Did DU REALLY say that?
Posted on 11/28/2012 6:00:38 PM PST by Colofornian
Again, I was zotted/banned for almost a year. So therefore (duh) I was not allowed to respond.
____________________________________________
Well rejoice Sandy
The gods of the RF must be Mormon..
they changed their minds...
and it came to pass thou mayest respond forthwith..
So when are you going to respond?
Did DU REALLY say that?
hum?
To bad God didn’t preserve all those artifacts in north America to show actual evidence for the BoM, to go along with those missing pages.
Have you ever wondered how archeological evidence for the Bible is still around but nothing for the BoM?
Only been free for a short few days after a year of imprisonment in shackles or sumpin'
soon she'll be
again...
Then watch out you meanies...
Had a very nice Thanksgiving, svcw, thanks.
C “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.”
According to my understanding, the dogma that the Catholic Church is infallible means that any tenet once held they Church must keep, or admit that they are wrong and therefore not infallible and therefore, not God’s Church, ergo if they had sale of indulgences once, then it’s still a valid principle, thus we are all still damned, they just won’t talk about it so much...
I’m trying to to descend into Verbosity personnafied mode, so I’m not going to cover all aspects of any issue. I’m also not arguing, but answering questions.
JFTR, it’s one thing to say X will cause damnation, and another to say, you do X therefore you are Damned (especially when the definition of X is the topic of debate)
C “Do New Agers exercising “Christ consciousness” — imbued with Hindu and cultic injections — mean that they, too are “Christian?””
Are they claiming to follow Christ? Are they supporting their beliefs from the Bible, or merely borrowing *some* godliness?
C “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).”
Agreed, one of the unique things about Christianity among all the religions out there is... God answers prayers... still. We don’t have to be in the dark, we can ask him stuff.
C “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.”
No argument about Lutherans, my point was the convention of calling them by his name because the adhere to his tenets, and worship Christ Luther’s way, of course they are also Christians.
C “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.”
LOL! that’s the point, I don’t need for you to believe I have the Gospel *Right* to be called a Christian, and you don’t need my approval either. Only Jesus knows for sure who is following him correctly, so that’s a dumb argument to even have, let alone thing you can win.
My father once taught me something that has save me much consternation, “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.” It’s hard to convince a man who doesn’t feel like you bothered to listen to, or even like, that you have his best interest in heart and thus, teach him. Hence my comment about not felling loved by the “Christians” here who want to tell people (badly at best) what I believe for me and will then argue with me about the tenets of my own faith. If you want to teach people the gospel, you have to do it Christ’s way or your not teaching the Gospel, but “some other Gospel”, Christ taught with Love, you want to convert more Mormons? Love them like Christ does. Trust me on this if on nothing else, I was a very effective missionary, because I loved the people I was there to teach.
C “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.”
If anyone really wanted to find your real name... they could. However, I respect your wishes.
C “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 have a 17 year old daughter... She’s dating now, it’s kind of scary, but my relationship is still good enough that she comes to me for advice... and LAN parties with her friends... It’s weird, I’m more popular with the high school set now than i was when I was in High school. I guess it’s easier when you don’t care as much.
Oh yeah, the LAN parties, I’d rather have her bringing her friends over to my house to play stuff, I know the lights will be on, we’ll be home and nothing “bad” will happen, so yeah, I get what you mean about protection, but it’s done with love.
C “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.”
Some times that is so, but Love sometimes seems like an old maid, if you know what I mean.
C “Love ya, DU.”
I’m not quite that easy, we’ll see, but I hope you do.
Delph
D “When I taught as a missionary, the first discussion was about Joseph Smith, the first vision, and how the Godhead was different from the trinity. (Not much hiding going on if’n you ask me)”
C “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.”
It’d be kind of hard to have the first vision in the Book of Mormon... it’s a Temporal Mechanics thing :-)
C “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?”
Parts of it, we do ask them to pray about the First vision. It’s just not possible to start with “*everything* and quite frankly, our “job” if you can call it that is to present the Church in a logical, understand able fashion, and bring people to Christ. I know there are many here who would love us to start with the second or third floor of the house, but that would be like trying to explain to a potential Catholic transubstantiation without explaining the atonement, or starting to teach that potential catholic about the assumption of Mary with out explaining who she was, who Jesus was and just why she might be special. It’s not dishonest, it’s just structure.
C “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.”
Actually, the instructions say to ask them to pray about both. It’s easier sometimes to focus one one or the other, and missionaries have diffrent tyles and diffrent things they have an easier time testifying of, so the experiance varies.
C “THAT is the bait & switch, Delf...”
I’m sorry, I don’t see a bait and switch, we don’t come to the door as Methodists and then spring Mormonism on them once we are inside. We don’t wear priest’s collars and then pull out a Book of Mormon once we are inside, to me it just seems that you are upset that we are effective. Don’t be upset, learn from us, be better proselytizer for your own religion. It’s not like we hypnotize strong God fearing Episcopalians and lead them to baptism in a trance. IF people aren’t interested, or at least curious, we go to the next door.
D “That stuff is all in the Bible, you just aren’t focused on the scriptures they are from.”
C “Sorry Delf...but if Eve was made in God’s (physical) image, then God has female body parts.”
Yeah, well I am having a hard time taking you seriously on that one...
C “Or do you claim that women were NOT made in God’s image?”
Not when it comes to “female body parts”...
C “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.”
The argument Paul was using was that baptism for the dead (a common practice that everyone knew about) made no sense, if there was no resurrection.
First century Christians practiced baptism for the dead, and there are some real interesting baptisteries in the dessert around Israel if you’d like to go look, I found them fascinating.
As for one ness of God, go reread John 17 http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/john/17?lang=eng
A few lines from Jesus on the subject of oneness:
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
“Even as we are one”. Do you know what a simile is? We know the Apostles were approved of by the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost (if not sooner) and we know that they were not of one substance, they did not join together into some pre-technology transformer / super apostle. We do know that they were one in heart might mind and strength and that the power of the Lord God of Israel was with them.
One is not necessarily a numerical descriptor.
C “Besides, the D&C says the BoM “contains the fulness of the everlasting gospel”...I guess it ain’t so “full” ... is it?”
That depends on your definition of “fullness” If you think the Book of Mormon is a stand alone book, then you are right, but it was written as a “Second Testament of Jesus Christ”, thus it only needs to fill in gaps to be a fullness.
Be well.
Delph
Obviously, you are trying to use simple logic to overcome cunning deception.
I pray that the Holy Spirit can use it in a powerful manner.
So the mainstream Mormon church then essentially disobeyed God to have this version reproduced, right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EBsLOJv-yI
Elsie; it’s a fool that looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart.
(Oh, you mean like the Book of Mormon god, who declares that his decrees are unalterable...see Alma 41:8...but then alters them? Like the "keep out" nature of skin color? Like polygamy being an "abomination" in the Book of Mormon...only to be allowed one year later...only to be brought to bear...pressure-wise...on most of Lds leadership...only to be withdrawn??? Or baptizing the dead? Some small sect does it outside of Christianity during Paul's time...only for it to stop...only for it to NOT be in the "restored" church for a decade...only for it to THEN enter...Or how about all those "no second chances" for salvation beyond the grave verses in the Book of Mormon...only for that to change a decade later? )
"Any tenet" the Mormon church had...they MUST keep!
"Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned;
and I will go still further and say, take this revelation, or any other revelation that the Lord has given,
and deny it in your feelings, and I promise that you will be damned.
Brigham Young - JoD 3:266 (July 14, 1855)
No; you merely claim to be CHRISTIAN and THEN pull out a Book of Mormon, which at once proves you AIN'T!
The reason we are 'upset' is that MORMONism is a cyst on the Body of Christ.
Your chosen religion is NOT 'effective'; but DEFECTIVE.
well ok
Hi Elsie,
Any one who reads the Book of Mormon with an open mind will find it to be a book with Christ at the very center — and that its message is to persuade people to believe in Him and follow Him.
Best,
Normandy
500
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.