believe Mormonism defines ‘a different Christ’, but their own founders and leaders have said just that.
You might want to discuss that point with Godzilla. As I said before, I am not qualified to comment on how well the English word atonement expresses the meaning(s) of the ancient Hebrew texts
well said, sir.
Actually, I do believe that Mormonism teaches a different Jesus Christ from traditional Christianity — but I mean that as a figure of speech.
To insist on taking the statement literally is just too silly for words.
As a Latter-day Saint, I do not depend solely on the Bible for my understanding of the Atonement.
Amen...and it's not just LDS that have "made the cross of Christ of none effect." Any religion that teaches humans can merit or earn eternal life by their deeds is preaching an accursed gospel and spitting in the face of the Lord who bought us by his own blood.
He who presently and continuously hears My word and believes Me (who I really am), I promise that he will presently and continuously possess, without end, eternal life, that is, salvation. And he will NEVER come into condemnation. He has, in times past, been called to be declared righteous (justified) and then glorified, whereby passing out of death into life with Me forever.
As a Latter-day Saint, I do not depend solely on the Bible
- - - - - - -
And that right there is the problem.
The LDS rely on works that have no evidence (BoM), have been proven fraudulent (Book of Abraham), are in their eyes incomplete (JST and part of PGP) and the D&C which have false prophecies.
At the same time, they say the Bible has errors and cannot be trusted.
This situation leads to a various number of misconceptions about basic Christian doctrine.
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.