xanmad33
-
Posts
250 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by xanmad33
-
-
By the way, I notice that you are cutting and pasting from the anti-Mormon bigot Rev Bob Pardon and trying to pass it off as your own material.
Honesty requires that you either author your own posts or give credit to those that do.
actually if you'll notice those were all in quotations
-
Silly word games are pointless. Your complaint is that you think The Church of Jesus Christ is false.
Again, that would be my OPINION...
Honesty is important and you are now being dishonest. LDS does not reject Christianity. That is a false allegation. A true Christian would not dishonestly fabricate charges. The Church of Jesus Christ is Christian and we obviously don't reject ourselves. We do not believe that Roman Catholicism and Protestantism are correct on all points and thus reject some of their beliefs and their claims to authority.
I call upon you as a Christian to be honest in your posts.
Who's being dishonest?
How about a few quotes from Mormon Prophets and Apostles?...
Christendom at the present day, and where are they, with all their boasted religion, piety, and sacredness while at the same time they are crying out against prophets, apostles, angels, revelations, prophesying and visions, etc. Why, they are just ripening for the damnation of hell. They will be damned, for they reject the most glorious principle of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and treat with disdain and trample under foot the key that unlocks the heavens and puts in our possession the glories of the celestial world. Yes, I say, such will be damned, with all their professed godliness. (Joseph Smith, Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith, compiled by Alma P. Burton, p.220)
The gates of hell have prevailed and will continue to prevail over the Catholic mother of harlots, and over all her Protestant daughters; but as for the apostolical Church of Christ, she rests secure in the mansions of eternal happiness, where she will remain until the apostate Catholic church, with all her popes and bishops, together with all her harlot daughters shall be hurled down to hell; (Orson Pratt’s Works, p. 189-190)
But to return to the Christians' idol. The pious, zealous, religious and hypocritical in our day, uniting with political demagogues, have set up a God for us to worship.... this loathsome, filthy, debauched, degraded monster is held up for our veneration and worship by its corrupt Christian devotees as the essence of everything that is great and grand, noble and praiseworthy; and we are called upon to fall down and worship this loathsome monster. (Journal of Discourses, 26 vols., 23:, p.36)
Or How bout this
I will now turn linguist. There are many things in the Bible which do not, as they now stand, accord with the revelations of the Holy Ghost to me. (Joseph Smith, Encyclopedia of Joseph Smith's Teachings, edited by Larry E. Dahl and Donald Q.Cannon)
or this:
It is from the Book of Mormon that we gain the concept of a "plan of salvation." This phrase is not a part of the vocabulary of theology of the Bible-believing world. The idea is not found in the Bible. We know it should be there, because we have it in the book of Moses (Moses 6:62), but the Bible as we have it today does not contain any reference to a divine plan for the salvation of men. (Doctrinal Commentary on the Book of Mormon v1 R. Millet)
A fact I bet you can't prove. You may have posted on the topic but you haven't covered any irreconcilable differences with the Bible as their are none... only in your mind.
Ah..ya got me...
heres a little outline
"The Bible teaches that there is only one True and Living God and apart from Him there are no other Gods (Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 43:10,11; 44:6,8; 45:21,22; 46:9; Mark 12:29-34).
the Mormon Church teaches that there are many Gods (Book of Abraham 4:3ff), and that we can become gods and goddesses in the celestial kingdom (Doctrine and Covenants 132:19-20; Gospel Principles, p. 245; Achieving a Celestial Marriage, p. 130). It also teaches that those who achieve godhood will have spirit children who will worship and pray to them, just as we worship and pray to God the Father (Gospel Principles, p. 302).
The Bible teaches That God is Spirit (John 4:24; 1 Timothy 6:15,16), He is not a man (Numbers 23:19; Hosea 11:9; Romans 1:22, 23), and has always (eternally) existed as God —He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, all powerful, all knowing, and everywhere present (Psalm 90:2; 139:7-10; Isaiah 40:28; Luke 1:37).
the Mormon Church teaches that God the Father was once a man like us who progressed to become a God and has a body of flesh and bone (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22; "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!" from Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-347; Gospel Principles, p. 9; Articles of Faith, p. 430; Mormon Doctrine, p. 321). Indeed, the Mormon Church teaches that God himself has a father, and a grandfather, ad infinitum (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 373; Mormon Doctrine, p. 577).
-The Bible teaches and that Jesus is the unique Son of God; he has always existed as God, and is co-eternal and co-equal with the Father (John 1:1, 14; 10:30; 14:9; Colossians 2:9). While never less than God, at the appointed time He laid aside the glory He shared with the Father (John 17:4, 5; Philippians 2:6-11) and was made flesh for our salvation; His incarnation was accomplished through being conceived supernaturally by the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin (Matthew 1:18-23; Luke 1:34-35).
-By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that Jesus Christ is our elder brother who progressed to godhood, having first been procreated as a spirit child by Heavenly Father and a heavenly mother; He was later conceived physically through intercourse between Heavenly Father and the virgin Mary (Achieving a Celestial Marriage, p. 129; Mormon Doctrine, pp. 546-547; 742). Mormon doctrine affirms that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers (Gospel Principles, pp. 17-18; Mormon Doctrine, p. 192).
--The Bible teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost are not separate Gods or separate beings, but are distinct Persons within the one Triune Godhead. Throughout the New Testament the Son and the Holy Spirit, as well as the Father are separately identified as and act as God (Son: Mark 2:5-12; John 20:28; Philippians 2:10,11; Holy Spirit: Acts 5:3,4; 2 Corinthians 3:17,18; 13:14); yet at the same time the Bible teaches that these three are only one God (see point 1).
--By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate Gods (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 370; Mormon Doctrine, pp. 576-577), and that the Son and Holy Ghost are the literal offspring of Heavenly Father and a celestial wife (Joseph Fielding McConkie, Encyclopedia of Mormonism, vol. 2, p. 649).
--The Bible teaches that the disobedience of our first parents Adam and Eve was a great evil. Through their fall sin entered the world, bringing all human beings under condemnation and death. Thus we are born with a sinful nature, and will be judged for the sins we commit as individuals. (Ezekiel 18:1-20; Romans 5:12-21).
--By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that Adam’s sin was "a necessary step in the plan of life and a great blessing to all of us" (Gospel Principles, p. 33; Book of Mormon — 2 Nephi 2:25; Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp. 114-115).
--The Bible teaches that apart from the saving work of Jesus Christ on the cross we are spiritually "dead in trespasses and sins" (Ephesians 2:1,5) and are powerless to save ourselves. By grace alone, apart from self-righteous works, God forgives our sins and makes us worthy to live in His presence (Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5-6). Our part is only to cling to Christ in heartfelt faith. (However, it is certainly true that without the evidence of changed conduct, a person’s testimony of faith in Christ must be questioned; salvation by grace alone through faith, does not mean we can live as we please — Romans 6:1-4).
--By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that eternal life in the presence of God (which it terms "exaltation in the celestial kingdom") must be earned through obedience to all the commands of the Mormon Church, including exclusive Mormon temple rituals. Works are a requirement for salvation (entrance into the "celestial kingdom") — Gospel Principles, p. 303-304; Pearl of Great Price — Third Article of Faith; Mormon Doctrine, pp. 339, 671; Book of Mormon — 2 Nephi 25:23).
--The Bible teaches that the purpose of the atoning work of Christ on the cross was to provide the complete solution for humankind’s sin problem. However, those who reject God’s grace in this life will have no part in this salvation but are under the judgment of God for eternity (John 3:36; Hebrews 9:27; 1 John 5:11-12).
--By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that the purpose of the atonement was to bring resurrection and immortality to all people, regardless of whether they receive Christ by faith. Christ’s atonement is only a partial basis for worthiness and eternal life, which also requires obedience to all the commands of the Mormon church, including exclusive Mormon temple rituals (Gospel Principles, pp. 74-75; Mormon Doctrine, p. 669).
--The Bible teaches that the Bible is the unique, final and infallible Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16; Hebrews 1:1,2; 2 Peter 1:21) and that it will stand forever (1 Peter 1:23-25). God’s providential preservation of the text of the Bible was marvelously illustrated in the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
--By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that the Bible has been corrupted, is missing many "plain and precious parts" and does not contain the fullness of the Gospel (Book of Mormon — 1 Nephi 13:26-29; Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3, pp. 190-191).
--The Bible teaches that the true Church was divinely established by Jesus and could never and will never disappear from the earth (Matthew 16:18; John 15:16; 17:11). Christians acknowledge that there have been times of corruption and apostasy within the Church, but believe there has always been a remnant that held fast to the biblical essentials.
--By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that there was a great and total apostasy of the Church as established by Jesus Christ; this state of apostasy "still prevails except among those who have come to a knowledge of the restored gospel" of the Mormon Church (Gospel Principles, pp. 105-106; Mormon Doctrine, p. 44).""
You apparently don't understand how it works. He who makes the assertion bears the burden of proof. You claimed that deification contradicted the Bible. Support your assertion. While you are at it, you might try explain why the doctrine was so pervasive in the ancient church ("God became man so that man might become a god." cf. St. Athanasius, De Incarnatione or On the Incarnation 54:3, PG 25:192B;)
here's a few...
There is only one God, who has eternally existed:
Isaiah 43:10-11: "I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, and the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour."
Isaiah 44:6: "Thus saith the LORD...I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God."
Isaiah 45:22: ...and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me....I am God, and there is none else."
Isa 42:8: "I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images."
Read the post. No one told you what you believe. You failed to respond in any meaningful way and simply repeated what you said before. The point is/was that the Trinity is is more that a designation, it is the belief that Father, Son, Holy Ghost are one single ontological being comprised of the same ousia. I explained that, contrary to your incorrect claim, that such a notion was NOT found in the Bible and that you would help demonstrate that it was NOT in the Bible by not being able to post proof of it.
Christians believe that there is one God by nature revealed through three distinct persons. No Christian believes in three gods.
The Bible teaches there is only one God which we are to follow and believe in. (Isaiah 43:10, Isaiah 44:6-8, Isaiah 45:22)
The Bible teaches that God is one in nature not one in person. (Genesis 1:26, Genesis 11:7, Genesis 19:24, Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 48:12-18, Amos 4:10-12)
The Bible teaches God is one in unity. (Deuteronomy 6:4) " The Hebrew word here for one is "echad" which means a compound unity. Places which show this in context for the word "echad" are in Genesis 2:24, Ezra 2:64, Ezekiel 37:17 and other references."
The Bible teaches that there is only one God. (Isaiah 43:10, Isaiah 44:6-8, Isaiah 45:22)
The Bibles teaches that there is one who is called the Father and is identified as being God. (1 Peter 1:2)
The Bible teaches that there is one who is called Jesus and is identified as being God. (John 1:1-3&14-18, John 20:28-29, 1 John 1:1-4&5:20, Philippians 2:5-8, Revelation 1:17-18, Revelation 22:12-20)
The Bible teaches that there is one who is called the Holy Spirit and is identified as being God. (John 14:16-17, John 15:26, John 16:7-15, Acts 5:3-4, Acts 13:2, 1 Corinthians 12:4-18, Hebrews 9:14, Hebrews 10:15-18)
God said, “Is there a God beside me? Yea, there is no God; I know not any”. How can there be Gods who are Elohim’s ancestors? Surely an all-knowing God would know this and wouldn’t speak falsehoods. (See Isa. 44:8 and Journal of Discourses Vol. 1, pg. 123)
If a spirit is a being without a body (See Luke 24:39), why do Mormons teach that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones? (See John 4:24)
If the Father is Elohim, and Jesus is Jehovah (as the Mormons teach), how does a Mormon explain Deuteronomy 6:4, which in the Hebrew says, “Hear, O Israel: Jehovah our Elohim is one Jehovah”?
You are using the word "hypocritical" incorrectly. Look it up. You are also falsely alleging that I blast the Bible as not worthy to live by. Remember what I said about honesty above? Please be honest. I have never said the Bible is not worthy to live by.
Here's the first definition for you...
a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs
Let me illistrate that better for you....
Many Mormons I have encountered on this site (in this very thread)claim to believe in the Bible, but when pressed to prove how the Bible supports any Momon claims, they quickly turn the conversation into proving the Bible is corrupt and untrustworthy. That sounds like hypocritical to me...
Interesting... but completely irrelevant to anything I have posted in this thread. Try focusing.
How is that irrelevant? Especially when the Bible's accuracy has been questioned in this very thread?
God doesn't need to do anything. He does what he does for his purposes. Your approval is not required. You question is also a bad question. It presupposes that LDS beliefs are out of sync with the Bible. You really struggle with this whole honesty issue. An honest position would be that LDS beliefs are out of sync with YOUR interpretation of the Bible. So what.
Actually an honest position would be that LDS beliefs are out of sync with the Biblical interpretation of thousands of Biblical scholars, Hebrew scholars, Greek scholars etc.
-
This is why there are hundreds of different Christian denominations in the world. It is obvious more is needed than just the record of ancient prophets left for us.
If this is truly the case...That we "need more" because of hundreds of different denominations, How do you explain the hundreds of different denominations of Mormonism?
All the new revelation from LDS has done nothing to ammend the situation.
-
Upon Saul's vision, 'the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.' (Acts 9:7). However, when Paul recounted that event he said: 'And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.' (Acts 22:9)
Wait a minute Paul, did they hear the voice or not? What did they see?
Let us look further...
. . "In the original Greek, however, there is no real contradiction between these two statements. Greek makes a distinction between hearing a sound as a noise (in which case the verb "to hear" takes the genitive case) and hearing a voice as a thought-conveying message (in which case it takes the accusative). Therefore, as we put the two statements together, we find that Paul's companions heard the Voice as a sound (somewhat like the crowd who heard the sound of the Father talking to the Son in John 12:28, but perceived it only as thunder); but they did not (like Paul) hear the message that it articulated. Paul alone heard it inteligibly (Acts 9:4 says Paul ekousen phonen--accusative case); though he, of course, perceived it also as a startling sound at first (Acts 22:7: "I fell to the ground and heard a voice [ekousa phones] saying to me," NASB). But in neither account is it stated that his companions ever heard that Voice in the accusative case. "
-- Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, by Gleason L. Archer, p. 382.
Upon the covenant of Israel in the wilderness with Moses: 'They saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness. And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink.' (Exodus 24:10-11)
if we look in the Septuagint version we read the following:
"And they saw the place where the God of Israel stood."
John 1:18 says: 'No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.'
Joseph Smith clarified: 'No man hath seen God at any time except he hath borne record of the Son, which is in the bosom of the Father.' (JST John 1:18)
-a-train
God cannot be seen by men when in his full glory, that is Biblical no need for Josephs clarification. God can be seen when in lesser form...
-
The Book of Mormon has only gone through 1 language translation, and that was done by the gift and power of God. The Angel told Joseph Smith that the translation was true.
Joseph Smith was inspired when he translated the Book of Mormon, I'm very hesitant to say the same of everyone who has contributed to the Bible being translated into English.
Funny.... You have trouble believing thousands of pieces of evidence that attest to the accuracy of the Bible, even from MORMON scholars...
How about some evidence from MORMON scholars attesting to the inaccuracy of the BOM?
in regard to what book is more trustworthy I found this interesting article:
Since the Book of Mormon is claimed to be the Word of God, and Joseph Smith stated, "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on the face of the earth" (History of the Church, vol. 4, p.461), the implication is that this work is perfect in form and content.
This has also been the understanding of LDS Church authorities during the last 150 years. Joseph Fielding Smith, sixth President of the Church, stated in a sermon:
"Joseph did not render the writing on the gold plates into the English language in his own style of language as many people believe, but every word and letter was given to him by the gift and power of God...The Lord caused each word spelled as it is in the book to appear on the stones in short sentences or words, and when Joseph had uttered the sentence or word before him and the scribe had written it properly, that sentence would disappear and another would appear. And if there was a word wrongly written or even a letter incorrect, the writing on the stones would remain there. Then Joseph would require the scribe to spell the reading of the last spoken and thus find the mistake and when corrected the sentence would disappear as usual." (Journal of Oliver Huntington, 1881, p. 168)
Joseph Fielding Smith, tenth President of the Church, has likewise stated:
"Inspiration is discovered in the fact that each part, as it was revealed, dovetailed perfectly with what had come before. There was no need for eliminating, changing, or adjusting any part to make it fit, but each new revelation an doctrine and priesthood fitted into its place perfectly to complete the whole structure, as it has been prepared by the Master Builder." (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1954, vol. I, p.170)
It would seem reasonable to assume, in light of such teachings by Church authorities, that current editions of the Book of Mormon would be identical to the 1830 edition, particularly since God made the translation.
The following are a few examples of such corrected errors:
1. "Adam and Eve, which was our first parents." (p.15) grammar
2. "...and loosed the bands which was upon my wrists." (p.49) grammar
3. "As I was a journeying." (p.249) - grammar
4. "...they had began to possess the land of Amulon, and had began to till the ground." (p.204) -- grammar
It is difficult to understand how a translation, superintended by the power of God, could contain such basic errors. It also cannot be said that these errors crept in through poor proof-reading or type-setting. Noted Mormon historian, Francis Kirkham, had this to say when considering the vast majority of changes in the original text:
"Such is the nature of the errors in question, and so interwoven are they throughout the diction of the book, that they may not be disposed of by saying they result from inefficient proof-reading or referring them to the mischievous disposition of the 'typos,' or the unfriendliness of the publishing house. The errors are constitutional in their character, they are of the web and woof of the style and not such errors as may be classed as typographical. Indeed, the first edition of the Book of Mormon is singularly free from typographical errors." (Francis W. Kirkham, A New Witness for Christ in America, The Book of Mormon, 1942, pp.200-201)
"Far more serious and troublesome are the substantive errors; those that have been corrected which were found to be in conflict with Mormon doctrine. The following are two illustrations.
In the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon, on page 32, it reads, "And the angel spake unto me, saying: 'These last records...shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Saviour of the World; and that all men must come unto Him, or they cannot be saved.'" This corresponds to 1 Nephi 13:40 in modern editions. Then on page 25 of the 1830 edition it reads, "And he said unto me, 'Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh...' And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms. And the angel said unto me, 'behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father.'" This corresponds to 1 Nephi 11: 18-21. The problem in these sections, and two others, is that Jesus is said to be the Eternal Father, contrary to current Mormon teaching. In later editions, "the Son of God" has been inserted before "the Eternal Father."
Then I came across these remarks made by Dr. Dee Green, Mormon scientist and former editor of U.A.S. Newsletter. In the journal, Dialogue, he states in regard to no archaeological evidence supporting the BOM:
"There have been no spectacular finds, no Zarahemlas discovered, no gold plates brought to light, no horses uncovered, and King Benjamin's tomb remains unexcavated...
The first myth we need to eliminate is that Book of Mormon archaeology exists. Titles on books full of archaeological half truths, dilettanti on the peripheries of American archaeology calling themselves Book of Mormon archaeologists regardless of their education, and a Department of Archaeology at BYU devoted to the production of Book of Mormon archaeologists do not insure that book of Mormon archaeology really exists. If one is to study Book of Mormon archaeology then one must have a corpus of data with which to deal. We do not. The Book of Mormon is really there so one can have Book of Mormon studies, and archaeology is really there so one can study archaeology, but the two are not wed. At least they are not wed in reality since no Book of Mormon location is known with reference to modern topography. Biblical archaeology can be studied because we do know where Jerusalem and Jericho were and are, but we do not know where Zarahemla and Bountiful (nor any other location for that matter) were or are. It would seem then that a concentration on geography should be the first order of business, but we have already seen that twenty years of such an approach has left us empty handed." (Dialogue, Summer 1969, pp. 77-78)"
Why would there be a need to change such dramatic doctrines?
like : "the Son of God" has been inserted before "the Eternal Father? Thats not just "gramatical"
-
The transmission of the Book of Mormon is much simpler, regardless the same notion applies to both tomes.
Let me ask you this: Do you believe the Bible to be the correct word of God, even if translated (edited, redacted, canonized, copied, transmitted and translated) incorrectly?
I imagine that you are in complete agreement with the "disclaimer... are you not?
Why does the Mormon church NOT place the same disclaimer on the BOM?
Yes, I do believe the BIble is the correct word of God. The Bible has been tested and tried for THOUSANDS of years and there has never been one single provable falshood in the WHOLE book. This is an amazing book, as your Mormon scholars at BYU have so eloquently stated (outlined in my last two posts)
There are plenty of websites that list the archeological evidences as well as the amazing history of the Bible if one were so inclined...
Further....How can you take some of the BIble and not all other parts?
How do you decide what IS correct?
You being a Mormon obviously BELIEVE in the BIble as stated repeatedly, so what parts do you NOT believe in? And how do you come to those conclusions?
I don't know what the poster said but what you say they said is incorrect. Our doctrine is contained in our canon. Conference talks may be true but they are interpretation of doctrine, not the creation of doctrine.
Again, I would like to point to richlittles post on this....
-
Not sure where you gather all your facts, but I can tell you love the Bible, as do I, tremendously, as I tried to point out earlier.
It is not now or ever my intent to "prove" the Book of Mormon or the Bible as perfect or imperfect or true or untrue or anything other than what I said we believed they are--- words of God written down by men doing their best to record God's message of hope and salvation. I have also stated that in all our scriptures, they point to Christ, they speak of Christ, and they inspire us to do good.
That was your initial question to me wasn't it? That what are the "issues" that we view as relevant to salvation and what do we consider canon and does one book have any value over another?
I have answered those the best I can.
In 1835 Joseph Smith also said it was necessary to have a correct idea of God's character, perfections and attributes if you wanted faith in God unto life and salvation.
I was wondering where you get those particular ideas, cosidering they are matters of eternal salvation...
Yes, so far as they are translated correctly.
Is this also the case for the rest of your cannon? BOM? D&C ETC.?
Not sure what you mean about disclaimer, but as I said, even Mormon, the original author of the Book of Mormon (or Joseph Smith if you think the BofM a false work) admits there may be errors. In fact, the Book of Mormon says that Jesus Christ was born in Jerusalem---that's a pretty big error. We don't try to hide it. However, when we add the context of all our scriptures together against this one point, it is very simple to deduce that there was obviously an error in transcription, translation, or prior knowledge of geography on the authors part, and that, rather, Christ was born in Bethlehem.
The Bible has similar errors (from our perspective, not yours, and I'm not trying to convince you otherwise) and for us all the scriptures together complement each other. That is what I was referring to when you initially asked me about what our canon is, and whether or not we hold one book of canon above another. As I tried to indicate, many, like myself, love the Bible and find great comfort in its specific teachings.
Why does the Mormon church place a disclaimer on the Bible in other languages but they do no such thing for the BOM?
The wiki is not part of our canon. I personally, as stated before, feel that Babylon represents the wickedness of the world, and the whore of Babylon could be interpreted to mean any of many wicked organization that have existed throughout history that seeks the misery of mankind in one form or another through the control of wealth and power and the subjugation of others. I do not agree with Pratt, at least not as you may interpret it. As I stated earlier, I do NOT believe that the "whore of Babylon" would apply to any one or group who is trying to live by Christian principles.
I'm sorry but what exactly DOES it mean? When your apostle Orson Pratt calls Catholics and Protestants the "Whore of Babylon"? Maybe you can enlighten me...
Not correct. In the first place, you may be one up on me here because I would have to see the context in which that was spoken. I'm not sure, in those initial days, what proceeding he was speaking at, and I'm not sure which proceedings were considered official and which were not in those days. Most importantly, however, as I pointed out earlier, we believe in Modern revelation which takes precedence (or attempts to clarify) the scriptures according to the times in which we live, and the most recent General Conferences have the most relevance to us now,and I haven't in 20 years heard any of our leaders teaching about "the whore of Babylon" being Protestants and Catholics , but rather, I have heard them consistently encourage us to seek harmony with our Christian brothers and sisters and with all the peoples of this world.
I'll just quote ritchlittle here:
"In all fairness to xanmad, I had listed the General Conference talks as part of our canon, along with the Bible and BofM, DC, etc.. I tend to use "scripture" "canon" "doctrine" all interchangeably. Nevertheless, Joseph F. Smith gave new doctrine in General Conference (DC 138), and if you do a search on lds.org, you'll see that our prophets constantly refer to our canon as "open canon" or "open scriptural canon" (as opposed to "closed canon") And since we are instructed that General Conferences are the place where the apostles and prophet give us specific instruction for the needs of our time, I would say they are canon, for where else do we recieve ongoing revelation or direct counsel to our times? However, others may disagree, so I think I'll start another thread and get some input on this from others (as we are already digressing quite a bit from the original topic of this post).
-
No need to pretend; you know full well because I quoted you in the post you just responded to; specifically you complained: "To a Christian (myself), this statement is completely false, it's probably also one reason I think maybe Ceboo said what he did. One simply cannot in good conscience truly reconcile Mormon doctrine's found in the POGP, D&C, BOM, and J&D (not to mention countless prophets who have "heard" countless revelations from God) to The Holy Bible."
1. You complained that to a Christian (the statement) was false. Newsflash: Members of the Church of Jesus Christ are Christian.
2. You then make the deliberately inflammatory and completely FALSE statement that one cannot reconcile LDS doctrine to the bible. Its untrue. I, a Christian can reconcile them without difficulty.
A complaint is an expression of displeasure. Not an expression of opinion
And to your "newsflash" , I pointed out earlier a very real fact that seems ignored
Do Mormons consider Christians Mormon? Can I attend Temple? Can my pastor speak at your church? No!.... LDS rejects Christianity as wrong (doctrinally speaking) just as Christianity rejects LDS as doctrinally unsound.
That's just a fact
I don't think you have done any such thing as there are no reconcilable difficulties between The Church of Jesus Christ and the Bible. We accept it all. Every word. It is YOUR INTERPRETATION that may not reconcile. Christians are not bound by your interpretation, in fact it is completely inconsequential.
Regardless of "what you think" Its a fact.
Pure malarky, the bible does not contradict theosis in the least. The Bible in fact implies it in a number of places. The teaching, that man might become god, was a fundamental teaching and understanding of the ancient Christian Church... a doctrine that was lost and then restored by the Church of Jesus Christ.
How bout you show me that in the Bible, maybe start a new thread, make it all about proving Mormon beliefs in the BIble, just a thought...
No that doesn't help and it completely untrue. The late invention of the Trinity is more than merely a notion to describe the different designations of God. It stipulates that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are ontologically one being all comprised of the same substance... something that is not found in the Bible... as you are about to demonstrate by not being able to reference anything from the Bible that speaks to that.
Please don't tell me what I do or do not believe. Again the oneness of God is of paramount importance to a Christian, the "trinity" is a word used to describe the different designations for God. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost) are different designations for the one God. God is the Father. God is the Holy Spirit. The Son is God manifest in flesh. Believe it or not, that is my belief
Wrong. Timothy says nothing about the Christian Bible as currently constituted, whether it be the Protestant Bible, the Catholic Bible or the Ethiopian Bible - all of which contain different sets of books. At the time Timothy was written there was no New Testament and so it couldn't possibly have referred to the New Testament and the author of Timothy had no idea that one day Timothy itself would become canonized. The Christian bible would take hundreds of years to develop into what it is today.
Again - nothing in the Bible says that only the Bible is the word of God and God has never said so either.... but I challenge you to show otherwise... I'll wait.
First, I would like to point out how hypocritical it is to claim to believe in the Bible and claim to hold it just as dearly as the BOM, believeing it's words are true, but at the same time to blast it as if it's a totally contaminated book, not worthy to live by...
How about instead of me pointing out all the thousands of inconsistancies of the BOM, and rebuttaling with pages and pages of Biblical scholars on the subject, I just offer you a quote from one of your own...
"Mormon scholar, Dr. Richard Anderson, of BYU:
"Mormon writers have often taught that the Bible is a wholly unreliable record in matters of doctrine and history. This is because many "plain and precious truths" were either lost, removed, or corrupted by early Church leaders and later generations. However, modern Mormon scholarship has recently aligned itself with the findings of non-Mormon scholars around the world. Dr. Richard Anderson, of BYU, stated:
"In studying a particular author in antiquity, the classical scholar typically works with a few principal manuscripts, together with a few more extensive fragments or portions of manuscripts. The New Testament scholar, however, faces the wonderful but impossible prospect of attempting to comprehend a text preserved in about 3,000 manuscripts...Nor is sheer quantity most impressive, for the antiquity of his manuscripts should be the envy of all ancient studies...With such an early collection, the question naturally arises how the text is different from the traditional one. Differences lie in numerous details, but the outstanding conclusion is that there is little, if any, significant change"
It is easy to get lost in debate on details and fail to see the overwhelming agreement of all manuscripts to the historical record of the New Testament...This survey has disclosed the leading textual controversies, and together they would be well within one percent of the text. Stated differently, all manuscripts agree on the essential correctness of 99% of the verses in the New Testament...There is more reason today, then, to agree with him (Sir Frederic Kenyon) that we possess the New Testament 'in substantial integrity' and to underline that 'the variations of the text are so entirely questions of detail, not of essential substance.' It is true that the Latter-day Saints have taken the position that the present Bible is much changed from its original form. However, greatest changes would logically have occurred in writings more remote than the New Testament. The textual history of the New Testament gives every reason to assume a fairly stable transmission of the documents we possess." (Fourteenth Annual Symposium of the Archaeology of the Scriptures, BYU, 1963, pp. 52-59)
Irrelevant. The point is not whether the Bible contains the word of God but rather if the Bible either is the sole source of God's word or whether it speaks to the issue... which it obviously does not.
If you believe in the Bible, which you say you do, and it obviously came WAYYYYY before the BOM or D&C etc...
Why did God need to send another revelation to Joseph Smith that was so vastly different than the one already recieved in the Bible? Shouldn't you bring all claims BACK to the Bible to see if they are truly in sync with what God has already revealed?
Heres a link to an earlier thread that coveres much of this Bible debate :)
www.lds.net/forums/christian-beliefs-board/10132-some-questions-mormons-5.html
-
I see no issue with this doctrine Joseph Smith taught. It is taught in the Bible:
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Genesis chapter 1
It also reads in the book of John chapter 1:
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
After His resurrection Jesus appeared to His disciples and said:
39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet. -- Luke chapter 24
There is so much to say with regard to all those verses, context, original language, what the rest of scripture says
etc...I'm off to bed so I'll just start here... (an EXCELLENT read btw! :))quoted from "The oneness of God":
"John 1 beautifully teaches the concept of God manifest in flesh. In the beginning was the Word (Greek, Logos). The Word was not a separate person or a separate god any more than a man's word is a separate person from him. Rather the Word was the thought, plan, or mind of God. The Word was with God in the beginning and actually was God Himself (John 1:1). The Incarnation existed in the mind of God before the world began. Indeed, in the mind of God the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world (I Peter 1:19-20; Revelation 13:8).
In Greek usage, logos can mean the expression or plan as it exists in the mind of the proclaimer - as a play in the mind of a playwright - or it can mean the thought as uttered or otherwise physically expressed - as a play that is enacted on stage. John 1 says the Logos existed in the mind of God from the beginning of time. When the fulness of time was come, God put that plan in action. He put flesh on that plan in the form of the man Jesus Christ. The Logos is God expressed. As John Miller says, the Logos is "God uttering Himself." [10] In fact, TAB translates the last phrase of John 1:1 as, "The Word was God Himself." Flanders and Cresson say, "The Word was God's means of self disclosure"
"In His divine nature, however, Jesus is a Spirit; for Romans 8:9 speaks of the Spirit of Christ. In His divinity, Jesus was and is omnipresent. For example, in John 3:13 Jesus referred to "the Son of man which is in heaven" even though He was still on earth. His omnipresence explains why He could say in the present tense while on earth, "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matthew 18:20). In other words, while the fulness of God's character was located in the human body of Jesus, the omnipresent Spirit of Jesus could not be so confined. While Jesus walked this earth as a man, His Spirit was still everywhere at the same time.
Jesus is also omniscient; for He could read thoughts (Mark 2:6-12). He knew Nathanael before He met him (John 1:47-50). He knows all things (John 21:17), and all wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Him (Colossians 2:3).
Jesus is omnipotent; He has all power, is the head of all principality and power, and is the Almighty (Matthew 28:18; Colossians 2:10; Revelation 1:8).
Jesus is immutable and unchanging (Hebrews 13:8). He is also eternal and immortal (Hebrews 1:8-12; Revelation 1:8, 18). "
-
There is not a reputable Bible scholar around who will claim that we have the Bible in its purest form.
I never said we have the Bible in it's PUREST form, but no matter because The Bible is 98 percent textually pure. Through all the copying of the Biblical manuscripts of the entire Bible, only 1% has any question about it.
Nothing in all of the ancient writings of the entire world approaches the accuracy of the biblical documents!!! NOTHING!
The 1 percent that is in question does not affect doctrine. The areas of interest are called variants and they consist mainly in variations of wording and spelling.
The NT has over 5000 supporting Greek manuscripts existing today with another 20,000 manuscripts in other languages. Some of the manuscript evidence dates to within 100 years of the original writing. There is less than a 1% textual variation in the NT manuscripts.
And yes, even Mormon himself admitted there might be errors in the Book of Mormon itself, because they are the records made by men trying to do God's work, but men make errors. However, I think neither the Bible nor the Book of Mormon have any serious errors when it comes to the basic issues of salvation, such as faith on the Lord Jesus Christ, his atonement etc... And yes, the Book of Mormon in other languages sometimes go through a second or third revision. This is not different than Bible translations to other languages, not to mention the different English Bible versions offered to the world these days (I mean, New Living, New International, Modern Reader's Bible, New American Bible, American Standard Version etc....
You tell me then why the BOM is considered the "Most Correct Book"?
Am I clear that what you are essentially saying is that both books are of equal trustworthiness?
Yes you are right many revisions are normal but why do Mormons put a disclaimer on the Bible for that, but not on the BOM???
Apostle Orson Pratt proclaimed: "Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the 'whore of Babylon' (The Seer, p. 255).
While that is a strong statement, he did not use the term blasphemous--look it up especially in a Mormon dictionary, them's harsh words.
From wiki: "The Whore of Babylon is one of several Christian and Rastafarian allegorical figures of supreme evil mentioned in the Book of Revelation in the Bible. The Whore is associated with the Antichrist and the Beast of Revelation by connection with an equally allegorical kingdom.
That's pretty damning!!! You don't consider the Antichrist blasphemous!? wow...
Nevertheless, our early leaders were quite fervent in their days. I haven't heard such a thing ever come out in our Sunday lessons and certainly never at a General Conference in my 20 years with the church, and there is no such direct comment in our canon. We are free to accept or refuse Orson Pratt's viewpoint, as I stated earlier, many times, we are free to disagree with our leaders on issues that are not canon nor specific directions for our times. I think all things worldly are the "whore of Babylon" and for me that would NOT include any person who is sincerely attempting to live by Christian principles (Christian or not).
You said earlier that general conferences are considered doctrine...so the fact that this was EVER said means that it IS in fact doctrine correct?
-
There you go again Ceeboo, bringing up the same point that we have answered over and over for you.
We LDS Mormons do ALL agree on principles of salvation--the JS discourse is not canon nor relevant to our salvation:
We often disagree about things, so what? Have you never disagreed with a mother, father, son, friend, fellow parishioner, or even priest? Would you not love them just the same?
We all love each other the same regardless of some extraneous positions we take on issues outside of canon and not relevant to our salvation.
So, what's your point? I don't see a problem, and fail to understand yours.
Speaking for myself, I think a huge problem comes from the fact that the FOUNDER of your religion has made some pretty heavy statements about things I would consider matters of eternal salvation and Joseph Smith himself claimed they WERE!
******* " I will go back to the beginning before the world was, to show what kind of a being God is. What sort of a being was God in the beginning? Open your ears and hear, all ye ends of the earth, for I am going to prove it to you by the Bible, and to tell you the designs of God in relation to the human race, and why He interferes with the affairs of man.
God himself. was Once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make himself visible,—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another.
In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how He came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.
These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with Him as one man converses with another, and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible."
That was just a taste! This sermon is chock FULL of "new revelation" How do LDS NOT consider this a matter of eternal consequence when your first prophet said as much?!
-
So far as they are translated correctly, yes, although we hold modern revelation (the General Conference talks) to be most relevant to our needs of today.
And who decides what was translated correctly? Has the BOM been reliably translated into German? French? Or do we need a disclaimer on them?
****So General Conference Talks are doctrine?
(I hold that we are all Christians---protestant, Catholic, and LDS--- but you can choose to disagree). So it is a moot argument for any one to discourse with me as if I have never studied out these things for myself. There is nothing blasphemous neither in our canon nor our way of life.
I think maybe you have misunderstood.... I was reaching out to Ceboo because I understand his point. He was explaining his beliefs and how he feels like some Mormon beliefs are blasphemous when compared to his. I was not discoursing with you as if you are ignorant
I promise! Sorry if it came out that way!It's not that I am "choosing to disagree" that a Mormon is not a Christian but let me put it another way...
Can an LDS church call a Protestant "bishop"? No. Can a Protestant attend church at the Temple? Nope.
LDS rejects Christianity as wrong (doctrinally speaking) just as Christianity rejects LDS as doctrinally unsound.
I'm not sure what you mean. I take the position that the Book of Mormon and D&C etc.. are necessary to have a fuller understanding of the Bible. There are no Doctrines taught in the church's canon that are contradicted in the Bible, though you might say we have additional beliefs, but those beliefs are not disputed in the Bible either, if you study it as a whole. All our teachings point to Christ as our one and only Savior, and salvation can come by no other way but through him.
I had read and studied my Bible many times over, from my days as a child until adulthood, before I ever knew there even was an LDS Church. I came to the LDS church, in fact, because they were teaching about the things I read and understood from the Bible, unlike the churches that I grew up in.
No one should label any others' religion blasphemous unless they have a clear knowledge that these people or their teachings are intentionally attempting to destroy truth and righteousness. Everything our church teaches inspires people to do good, and to better themselves, and to serve one another, and humankind, and to live the example Christ set for us. I love the sermon on the mount more than anything else from ALL the scriptures combined--that is from the Bible.
I don't think anyone called Mormons blasphemous, I do know that some have said according to the Bible's teachings and according to their faith it does seem or feel blasphemous... Not the same thing...
And to your point "no one should label any others' religion blasphemous"
Would you hold your own religion to that same statement?
Apostle Orson Pratt proclaimed: "Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the 'whore of Babylon' (The Seer, p. 255).
-
I notice that you merely complain but post absolutely nothing that supports your allegation and I propose that the reason that you merely allege instead of offering evidence is that you can't.
... and by the way, the JOD is not doctrinal.
What was my complaint? I don't recall that one...
I have covered the irreconcilable differences at length, in post's past. You may like to go read them? IDK? I didn't feel it was warranted in my last response. But I assure you I can, and I have. (That is why I wrote that some LDS here have conceeded that very fact)
Having beliefs that are not in the bible is not the same as having beliefs that are contrary to the bible.
True, but I was referring to the beliefs that are contrary to the Bible. (becoming "gods" etc.--)
I am going to assume that you believe in the Trinity... It's not in the bible and in fact did not reach it's current form until after 400CE.
Actually your right, the word "trinity" is not in the Bible, but the concept is.
The oneness of God is of paramount importance to a Christian, the "trinity" is a word used to describe the different designations for God.
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost) are different designations for the one God. God is the Father. God is the Holy Spirit. The Son is God manifest in flesh. The term Son always refers to the Incarnation, and never to deity apart from humanity--Hope that helped :)
... I would be interested to know where you get the idea that true beliefs must be found in the bible. Such a belief itself is not in the bible and God has never said a word about it... so where did you come up with the idea?
Actually such a belief IS in The Bible, in many places..
2nd Timothy 3:16 is a great example: "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness"
But you already knew that right? I mean after all, You ALREADY believe the Bible to be a source of truth, correct?
Joseph Smith even understood the importance of reconciling his words to The Bible.
-
Our canon is, the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, and the General Conference talks that are given by the prophet and apostles every six months.
Do these all hold equal weight?
All the scriptures complement each other in giving us a fuller understanding of Christ and his mission and teachings, and a fuller understanding of the nature of God, and of the differing places in the spirit world, of Christ's reign on earth, and of the degrees of glory in the afterlife,
To a Christian (myself), this statement is completely false, it's probably also one reason I think maybe Ceboo said what he did. One simply cannot in good conscience truly reconcile Mormon doctrine's found in the POGP, D&C, BOM, and J&D (not to mention countless prophets who have "heard" countless revelations from God) to The Holy Bible.
Mormons on this very site have already admitted as much, claiming that to be the precise reason you NEED more books (as Mormons have)... Because the teachings of Mormonism are just not there. Maybe that was his point about blasphemy, which I'm sure you could understand was not (at least the way I read it) a "dig" at Mormons but rather I think a statement of his personal faith...JMO :)
However, Joseph Smith said that a man would come closer to God through studying the Book of Mormon than by any other book, but I don't think he meant that it overshadows all other scripture, personally, I think he meant that if anyone could choose a single book to know concerning spiritual matters, the Book of Mormon would be that book. For me, it was a long and lengthy study of the Bible combined with a later serious study of the Doctrine and Covenants that finally converted me to the church, so the Book of Mormon didn't hold that prominence for me at that time. I think we would treat all scriptures equally, but we may be touched more by one than another at different times in our studies.
Is the Bible considered as correct as the BOM in your view?
Thanks!
-
Maybe the trouble is you can't understand what LDS saints face in everyday study. Take the Bible, it's dictionary, the cross references, the topical guide, the Book of Mormon, D&C, the Pearl of Great Price, and all the General Conference talks in our history, most especially the most recent ones, and pile them up in one high stack, and you'll get a sense of what a Mormon faces when they attempt to study the doctrines that our pertinent to our salvation. We don't have a lot of time to spend on issues that are not relevant to our salvation-- we have families, jobs, volunteer work, and no paid ministry, so it is hard enough to incorporate those basics from our canon into our lives and try to live accordingly without mucking it up with something like the King Follet sermon (and not just that great discourse, but many other great discourses we have that you are probably unaware of that in themselves make up volumes of works spoken directly from the mouths of our prophets from Brigham Young to the present--all of which is not canon).
Unlike my Christian friends whom I grew up with (not directed at you as I don't know you), but unlike them, we actually read and study that huge stack of information we consider canon, and not just once, but again and again (again, I'm sure you are well read, so that was not directed at you but others from my own history).
The King Follet is a great read and serious food for thought, but as I and others have said, it is not pertinent to our salvation, so we are free to understand it, misunderstand it, or even reject it.
Hmmm, maybe that's something else you don't know about us LDS, unlike how many may perceive, we do not live in a church that tries to control our lives and our minds, we are quite free to take our little brains anywhere soever we choose--it's called free agency and so important is free agency to the Lord, that a war in Heaven was waged to maintain it, So I can stand face-to-face with Brigham Young, Joseph Smith, Moses, and any other great prophet and disagree with them all I want, so long as we are not talking about issues relevant to our salvation. And yet, we shall all meet in God's kingdom, assuming we've lived according to the principles of salvation, and fall on each other with hugs of happiness. We don't mind disagreeing with each other on issues not relevant to our salvation, so why should you care?
I was wondering WHAT is pertinent to your slavation? What "issues" are specifically relevant to your salvation that you spoke of? Is there one special book or belief that is above all else?
-
Congrats Holly on following the convictions in your heart!
-
Xanmad33: I posted a thread titled “The nature of G-d and the reason of salvation” under the LDS Gospel Discussion forum. If you are interested it indicates my view of many in the religious community attempting to speak of the nature of G-d and salvation and why I personally find their witness bogus, hypocritical and in general lacking.
Anyone can claim to have a personal relationship with G-d – and they may even believe that they do. What a person says or believes is not what determines truth. For many that claim to be Christian there is often little evidence to convict them if a court were held – especially if the methods they suggest for others were applied to themselves.
The Traveler
Traveler, I have no interest in engaging in further discussion with you.
Any discussion between the two of us would really probably do no good.
If you are interested in what I believe, you can mull over the past 3 threads that I have been a part of.
I agree with you that anyone can claim to be a "Christian" but it's true...many people claim this everyday, all the while treating others with spite, anger, and hate... it's beyond me...but..like you said people do it every day.
-
Wow - now that I know that you believe a few renegade Mormons that were left over from numerous murders, driven from their homes by official extermination orders and their women raped and their children starved - started the whole mountain meadows thing. That says a great deal about you and you’re G-d. Prior to 1649 can you point me to any Traditional Trinitarian society that did not put to death by law those that disagreed with their merciful Trinity G-d? All I asked for is one counter example and instead you attacked with one and one only one counter example of a single settlement of renegade Mormons going against published Mormon doctrine. I asked you for and exception and the exception I get is the one and only exception among the Mormons. Yes -
You know what – I am not interested at all in your G-d knowing that you represent his methods.
From what I have read of your understanding of evolution – I do not believe you have a clue there either. Perhaps you are not human – every human I have encountered started out as a single cell zygote. You may disagree that man starts off as anything less than man?? But the last time I checked apes are far more advanced and more human than single cell creatures such as a zygote. I do not know of any person that started off as an ape. I do not know where you get your information but it cannot be form a source of truth. You may think that a zygote becomes a human by adapting – but you are so far from the truth and so uninterested in truth – I cannot help you.
The Traveler
You see Traveler, you attacked my argument by just attacking my religion (or what you think is my religion) and me.
Instead of actually giving me a respectable answer, or even touching on the topic that started this thread to begin with, you skipped over all the debate to tell me that I worship scripture and I have no truth...
Frankly, I think your a sad representative for someone who follows"Christ" if this is the way you treat people.
Further, I'm not interested if you ever "believe" me, everything I layed out is pretty black and white, no need for your faith to be put in me T.
My point in bringing up the massacre was to show you that what people do in Gods name NO MATTER the religion, has no reflection on God, The argument is useless.
Your attacking me because of what other people did in Gods name throughout History...I really don't understand that, but whatever.
As far as evolution goes T, when I was in HS, there was a picture on the wall explaining how man evolved from Ape. Your right, I have never taken a course in it, my knowledge is limited, but I can tell you I disagree with that pic on my high school wall
I will pray for you tonight T and ask God to give you more fruit of the Spirit.
Peace, Love and Blessings <3
-
LOL well nothing gets rid of proselytizing Christians quicker than saying you are LDS and offering to read their material but would hey like a Book of Mormon - however Pagans and Hare Krishna;s that come round the door usually come in and take one away:)
It is important for everyone to have an opportunity for growth but its their decision to grow or not
-Charley
You are correct there
(Although I have invited some missionaries in and know quite a few other Christians who have done this as well.) They have come often, and sometimes I talk, sometimes I tell them I am a Christian and I don't have time :)My only point in that was to show that being a good person is obviously not enough..even to LDS
There have been those who claim all you have to be is "good" and have the fruit of the holy Spirit no matter your beliefs, and I was showing that yes, it in fact does matter.... Evident by the fact that Mormon missionaries still feel the need to proselytize to "Christians" as well.
-
That's the question to be asking then...
It's the one I've been asking repeatedly
That's wonderful that people will look for these scientific/historic evidences to help support their faith. But why did they look for these evidences in the first place? They must have first had "blind" faith and then decided to go look for evidences to support it.
I have always had faith there was a God. The Bible is the most reliable truth acount for WHO the true God is.
Since Jesus was alive he quoted scripture, he referred to psalm and a couple of others that were already written, as law. I don't think it's so much as man went looking for these evidences as the evidences have always been there.
A quest for truth is entirely different than a persons search to validate preconcieved notions about what truth is.
Now the problem with putting aside your faith entirely and relying completely on these evidences, is that there will be many who will come back at you with their own evidences to refute you. They might find some way to discredit your evidences.
I welcome it, truth can withstand scrutiny.
So is the truth of the bible really up to which side finds the best evidence? Or is it possible for you to find a faith you can trust in despite what all the critics say? What if the critics found enough evidence to seemingly disprove the bible- or poked enough holes in your evidence supporting it? Would that shatter your faith? Or is it possible for you to base your faith on something else?
The Bible has existed for thousands of years, if it was a fraud it would have been proven already.
I submit to you that if you spend all your days researching the scientific and historical evidence of the bible in order to keep your faith, in the end you'll realize that you could had a more sure spiritual witness, and you could have been spending your time going on to learn the more important spiritual truths that God would have us to learn, without having to worry about having enough good scientific or historical evidence.
I don't spend all my days researching the Bible in order to keep my faith, trust me
It actually started the opposite for me. I've always had faith that there is a God, and the more I have read his word the more he speaks to me in my spirit. I am completely sure of his existance... My studies are not for my assurance, they are for a better understanding of who I worship.
That's wonderful- I don't fault you for that one bit. But I just wish you could know that it is possible for you to also gain a spiritual witness by the power of the Holy Ghost.
I have never said it wasn't
But you must still choose to believe in that evidence rather than in the evidence put forth by the critics.
Again, the Bible has been scruitnized for thousands of years, more than ANY other book in the history of books.
The fact is there is no sufficient evidence proving it a fraud.
me nietherI sure do. But not based solely on history and science.
Don't get me wrong- I'm always glad to learn more of what science and history have to teach us.
If you're worried about possibly being deceived by false spirits, then seek to study the workings of the spirit, and to gain experience with them- the fruits of the spirit are love, joy, peace, goodness. I submit to you that if someone honestly follows after such feelings, seeking to do the will of God and not their own will, they will not go wrong. But there are also levels of "rightness" - levels of truth if you will... all of us are at a different level, and are prepared to be led by God to certain things. Truth is a spectrum. God will lead us toward the good end. The devil will lead us toward the bad. There are many good churches, and people might need to be led from church to church until they find the one that has the most truth, that will benefit them the most.
How does this all feel to you? Do you think it's possible it could be true?
I personally am not worried for myself, no... But I'm sure you can relate to the importance of knowlege of truth...Why else would your church send missionaries out to peoples homes?
If being a good person was good enough then why do the LDS missionaries not leave a house when the inhabitants say they are "Christian"?
This has happened to me
-
So you refute biblical scripture and accept nonbiblical teaching, but the Mormons are the ones who are doing wrong by accepting extrabiblical revelation?
What Biblical scripture have I refuted?
What teachings have I accepted that stands in contradiction to the Bible?
It is understood that there are many symbolisms in the Bible, but do you think that the Gospel message of the physical birth of God, His life, His death, His resurrection and ascension, was all merely figurative?
Nope.
hmm....to you or to Mormons?You have asked this question many times, the answer is simple and plain. God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are One God. That One God is the only true and living God.
Do you believe God the father was once a man (not Jesus)?
Unscriptural and highly presumptive. What basis do we have to verify this? Is it even necessary that we do so?
There are many...
In Psalm 139 David wrote,
Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there. If I rise on the wings of the dawn, if I settle on the far side of the sea, even there your hand will guide me, your right hand will hold me fast. If I say, “Surely the darkness will hide me and the light become night around me,” even the darkness will not be dark to you; the night will shine like the day, for darkness is as light to you. [Psalm 139:7-12]
I know. The Bible teaches plainly that God has a body of flesh and bone and you don't believe that, you refute it. This is one reason why I am Mormon. The LDS Church seems to be the only Church that actually believes the Bible.
Show me
Sorry, not LDS teaching. God the Father is Endless, He is without beginning or end. (Moses 1:3)
Completely unfounded. What LDS source states that the Father's origins are in mortality? Or anyone else for that matter?!?!?
God used to be a man on another planet, Mormon Doctrine, p. 321. Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, Vol 5, pp. 613-614; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol 2, p. 345, Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 333.)
"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s..." (D&C 130:22).
God is in the form of a man, (Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 3.)
"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!!! . . . We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345
God the Father had a Father, (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 476; Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 19; Milton Hunter, First Council of the Seventy, Gospel through the Ages, p. 104-105.)
God resides near a star called Kolob, (Pearl of Great Price, pages 34-35; Mormon Doctrine, p. 428.)
"Therefore we know that both the Father and the Son are in form and stature perfect men; each of them possesses a tangible body . . . of flesh and bones." (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 38).
The Bible plainly states that Jesus (God) is the offspring not only of God, but of a woman. Are you saying that God cannot be born as a child to parents?
I have already covered this completely in previous posts...
Are you saying that Jesus was never a man?
No I am saying Jesus had a dual nature.
Is the New Testament as a whole not a declaration of the literal, physical, corporeal nature of God? Are the Gospels not testaments that God was once a man on earth with a body of flesh and bone? If you refute scripture, how will scripture prove anything?
What scripture have I refuted?
What scriptures say that God has NOT a body of flesh and bone in heaven?
I think these are becoming word games
I have already explained this many times...
Luke 24:36-43:
3 Nephi 11:14-15:
Luke 24:50-51:
What indication do we have that our LORD did not bodily ascend into heaven? Did he lose it somewhere on the trip to Bethany? If the Bible does not say so, then the notion is unbiblical. If he did lose His body on His way to Bethany, what hands did He lift when He arrived? If He was an omnipresent spirit without any body, how then did He ascend to heaven being He was already there? Am I expected to believe that it is unbiblical and illogical that the body of Jesus ascended into heaven, but more biblical and logical that it did not?
The physical, bodily resurrection and ascension of our LORD is a basic truth for which the disciples died as they bore witness of it. It is scriptural, it is Biblical, it is true. God has a body of flesh and bone as tangible as man's.
-a-train
I never denied the physical ascention of Jesus' body.
-
I am sorry that I do not have the time that others have for the internet.
How does one know the one true G-d? The Pharisees, Scribes and Jews that rejected Christ argued that they knew G-d from the Scriptures. Jesus taught that those that know G-d “do the deeds of G-d” and love those that G-d sends to testify. (see John 8) Those that testify of G-d and do not keep the commandments are lying. One last point here with another reference to John 8 – what did Jesus say was the most important indication of someone praying to the wrong G-d? (see verse 44) Now I ask you – what did the traditional Trinitarian Christians do to anyone that did not agree with their Trinitarian doctrine? When in history was a law (first recorded) finely passed that prevented a sentence of death to someone that did not believe in the Trinity? I do not think you have researched of thought much on this subject.
I know God through his written word and my personal relationship with him.
The pharisees were lacking in one basic component to "knowing" someone, and thats to have an intimate relationship.
In your example of Jesus, I guess I fail to see what your point is???
And as far as what men have done in Gods name, it is pretty sick your right there...
Kinda like the Mountain Meadows Massacre...
I believe that someone worships that to which they look toward as a source or the source of truth. I do not put much in what a person says – it is what they do that tells me what they believe and worship (again see John chapter 8). If scripture (the Bible) is your religious authority and source of your truth then that is your G-d. Jesus said that many would make claim to his name but he never knew them. Where would they learn of his name and claim to do things in his name if it was not from the scriptures – but (for example) if they would hold the scriptures of more value than praying to him to know what religion he would have us follow – he would not know them. I want to make it very clear why I do not believe in your witness.
Then I guess you worship Joseph Smith, by this logic.
You constant insinuation that I do not pray or have a relationship with God is unfounded.
Before I read the Bible I prayed and loved God, you don't know me at all traveler.
Now do you know that the Nestorian Christians of “The East” have a scripture that they believe was written by the very hand of Jesus? Do you know that the document has been tested and found to come from the area of Jerusalem at the time of Jesus? But since it is not in the Bible is this “another gospel” that you would reject. And how do you know that it was not written by Jesus? Or how are you to know if it was?
I trust God. I trust the prophets that walked the earth with Jesuss and lay claim of inspiration while writing. I trust God is big enough to have made certain his word would stand as he said.
I do not think you understand the meaning of an unchanging G-d. Therefore, I ask you:
- Was the manifestation of Jesus in the flesh a change in how G-d had manifested himself in the Old Testament?
- Did Jesus change from a baby to a boy and then again from a boy to a man? Do you not count this as change?
- Did Jesus die? Is death a change from life?
- Did the resurrection of Jesus from the dead really happen? Is the resurrection count as a change?
The "unchanging" in scripture is his nature, his charachter. He does not grow in knowledge, he does not grow in power, his spirit is omnicent and omnipresent.
Philippians 2:6-7 says this of Jesus:
Who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
He emptied himself of the expression of deity, not the possession of deity.
He literally, laid aside His privileges as God, to live on earth as a man.
Gravity is also called a theory so is electrical magnetism called a theory. I guess since it is just a theory we should not wire our houses for electricity?
What I said is that any truth must come from G-d and that truth from G-d will reveal, at least in part unto us, his nature. Do you understand what evolution is? Or do you reject it because some miss-informed preacher said something about which he knew nothing?
The Traveler
I believe in the concept to a certain point, but I would call it adapting.
Creatures may adapt to there environment to survive.
I disagree that man was ever an ape or started off as anything other than man. That concept is completely unbiblical and also against what Jesus himself taught.
I agree with your truth point but my point has been to show you that things may appear to be truth because Satan is a deciever. I think posts past adequately cover this...
-
Do they? In my experience, most other christian religions don't claim divine revelation, but just claim that it doesn't matter which church you go to as long as you follow Jesus Christ and the bible. Does your church claim divine revelation?
I never claimed Christians did.
I claimed that many other religions did
Islam
Jehova's whitnesses
Toronto Blessing Movement..etc..etc...
Divine revelation CAN happen, but where is the test to see if in fact you are hearing from God?
Manson said he was hearing from God... Likewise many sane people who did not conspire murder also claim this...Hiow do we know who the real God is with such a sea of claims to divine personal revelation...
Most of all, I just want to know how you have such a strong faith in the bible if you can't rely on your feelings. It's circular reasoning to say that you believe the bible is true because the bible says it is. You must rely on your feeling that it is true, don't you?
There are many reasons one can have such strong faith in the Bible, I illistrated a few above. There are some pretty powerful evidences! The simple fact is, the only thing debated about the Bible is if it is the divinely inspired Word of God which it claims to be, this belief requires faith. Faith for me is more than a subjective "feeling". Faith can also be defined as "belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing."
3. a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.
I believe the Bible is worthy of my faith as it has repeatedly demonstrated it's complete trustworthiness in all matters.
After all the evidence is laid out at the end of the day, the faith required to believe in the Bible is not hard to come by.
Joseph Smith believed it, and it's considered doctrine for Mormons, so obviously you believe it too
-
Wow, you all do a lot of debating here. Took me a while to read through all that. :) There was one thing you said that I wanted to ask about though. Forgive me if you've addressed it, but I didn't find it anywhere.
Then how do you know the bible is true?
There is much evidence of the reliability of the Bible, I will not go into it all here, but here is a taste taken from an article on the matter:
"
About prophesy: One of the strongest arguments for the accuracy of the Bible is its 100% accuracy in predicting the future. These future predictions are called “prophecies.” The Old Testament was written between approximately 1450 BC and 430 BC. During that time, many predictions of the future were recorded in the Bible by God’s prophets. Of the events that were to have taken place by now, every one happened just the way they predicted it would. No other “sacred writing” has such perfectly accurate predictions of the future.
about Jesus: Jesus gave sight to the blind, made the lame walk, cured those who had leprosy, gave the deaf hearing, and raised people from the dead! These miracles and others were done many times in front of thousands of witnesses for three years. About 30 AD, Jesus was crucified (a prophecy) and died (a prophecy). Three days later he rose from the dead (another prophecy), after which He was seen by over 500 witnesses. Since these prophecies were written down at least 400 years before they happened, there is no doubt that the Bible’s writers were inspired supernaturally—by God
The proof of textual evidence:Both the Old and New Testaments are strongly supported by manuscript evidence (the evidence of early hand written copies). The famous Dead Sea Scrolls are one example of the Old Testament evidence. These documents came from the “library” of a settlement founded at Qumran before 150 B.C. and abandoned about 68 A.D. Some of the manuscript copies were made during that period, and some were written earlier (third century BC) and brought to the settlement. Ignoring spelling-oriented (orthographic) changes and similar small differences, the Dead Sea Scrolls match the Hebrew text behind today’s Old Testament, in spite of the passage of over 2,000 years (where one would expect errors to creep in).
Over 20,000 known manuscripts document the New Testament text. This makes the New Testament the most reliable document of antiquity (a document written before the printing press). These manuscripts vary in size from a part of a page to an entire Bible (Old and New Testaments). The earliest New Testament manuscripts date from the second century (100-199) AD These manuscript copies were written in different languages by people of different nationalities, cultures, and backgrounds. In spite of all those differences between them, the New Testament texts all agree. (That is, those differences that we do observe between these hand written documents are occasional changes in the spelling of names or isolated cases of missing or changed words. Still, since we have so many copies, it is obvious to anyone but the hardened skeptic can that they all represent the same tex
Special proof exists for the New Testament, since Christians were strongly persecuted by both the Jews and the Roman government. If the New Testament writings were false, these two groups would have produced a great deal of evidence to stop the growth of this “sect.” None exists. Further, the New Testament writings (before they were assembled into the “book” we call the New Testament) circulated during the lifetimes of thousands of people who had actually seen Jesus’ miracles and other historic events. No one ever refuted the New Testament writings as “fairy tales.”
Scientific*** Dinosaurs are referred to in several Bible books. The book of Job describes two dinosaurs. One is described in chapter 40 starting at verse 15, and the other in chapter 41 starting at verse 1
***The Bible also teaches that each star is unique:
1 Corinthians 15:41
There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory.
All stars look alike to the naked eye.* Even when seen through a telescope, they seem to be just points of light. However, analysis of their light spectra reveals that each is unique and different from all others. (*Note: We understand that people can perceive some slight difference in color and apparent brightness when looking at stars with the naked eye, but we would not expect a person living in the first century A.D. to claim they differ from one another.)
***The Bible describes the precision of movement in the universe:
Jeremiah 31:35,36
Thus says the LORD,
Who gives the sun for a light by day,
The ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night,
Who disturbs the sea,
And its waves roar
(The LORD of hosts is His name):
“If those ordinances depart
From before Me, says the LORD,
Then the seed of Israel shall also cease
From being a nation before Me forever.”
***The Bible describes the suspension of the Earth in space:
Job 26:7
He stretches out the north over empty space;
He hangs the earth on nothing.
*** Statements Consistent With Meteorology
The Bible describes the circulation of the atmosphere:
Ecclesiastes 1:6
The wind goes toward the south,
And turns around to the north;
The wind whirls about continually,
And comes again on its circuit.
***The Bible includes some principles of fluid dynamics:
Job 28:25
To establish a weight for the wind,
And apportion the waters by measure.
The fact that air has weight was proven scientifically only about 300 years ago. The relative weights of air and water are needed for the efficient functioning of the world’s hydrologic cycle, which in turn sustains life on the earth.
***The book of Leviticus (written prior to 1400 BC) describes the value of blood:
Leviticus 17:11
‘For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.’
The blood carries water and nourishment to every cell, maintains the body’s temperature, and removes the waste material of the body’s cells. The blood also carries oxygen from the lungs throughout the body. In 1616, William Harvey discovered that blood circulation is the key factor in physical life—confirming what the Bible revealed 3,000 years earlier.
***The Bible describes biogenesis (the development of living organisms from other living organisms) and the stability of each kind of living organism:
Genesis 1:11,12
Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:21
So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:25
And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
***We have cave paintings and other evidence that people inhabited caves. The Bible also describes cave men.
Job 30:5,6
They were driven out from among men,
They shouted at them as at a thief.
They had to live in the clefts of the valleys,
In caves of the earth and the rocks.
Note that these were not ape-men, but descendants of those who scattered from Babel. They were driven from the community by those tribes who competed successfully for the more desirable regions of the earth. Then for some reason they deteriorated mentally, physically, and spiritually. (Go into a bad part of your town and you will see this concept in action today.)
***Geology:The Bible describes the Earth’s crust (along with a comment on astronomy).
Jeremiah 31:37
Thus says the LORD:
“If heaven above can be measured,
And the foundations of the earth searched out beneath,
I will also cast off all the seed of Israel
For all that they have done, says the LORD.”
Although some scientists claim that they have now measured the size of the universe, it is interesting to note that every human attempt to drill through the earth’s crust to the plastic mantle beneath has, thus far, ended in failure.[1]
The Bible described the shape of the earth centuries before people thought that the earth was spherical.
Isaiah 40:22
It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
The book of Isaiah was written sometime between 740 and 680 BC. This is at least 300 years before Aristotle suggested that the earth might be a sphere in this book On the Heavens
I think you get the point, the belief in the BIble is more than blind faith.
It rings of authenticity and revelation only a divine hand could have placed there.
Uncomfortable Doctrine
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
No, I believe the Bible IS translated correctly
It is only when things are taken grossly out of context and the FULL weight of scripture is not considered that one needs to go further to "prove" what the text was ACTUALLY saying vs. what someone wants the text to be saying :)