Posted on 11/28/2012 6:00:38 PM PST by Colofornian
http://www.lds.org/church/news/mormonor ... c?lang=eng
How about being straight up and saying that Mormons put on costumes and chant rituals in secret buildings that only 10% of gross earnings paid as "tithes" allow entrance?
Mormonism wants people to think they are normal that they are just Christians like everyone else. Each year they get rid of more and more of their embarrassing doctrines - or doctrines that aren't politically correct anymore. Apologist attack dogs fight any critics on technicalities.
Mormonism has one thing that works for them - and that is the funneling of cash from members to the Cult coffers. This is done through mandatory tithe. And in order to make this tithe work - and make the member believe in the Cult enough to pay - they have to have the secret temple ceremonies. You have to put a ton of make believe in there.
Stephen R. Donaldson is one of my favorite authors. In one of his series of books he explained how a great and noble group of leaders were slowly corrupted through the centuries by simple infiltration of ideas. The ideas changed the group slowly until they went from helping people to human sacrifices. The new leaders of the group knew what was going on - but they surrounded themselves with those who only had faith - not knowledge. Those who had faith were much stronger because they were driven by the new cult. Those who held faith were much easier to control.
Pondering the story Donaldson had written I saw the same manifested in the Cult of Mormonism. If you have members who are so convinced you are the one and only true Cult, they will not hesitate to open their pocketbooks and hand over everything. Mormonism needs this kind of special, secret, garment wearing, new name, pay lay ale - in order to keep the tithes flowing. If the cat is out of the bag, the tithing will stop.
So the reality is there is a certain point where Mormonism must stop moving towards Christianity - it has to because money is ultimately the top priority of the Cult. Money - Power - Control.
Look at all the recovery boards right now - even the NOM boards. What is the #1 topic right now because of upcoming December? Tithing. Tithing. Tithing. Oh and don't forget tithing. Sign up for tithing settlement. And don't forget to sign up for tithing settlement.
“All of our messaging is focused on helping people understand that Mormons are Christian,”
Naw, Mormonism isn't a Christian church. It's a secretive Cult with very cultish practices and it has to stay that way - or go broke.
B “Good points. I’d like to add, there is clearly a prophesied Second Coming, but no Third Coming, or First and 1/2 coming. At the Second Coming, the Kingdom is instituted forever and ever, so that’s that. He’s not going anywhere from whence He might need to return again.”
You missed a spot...
John 10:16 http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/john/10.16?lang=eng#15
“16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be cone fold, and one shepherd.”
Jesus Told the People in America that they were the “other sheep” and that there were still other sheep that he would visit. (I look forward to those records being revealed as well.)
B “So, if the Jesus who came to America, in the Book of Mormon, were the glorified Jesus, returning in vengeance, then that must have been the Second Coming, and we have already missed it. Where is the Kingdom, ruling in glory over all the Earth? Where are the glorified saints, sitting on thrones around the judgement seat of the Lord? Where is the New Jerusalem, from whence the Glory of God emanates to light the whole Earth? Why do we still need the sun and moon and stars in the sky to light our way?”
Nope, you missed a prophecy in the Bible, a few in fact.
It’s OK, I’m sure I’m missing some too...
Delph
There are other writings referenced - however reference does not endow them with scriptural standing.
However, if it concerns you so much - write Monson and ask him why as the "Prophet" he hasn't added these books to the ranks of official lds standard works? Well if your prophet doesn't say they are scripture then your strawman argument is pretty weak.
“Well, first of all, some here will get mad at me for stating the obvious, but the Bible is not all the inspired writings the Apostles had at there disposal, it references books of scripture which the bible does not contain.”
Yes, certainly it does. However, none of those books are the Gospel, which is what we are talking about. Furthermore, the Bible clearly tells us that the Gospel is all we need to hear for salvation’s sake, so let’s not get sidetracked with what stories and wisdom we might be missing out on from Enoch, or Jubilees. I’ve read those books mentioned which are still available (or the books we have which purport to be them, since some maybe pseudoepigraphical). They are good reading, and I’d recommend any Christian who is interested to check them out, but only after they had read the Gospel, and at least a good bit of the rest of the Bible, since that is where all the really important stuff is.
“Third, In the Book of Ezekiel 37:15-19 it speaks of a book from the Jews (the Bible) and a book from the tribe of Joseph (the Book of Mormon):”
When Judah and Joseph are used in combination in the Bible, or any number of variations of that phrasing, it refers always to the tribes of Judah and the tribes of Israel, of which Joseph was the chief, which were divided into two kingdoms. Obviously the prophecy you cite is speaking of the rejoining of these divided tribes of God’s people, not anything to do with the Book of Mormon and the Bible. The usage of the stick as a metaphor also reinforces this, since a stick never represents a book in Biblical prophecy, but sticks, branches, trees, and plants are often used to represent people or groups of people in the Bible.
Some examples:
The wild olive branch being grafted onto the olive tree representing Christians being grafted into God’s chosen people, in Romans 11.
Christ’s coming prophecied as the righteous branch from David, in Jeremiah 23.
Wheat and tares being used to refer to the saved and the damned in Matthew 13.
The Fig Tree being used as a symbol for Israel in Luke 13.
“Last, throughout the Bible we are told that God will establish truth in the mouths of two or three witnesses. The Book of Mormon is the second Witness of Jesus Christ.”
Yes, and he actually provided us with four independent witnesses in the four evangelists, so there could be no question that this was fulfilled. If that is not enough, he provided us with additional testimony from Paul and other apostles besides. I hardly see how the Book of Mormon is required after that point.
“Ah, so let’s think about this for just a second, the Bible was not written all at once. Biblia (a collection of Books) is how the bible was originally seen. Galatians was one of many books and was written about 50-60 AD. Stopping all other books from being written after it would have precluded the Book of Revelations, and the Book of the Gospel of John. I think anyone who insists that God cannot add more to his works after Galatians was written is... well eliminating a lot of Gospel from the Bible.”
There is no prohibition about writing books, in fact the Bible commands all of us to witness. So any apostle or disciple alive at the time of that statement would still have been bound to tell their testimony, which would be a form of the Gospel. In fact, any time a Christian gives their own testimony of Christ, they are composing a form of Gospel themselves, in telling the good news in their own words. However, that doesn’t mean they are creating “another gospel”, separate from, and different than the Gospel which has been delivered to all Christians by God. The prohibition is against a different Gospel, which the Book of Mormon clearly is, since it is not in agreement with any of the other Gospels.
“You see Galatians as an indictment of our religion, I honestly see it as an indictment of the Orthodoxy of Christianity as you know it.”
Galatians isn’t specific, it doesn’t say, beware the heresies of the Nicolataines, or those guys who got together in Nicea, even though there are many other places in the Bible where specific heresies are named and denounced. It’s just a general warning and commandment not to receive “strange doctrine”, as it were, different teachings that were outside the teachings of Christ.
I suppose you could argue they forgot to name what, if your assertion is true, would be the most successful heresy, or perhaps the victorious Trinitarians edited the parts out of the Bible that specifically condemned them. However, that just goes back to dismissing the Bible as the Word of God, and being left with no sure footing to stand on when claiming that your prophet has the real Word of God.
This whole idea that important parts of the Bible have been corrupted doesn’t even stand the test of reason, since the author of the Bible is God. You’re basically saying, without saying it explicitly, that God thought His message was important enough to deliver to man through chosen messengers over the ages, but then too lazy or incompetent to make sure that message wasn’t lost, mangled, and perverted by men. The Holy Spirit, in that scenario, would have to be asleep at the wheel, and of course when you think about it that way, the very notion is ludicrous and impossible if you believe in an almighty God.
There is a great passage in the Old Testament that I love, the story of King Josiah and the Book of the Law. Josiah ruled Judah during a period of decadence and idolatry, when they had forgotten the law and tossed away the Word of God. The King himself had never even read the books of Moses, until they found the copy that Moses sealed in the Ark of the Covenant, centuries earlier.
That is the closest story in the entire Bible to a “restoration of the Gospel”, and what does it show us instead? God did not send a prophet to rewrite the Word of God, but instead he miraculously, through his own power and foresight, preserved the original books of Moses in their entirety and perfection, to deliver to Israel and remind them of their sins. Yet, you would have me believe that this same God allowed the Romans or whoever to butcher the testament that He sent his Son to deliver to us? Not my God, nosirree!
“Constantine changed the definition of God, making Joseph Smith necessary as a restorer of the truth, not a corrupter of it.”
Or maybe Muhammad was made necessary, or Ellen G. White, or David Koresh. None of them have any more or less claim to the title than Joseph Smith, as far as I can tell. Well, maybe Koresh, since he tried to raise the dead and failed, so he pretty much blew it. The point is, anyone can come along and say “The Bible’s wrong, but God told me how to fix it”. None of them are named in the Bible, none of them were recognized as an Apostle by the other Apostles, which would be necessary to claim that authority, and none of them can perform any miracles, even though the Bible tells us that is not to be regarded as proof. It’s the word of a man, or other men testifying on behalf of that men, and that is all there is to support their claim, and all there will ever be.
“What recourse does any man have?”
The authority of the Word of God! When I ask you what recourse you have, when answering the claims of others who also claim to restore a corrupted gospel, I don’t mean to ask why you believe the Book of Mormon. I mean, to what can you appeal to prove to anyone that Smith’s claim is any more convincing than any of the other, pretty much countless, similar claims that have been made by others?
If you say, pray about the Book of Mormon and God will tell you it is true, then I’ve heard the same answer from Muslims. They tell me to read the Koran and pray about it and Allah will confirm it in my heart. Obviously, plenty of Muslims will testify that they had a similar experience to yours, confirming that Muhammad was the true prophet. So, that evidence alone doesn’t establish the Mormon claim to being the true restorers of the gospel.
Now, my recourse is the Bible. I don’t have to tell anyone to read the Bible and pray about it to seek an answer, all I have to do is tell people to read the Bible, and, to the best of my ability, help explain it to them if they don’t understand something. The Bible is a sound, logical, self-proving document, one doesn’t need a confirmation in the spirit for one to know it is true.
Furthermore, the Bible is literally a living document, since the Bible is the Word and the Word is Christ, and Christ is the living God. Once you crack open the Bible, Christ is knocking at the door, you do not have to pray and ask for anything. The Word has the power to convict you in your conscience and humble you before God, simply by reading it. Most will flee from it, their consciences seared, but God’s sheep will hear His voice, because He calls out to them, He doesn’t wait for them to call out to Him.
“I am blessed among men to have received such an answer, and I doubt it not.”
You see, this is the difference I am talking about. God doesn’t tell just a few men that His Word is true, He tells all men. We can choose to listen, or we can choose to try to ignore him and do as we please. When I first read the Bible, I did not pray to God to ask if it was true, because I already knew in my heart what the answer would be, but I was struggling NOT to believe it. I strived against God and tried my utmost to ignore Him, but the power of His Word called me back again and again until I was subdued and humbled, and then I prayed for forgiveness. If I had instead read the Book of Mormon, I wouldn’t have prayed to ask if was true either, because I wouldn’t have wanted to believe. I’m blessed that God doesn’t take chances like that, depending on us asking for a sign from Him, and then deigning to bless only a few with the correct answer, otherwise I probably still be an atheist!
D “So... Why do you think Jesus Travailed in the Garden?”
B “Since the Bible does not tell us why, it is really a question that only God can answer with certainty.”
If I may be so bold, this is why we need a modern day prophet and more revelation, the Bible does not tell us everything.
B “However, the traditional supposition of Christians is that Jesus, having both the nature of man and the nature of God, was experiencing the same human emotions that any of us would experience if we knew we were about to face what He was about to face, such as uncertainty, sorrow, fear, grief, etc.”
I personally vehemently disagree with that interpretation and hope that I am not being disagreeable when I point out that to me the God of all who knows all and knows he will die and be resurrected is not going to be reduced to a quivering pile of mush that bleeds from every pore because he’s afraid.
B “We’ve all had an experience where we knew that we needed to do something very difficult, but had to struggle against the weaker part of our nature trying to dissuade us from the task. It may seem strange for God to have a similar struggle with Himself, after all, we associate weakness, fear, and the like with imperfection, while we associate God with perfection. However, the Bible clearly records that Christ quoted a Scripture expressing doubt while He was on the cross, so it would seem that God even took on some measure of our weaknesses, at least while He walked among us as a man.”
Interesting point, but I never saw Jesus as a wimp. I have faced death, and even a fate I deemed worse than Death, I did not bleed at every pore.
B “I do think that there was a very important purpose to Christ’s suffering in the Garden. God’s plan for salvation was implemented in such a way that no objections to Christ’s atonement for us could stand. Even though God is subject to nobody but Himself, He is also a just God, and that is why He provided the means to satisfy His own law which condemned mankind, instead of just issuing a pardon or reversing his judgement. If Christ was immune to our human weaknesses, then an accusation could be made against Him that He never truly suffered as men suffered, and was not truly a man in substance, but only in form. Such a sacrifice could not satisfy the demand of the law, which required the blood of man for a full atonement for the gravest sins. Christ’s suffering in the garden, and his exclamation on the Cross, were evidence of his true humanity, and evidence that his sacrifice was valid.”
Agreed! (But he still wasn’t a wimp :-)
Delph
OK, so He’s got a body (there goes the Nicean creed) but he’s not confined to it.
Just Curious, if a body is confining, why curse us with one through resurrection?
Delph
In John 10:16, the “other sheep”, are the gentiles, who would be folded in with the redeemed sheep of Israel, in one of the great mysteries that Christ hadn’t fully revealed at that point, but of which we have mounds of exposition from the apostles’ testimony. Note, he doesn’t say anything about visiting other sheep, as you claim, just that they will hear His voice, and He would bring them in. That voice was the Gospel, the literal Word of Christ, which the Apostles carried to the gentiles after Christ’s death, bringing them into the fold with the redeemed sheep of Israel.
The people of the Americas are of course, part of the “other sheep”, along with all the gentiles on the planet. However, they didn’t need a personal visit from Jesus to convert them, but just the regular old Gospel that was delivered to all of us. If Jesus did make a visit to convert them, it must have been a very unsuccessful visit, since there was no Church of Appalachia, or Church or Tenochtitlan waiting to greet us when we arrived.
If you are interested in the records of other sheep converted by Jesus, check out the people of India. When the Portuguese finally got around to visiting them to try to convert them, they found out that they had already heard the Gospel, many centuries before, and there were practicing Christians, with their own churches, and their own copies of the Bible there. They were separated from the rest of the Christian world, and yet they received no special gospel, no personal appearance by Jesus, and no special prophets. Still, the church planted there by mere men persevered, while you want me to believe that the one in America, founded by Christ himself, did not. I’m sorry, but Christ is a better missionary than any man, so I can’t believe that.
“OK, so He’s got a body (there goes the Nicean creed)”
I’m not sure what you mean by that. Maybe you can cite the part of the Nicene creed where it says Christ has no body?
There’s actually a diametrically opposite statement in the Armenian version of the creed:
” He suffered, was crucified, was buried, rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven with the same body, [and] sat at the right hand of the Father.
He is to come with the same body and with the glory of the Father, to judge the living and the dead; of His kingdom there is no end.”
He took his body with Him, and when He returns, it is glorified (”with the glory of the Father”), which the previous verses I cited explain is a transformation of the substance of the body, from earthly to heavenly. Seems pretty straightforward to me, so I really don’t see what point you are trying to make, or what the controversy is.
“Just Curious, if a body is confining, why curse us with one through resurrection?”
Well, I’ll give you credit, that is an unusual thought, and probably one you’ll need to ask God about when you meet Him. I don’t think we’ll view anything that is part of our resurrection as any kind of curse, so I wouldn’t worry about that. We were designed by God as individuals, with our consciousness tied to one point in space-time, so we are probably, by our nature, more comfortable inhabiting a body, and being “local”, than to be some amorphous or omnipresent ether. That would be my guess, at least, not that I think it’s important at all. If God thinks we need a body, I’ll trust God’s judgement, because He knows better than I do.
Actually, let me amend that statement about not viewing anything in the resurrection as a curse. I’m talking specifically about the resurrected saints of the first resurrection, not the general resurrection of the dead in the second resurrection. A lot of those folks surely will not be happy with their state of affairs at all.
D “Despite the lengths your home page must go to (and which proves you do not simply respond by prayer and simply preaching repentance)”
Acquired over a decade of answering the same questions over and over, I simply compiled some of my answers into a page to save time.
D “including “thought experiments at Temporal Mechanics” (you and the LDS remind me too much of the types of explanations in some of Swedenborg’s work) - in order to attempt to justify the novel unScriptural teachings of Mormonism, the fact remains that the God Mormons point to was once a man who evolved into God, contra Ps. 90:2 (cf. Jn. 4:24) and that the heavens and earth were created by a council of Gods, while the Son was a product of God’s conception thru Eve, one of his many wives, making Jesus a spirit brother to Lucifer, and whose plan for mans progression was rejected in favor of Christ’s.”
Are you engaging in a bit of Temporal Mechanics yourself? You seem to have things out of order, and out of context, and backwards.
Anyone who’s interested in trying to decipher what you are saying about my page is welcome to read said page (just click my name).
Rest assured it has an index, is divided by topic, and links to lots of external references.
Delph
At least one Mormon Freeper was banned for trolling here and publishing anti-Free Republic material on a blog, naming Freepers he considered to be anti-Mormon.
At least one Mormon Freeper was banned as "opused out" meaning that she wanted to leave.
Some other Mormon Freepers committed "suicide by mod" by unseemly behavior towards the Moderators and/or Jim Robinson.
If you have a specific question, send me a Freepmail.
Yes...as in past tense declarations, Delf. Indeed, you can find some past Catholic statements along this line; the current Pope only downgrades Protestant authority re: the Sacraments.
Some Lds try to go here, too...that key distinction is that Lds have "the priesthood" (& its accompanying authority) & others don't. But Lds statements both within Lds "scriptures" & by "prophets" go way beyond that.
The term Christian should apply to any one who follows Christ’s teachings no matter how he/she interprets the Bible or other books on Christ to get to those teachings.
Do New Agers exercising "Christ consciousness" -- imbued with Hindu and cultic injections -- mean that they, too are "Christian?"
AT some pt, DU, we leave the historical genuine Christ...and arrive at a mythical one who a series of "'Christ' creators" have invented. Otherwise, the apostle Paul would not have indicated there is "another" Christ (2 Cor. 11:3-4)...and Jesus would not have discussed false messiahs (Matt. 24).
Buddhists follow Buddha, Lutherans follow Luther, but we who follow Jesus are denied that association by you and yours.
I would say most Lutherans follow Christ...many thru the filter of Luther...or at least some of his reformational lenses...They don't worship Luther, or pray to him, or ask him to intercede 'saint'-like...The Luther they know isn't around here anymore.
...we should both be called Christians and then denominations should be used to differtiate our differing beliefs.
IN an upcoming post, I will delineate why I believe we worship different christs. For if we do, then that becomes the basis of who is in the one true Christ.
If you die without joining and having ordinances performed by the authority of Jesus Christ, I’ll see to it that they are done by proxy later so that you’ll have that technicality out of the way and can be judged for the really good person that you are.
Sorry, but dead-dunking me under the moniker of "Colofornian" just won't cut it in the eyes of the Mormon gods...If you didn't dead-dunk me using my full birth name, it won't be recognized by your legalistic gods.
As Christains, I believe we should both be caring and loving the other person into Christs arms, not trying to push the other out of his grasp.
Delf, if you or I had a young-adult daughter who began an online relationship with a "guy" she never met...and it progressed way too fast romantically...
If we as parents investigated this "critter" on the other side of the keyboard...and found out that he wasn't who he pretended to be...do you think it's the "loving" thing to do to allow your daughter to continue to stumble toward such a deceptive guy?
I don't. Even if it takes some heart-breaking truth-telling, loving your daughter with the truth isn't unloving. As Paul said in 1 Corinthians 13 (verse 6), love rejoices in the truth. Love & truth are "married" partners -- not adversaries.
Love ya, DU.
The point there, Delf, and you know it's true, is that there are plenty of trinitarian verses in the Book of Mormon. Certainly, the doctrine of the "Godhead" as Lds now define it really isn't there...at least its most key distinctions. The first vision isn't in the Book of Mormon, either -- it's in the Pearl of Great Price.
But the Lds missionaries don't go around asking potential proselytes to pray about the Pearl of Great Price, do they?
Nor, do they ask the potential converts to read & pray about the distinctive descriptions of God by Joseph Smith in the D&C & Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Do they?
Most missionaries don't ask to pray about even their discussions -- to see if they are "so"...rather, they ask them to pray about the Book of Mormon.
THAT is the bait & switch, Delf...
That stuff is all in the Bible, you just aren't focused on the scriptures they are from.
Sorry Delf...but if Eve was made in God's (physical) image, then God has female body parts.
Or do you claim that women were NOT made in God's image?
Your "in the Bible" references boils down to ONE passage on baptism of the dead, in which Paul says THEY (not WE) baptize the dead...and one passage in Ps. 82 where the Psalmist references divine ones as unjust judges. All OTHER Biblical references makes it QUITE clear there is ONLY ONE God...and that ALL other "gods" are false gods.
Besides, the D&C says the BoM "contains the fulness of the everlasting gospel"...I guess it ain't so "full" ... is it?
JFTR, your post to me was long, I’ll be kind to the readers and not include it in it’s entirety in my response.
C “Well, I was incomplete in my comment, so allow me to explain what I meant by Lds not according/affording us the “same privilege” that their own missionaries are to have.”
By all means, explain how we are unfair to you.
C “There’s a 5-volume work from your 10th “prophet,” Joseph Fielding Smith...called Answers to Gospel Questions...published by the Lds-church owned Deseret Book Company. I own this series — and have read all 5 small books.”
How nice.
You then go off on how we believe we are to warn our neighbors, and our commission to preach is binding...then you cut out some excerpts which honestly escape me as to why you chose them, yes we are to warn all people...
C “Do you know what I took away from reading Joseph Fielding Smith here, DU?”
I believe that mind reading is specifically forbidden on the religion forum... besides my tin foil hat stops others from reading my mind :-)
C “What I took away is that — to partially reference the free exchange of religious ideas with Buddhists and that Baptist pastor that you had — I am glad we live in a country where your Lds missionaries are free to warn others as they see fit.”
Yeah, about that, Taiwan was under marshal law when I was there, and I had to abide by there laws...
C “Yet...has it dawned on you yet, that there was a second sentence to this comment that mutually applies?”
Brevity is the soul of wit...
C “Would you actually agree D&C 88:81-82...and with Joseph Fielding Smith’s application...that the responsibility goes beyond testifying??? Would you “amen” me if I said I’m glad to be a member of my church and worship as I see fit (one of your articles of faith)...and that this also includes the freedom to engage in an exchange of mutual warning with my neighbors, the Mormons???”
Sure, why not, I have been known to Amen loudly when moved by the spirit to do so.
C “You wouldn’t begrudge me the same freedom you extend to your Lds missionaries, would you DU? Joseph Fielding Smith said the very essence — the commission and commandments — of an Lds missionary is to warn all men. Right?”
You know, it’s hard to teach a man you won’t let get a word in edge wise, they either go to sleep, or leave. I prefer discussions to sermons, so yep, they get to talk to me too, it’s part of communication.
C “So I ask you point blank, DU: Why is it when Lds missionaries “warn” Christians, that gets an “amen!” by Mormons? But when the reverse occurs, Mormons are quick to the draw to pull out their victim card and screetch, “Anti-Mormon! Anti-Mormon!”
You know, I only damned one person on my mission (Must have been a failure!) and I was as surprised as she was, the spirit took over, and I told her things I had no right to know and told her this was her last chance to hear the gospel. (My companion looked at me like I was nuts! I kind of felt I was too), she said, how could you know that, and my husband wont let me join.
You know, I don’t go to threads on Caholocisem, and post stuff about the Nicean Creed, or Sale of indulgences, it’s just rude. I’d be an anti Catholic if I did.
I don’t go to Baptists and talk about clan relationships or how Fred Phelps claims to be a baptist, it’s rude, and I’d be an anti Baptist.
When someone on FR says Hey Mitt’s got nice hair, and the response is: did you know that Mormons sacrifice their own children on the alters of their temples then use black magic to resurrect them so no one will know?
IMHO, The person who can’t let anything good be said of a religion without tearing it down is an “anti”.
Generally speaking, a quick review of someone’s posting history will tell you if they are an anti or not.
C “When Lds missionaries warn us as Christians, is the usual Christian response to those specific comments, “Oh, you’re anti-Christian, eh?”
LOL!
D “I take away from your answers that you hate Mormons and consider us unworthy to bear the name of Jesus. Fine, I thought Jesus loved everyone and that you claim to be his follower... I don’t feel loved by you.”
C “DU, why do you judge my inner soul motivation as “hatred?” Doesn’t God say that man looks at the outward nature of a fellow man, but only God knows the inner man? (see 1 Samuel 16:7)”
I don’t judge your soul, just your answers. I am also qualified to tell you how I feel.
C “Have I negatively judged the inner motivations of all those Lds missionaries I’ve talked to over the years? (No) They are there to testify and to warn, right?”
I’d hope so.
C “The “testify” is the positive portion; the warning is the negative aspect.”
I don’t see warning as necessarily negative. “Watch your step”, “Be careful”, “Drive safe” Vs. your Damned!!!!
C “You’ve got a bit of gall, DU, to accord Lds missionaries the right to speak negatively — to warn — and yet cast all sorts of judgmentalism about me when I do the same in reverse.”
I looked at your posting history and judged your postings accordingly. Could I be wrong, yeah, but if your truly a Christian then you’ll forgive me, if you’re not you won’t forgive me no matter what I do.
C “I respectfully request an apology for your judging my inner man and my motivations. You don’t know me that well.”
Colofornian, you’ve been a member since 2001, and I since 2003 (I could swear I was here during the Clinton years...), I lurked since the 90’s and I’m afraid I do know you better than you think.
You want an apology, fine: If I misjudged you in any way, I apologize for that is not my intent.
C “And if you want people to respect the motivations of Lds missionaries, and respect their freedom to “warn” as they not only see fit but as they interpret your sacred “scriptures,” then please exchange the same common courtesy and honor/respect my right to spiritually warn as I am led by the power of the Holy Spirit.”
Fine, warn away, but don’t tell me what I believe, don’t tell me I’m not a Christian, and don’t quote me stuff out of context and we’ll get along just fine.
Delph
The fun continues.
“Go back a few centuries, they weren’t so kind to each other.”
Oh, certainly, I know that. If I’d lived a century ago, the Catholics would tell me I absolutely can’t be saved outside their church, and the Protestants would say I couldn’t be saved inside the Catholic church. Still, they’ve come to reasonable conclusions, after all that disputation, and basically agreed that the other type of issues that you brought up are not truly obstacles to salvation.
So, if you want to claim these issues are obstacles to salvation which require the Mormon church to settle, then you are going to have to show how the conclusions the Catholics and Protestants came to are wrong. Basically, why is the line of authority of a person’s church more important than their sincere belief in Christ and repentance? Why is a person’s church having a prophet to claim more important than their sincere belief in Christ and repentance? Why is baptism more important than their sincere belief in Christ and repentance? The Protestants and Catholics concluded, I think rightfully so, than those types of things are less important, not being as central to the issue of salvation. Prove them wrong, if you want to make the same types of claims that they ended up abandoning.
“What ever Jesus *is* he *is* our belief, disbelief, understanding or misunderstanding does not change him.”
Certainly, we can’t change Jesus, however we can believe lies or distortions told about Him that aren’t true, and this can lead us to believe that we know Jesus, when in fact we do not. Remember, many will say they knew Him, and He will say “I never knew you”. Must have been some other guy, created in the imaginations of man, that those folks knew.
“We both believe that he is the only begotten of the Father, born of a virgin Mary, Bethlehem, star, wise men, etc.”
Yes, but sometimes the devil is in the details. There are things that we can agree on about Jesus, but that isn’t the essential issue here. The fact that there are some pretty vital things that we cannot agree on about Jesus is the stumbling block, otherwise we’d be embracing as brothers, happy that we had both received the same news about our Lord and Saviour. We haven’t received the same news, though, because you are telling me things about Jesus that aren’t true about the Jesus I know. I don’t think I really need to quote the verse about “another Christ” to show what I’m getting at here.
“Yep, were talking about the same guy, metaphorically speaking: you think God breaks the laws of physics and I think they share the mind of God to achieve oneness... So?”
God writes the laws of physics, He doesn’t break them. I’m a computer programmer, so I know a wee bit about writing those kind of laws, and when I do write laws to govern my own little pathetic creations, I don’t suddenly become bound by them. Why would I assume God would?
I also believe that Christ, the Father, and the Holy Spirit share one mind, since that is well confirmed by the Bible. So I don’t see how that is a difference with a trinitarian or triune belief. If that is the big revelation that I need the Book of Mormon to teach me, that I can’t find in the Bible, then why do I already know that? If there is something more in there that I really need for salvation, then what exactly is it?
I mean, you basically are telling me that we believe in the same God, the same Messiah, and the same plan for salvation, the same Gospel. So, why, if I’ve got all that from regular old Christianity, are the beliefs that I received so corrupt that I need Smith’s revelation to straighten me out?
“Muslims Say Jesus was a prophet (Great Moral Teacher), but they don’t believe he told the truth when he said he was the Savior of the world.”
No, that is not what Muslims believe. They believe that he was a prophet, but that he never claimed to be the saviour or the Son of God. They belief that the Bible was corrupted, and that stuff was changed around, which is why Muhammad had to be sent to restore the message of Allah. That might have a ring of familiarity to you...
The argument about a great moral teacher not being a liar (CS Lewis’ argument), doesn’t work against the Muslims, because they don’t believe Jesus was a liar. They just believe Christians are liars. It’s an argument that is more suited to pseudo-Christians who accept the Bible, but do not accept the divinity of Christ, such as gnostics and Jehovah’s Witnesses.
“Because they don’t just understand differently, they don’t accept his testimony of who he is, hence they don’t believe him.”
Alright, that’s a decent argument. It does boil down to believing Christ’s message, and not simply believing in a Christ of some form. Still, the Muslims and the rest of those guys, think that they accept his testimony, we just don’t believe that their version of his testimony is the correct one, just like I don’t believe that your version of his testimony is the correct one. You say you believe Christ is the Son of God, but if your God doesn’t sound like the God of the Bible, then you might as well be telling me that you believe Jesus is the son of Zeus. The substance of what we believe is the real test of whether our testimony is in agreement, not the names or outward forms we adopt.
Quoted “The bottom line here is that mormons have not offered those who do not share their faith the choice of a)conversion or b)death.”
C “What do you then call the Mormon narrative of baptizing the dead?”
We don’t give the option of Death...
It was just too fun to say! (forgive me for a sense of humor!)
C “Let’s assume for a moment that this narrative tracks reality...I know that’s a long stretch...but stay with me here.”
C “Mormonism claims that when we die, we ALL initially go to the same Spirit World. We’re supposedly ghettoized there, of course. The good Mormons will allegedly eternally “progress” out of there toward the two higher kingdoms; and basically honest religious people can still make the middle kingdom.”
Boy do you have that wrong, but go on...
C “Anyway, Lds believe that Lds spirit missionaries (yes spirit missionaries) will visit the non-Mormons in this spirit world...at least they’ll visit those who have had a proxy baptism done on earth on their behalf.”
Again, BZZT! Wrong!
C “Now the vocab won’t be “convert or die”...but the bottom-line net effect of their “offer” is exactly that.”
C “Either you as a spirit in spirit prison in the spirit world convert to Mormonism then and there...or you will spiritually die by risking continued alienation from the Mormon jesus and perhaps even risking outer darkness...which, tho, is usually reserved in Mormonism for Mormons who apostatize and demons.”
Third Strike and you’re out! (Stop teaching Mormonism long enough to learn it, OK?)
C “I mean, c’mon Ouderkirk. If somebody put you in prison, and told you the only way out was to convert to their religion, what kind of a so-called “choice” is that?”
OK, Let’s start at death.
You’ve got Paradise and Spirit Prison, you die you go to one or the other.
What determines that? your conscience which isn’t gonna lie for ya.
Those in Paradise can go on missions to to spirit prison, they teach everybody the Gospel, there will be many who won’t accept/believe it.
Baptism, being an ordnance of the flesh is performed by living people in proxy for the dead who may, or may not be waiting for it.
The dead choose whether or not to accept the ordinances performed for them, some will reject it and it might as well not have happened, accept that we have been commanded to do it and give them the choice.
Jesus does not come into the picture until the final judgement See Revelations 20:11-15 http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/rev/20.11-15?lang=eng#10
When men are judged out of the book of life according to their works. (It’s in the bible, don’t get mad at me)
Outer darkness, Satan will be cast there, and only those who chose him over God will join him, Cain for example. The number who “qualify for this is really small like five or less out of the whole world. Even Hitler does not qualify, We’re talking a really exclusive club that you don’t want to join here.
There are three main kingdoms, not two. the kingdoms have many sub kingdoms (my fathers house, many mansions... sound familiar?)
As for the Ordinances for the dead, if we’re wrong, then who cares! we’re wasting time doing useless work in temples you don’t want to enter anyway and staying off the street doing less missionary work, it’s a win- win for you!
There, Tried to fix it, but WOW! let us tell people what we believe... please?
Delph
Remember what I said about not taking things out of context after you asked for and received an apology?
This counts.
Anyone who does not know you might think you were doing something hateful, as this is difficult to cast as you Warning me that I need to repent.
Delph
Actually, I work with a couple of FLDS on one project, nice guys, a little introverted, and the long sleeves in July can get a bit well uncomfortable for them and us :-)
Glad I don’t have to dress like that.
Delph
C “So DU...a question for you: Why are you seeking the dead here on FRee Republic among us living in Christ?”
The Three missions of the church:
1. Redeem the dead.
2. Proclaim the Gospel.
3. Perfect the saints.
Your choice, I’m either here to proclaim the Gospel or Perfect the saints...
Delph
C “Well, the Harris’ lost the first umpteen pages of what was to be the Book of Mormon, which Smith suspiciously didn’t “retranslate” from the gold plates....Why not?”
Because conspiring men would alter the translation and say Joseph couldn’t translate the same way twice.
C “So the Book of Mormon is incomplete.”
God knew the 116 pages would be lost so he prepared an alternate account.
Again, your’e not sounding like the sweet Crhistain who just wanted to war me a few posts ago...
C “(That doesn’t prompt Mormons to speak negatively of the BoM, now does it? That doesn’t prompt Mormons to slight the BoM, now does it? That didn’t prompt Smith to add a caveat in the Articles of Faith — like Smith did the Bible about being “translated correctly”, now did it? Why didn’t Smith add a word about the BoM, saying, “insofar as the full ‘translation’ was published???”
The BOM was translated by a prophet of God.
The Bible was translated several times by Scholars, htey did a great work, but they are not God, and they had to guess at how God wanted it translated.
C “Likewise, the Mormon Doctrines & Covenants is not a “complete” book, either. That doesn’t prompt Mormons to speak negatively of the D&C, now does it? That doesn’t prompt Mormons to slight the D&C, now does it?”
The D&C is an open Cannon, we are still adding to it.
C “You see, for Mormons, ONLY the Bible has these suspicions cast upon it with these statements.”
Which Bible, the one with or without first and Second Maccabees?
C “They don’t cast these same aspersions on their OTHER “standard works” for similar reasons. Why, how “strange.”
Actually, we don’t use the Joseph Smith translation because the Copyright is owned by the RLDS, and since we don’t have a complete track an any changes they may have made, we won’t use it. We do use excerpts that we can prove are unaltered. So we do have a similar problem with other stuff.
Delph
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.