Tr2

"In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints 'do not believe in the traditional Christ.' 'No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.'" Also printed in the LDS Church News on June 20, 1998, p.7.You can continue to deny all you want the evidence speaks for itself. Your acceptance or denial of these facts changes nothing. "So what"??? So I guess Stephen isn't lying after all. You just don't like the truth that he is stating. We both know that those words came from YOUR prophet. I did notice how you do not deny that those words came out of the mouth of an LDS prophet. Did you even read what i wrote? I gave a number of examples. You are a crybaby! Your own belief system is what you have a problem with. You have been shown how your belief system is what Stephen is saying it is. You just don't like that. Get over it and stop pouting like a child.

oooooooooooook............. There is more evidence, to suggest that Moses lived, than there is proof of an angel that came to Joseph Smith or any golden plates that brought forth the book of mormon. Care to explain why you have faith in one thing but not the other? There is really no good reason why we have no proof of golden plates.

Please don't humor me. You and I both know that you do not believe that. You are the last person on this board who should be accusing other people of being dishonest. With all the false accusations and half truths that you manage to type on your keyboard I am amazed you have enough time to accuse somebody else of what you make a habit of practicing.Let's see his lies "1. You imply that Mormons worship a counterfeit Christ, another Christ from the one that you worship" - Your own prophet admitted that he did not worship the same Christ on a nationally televised Larry King show. "2. You claim that Mormon doctrine holds that Christ was born as a result of a physical sex act between God and Mary." - This was a teaching from one of your very own prophets. It may not be doctrine but YOUR prophets once taught it as such. "3. You claim that Mormonism disagrees with the Bible." -It does! Many mormon traditions and practices do not originate from the bible but from the mouths of your prophets and extra-biblical writings. There are many instances where mormon teachings come into conflict with the bible. There are too many to name. But a few are where Jesus atoned for man's sin, Jesus and Satan being brothers, God being once a man...... I'd get a headache pointing out how many times mormonism conflicts with the bible. Stephen isn't the liar you are trying to make him out to be. You just can't stand what he is saying so you are lashing out in the only way you know how to. I have noticed that you are simply accusing Stephen of lying and offering no correction. That's ok I have come to expect this level of debate from you.

Snow, get lost! I don't feel like dealing with your elitism today. Behunin, I've been down this road before. This discussion does not increase faith in any way, according to my experiences. You either believe fully or you don't. One minute you are a bible believing Christian, the next you are a bitter, hateful person who hates anything related to orthodox Christianity.

This is a faith destroying argument because this will get people questioning God because they don't understand something. You either believe God's ways aren't your ways or you think his ways are wrong. There really isn't much else in between. I'm not so full of pride that I think God shouldn't do something I don't agree with.

She may have impeccable credentials, but if it is only her then who cares? There are a lot of people with "DR" in front of their name. Every day I see numerous doctors disagree with each other and each one of them have valid points for their arguments. Now I do favor a Dr's opinions than more that just their opinions but you favor this doctor because she is saying something that you agree with.Let's say that Smith does indeed have a lot in common with Moses. Smith also has a lot in common with criminals as well. But you just choose to ignore that. I didn't disagree with this point, I just asked for others. Never said it wasn't but I don't think it is a very accurate comparrison. I didn't say that, I didn't suggest that, nor did I even hint at that. I don't know where you came up with this idea. if you don't know what I am talking about, ask and don't assume.

I find it very interesting, and humerous, that anybody who disagrees with you is either lying or being dishonest. Is that your latest discussion tool? Or is it a way to put yourself above everybody else?

Oh well if Dr Shipps says so then it must be true. Who is Dr Shipps? Anybody else or just a rogue Dr Shipps? That was just the only way I could tie Brigham Young and Moses together. They don't have lot in common huh? There was a hint that because Moses may have practiced polygamy then that justified LDS leaders for doing so. I was just clarifying that idea. And it is not a society-expected thing. God expects a man to be faithful to his wife.

Are we back to the argument that because you do not believe it then it cannot be true? If you have a problem with those numbers, then take it up with the source who quoted that. Nobody else keeps track of their missionaries like the LDS do so you have no basis for saying that. The LDS have the largest number of missionaries out of the churches who keep a detailed record of who goes where. The catholics don't keep a national record of their missionaries nor do the Baptists, the United church, or the church of God. All of these are larger than the LDS church in and do not keep a record. Since nobody keeps a record like you do, your argument doesn't hold a lot of water. You are trying to compare something you have with something that doesn't exist. The media? The same media that ignored a biblical-scale famine for over a year in Somalia in 1993? The same media that is covering the mass scale ethnic cleansings in Africa? If the media doesn't say it's true then I guess we have a fairy tale then huh? Does CNN go to Africa and China on a regular basis to report the number of innocent people slaughtered each year?

Then why are you talking about of both sides of your mouth? Are you just interested in picking a fight? It certainly looks that way.

Somewhere in the NT I could have sworn that I read that nobody comes to the Father except by way of the Son (ie Jesus). I didn't see any clauses or exceptions to that rule. Anybody else? Not asking for personal opinions, just asking for scriptural references.I think it stinks if somebody goes their whole lives without hearing about Jesus, but I've come to understand that God's ways aren't my ways(anybody else realized that our ways aren't God's ways?). I do have an unfounded belief that God will find a way to reach people if they have never heard of him. I believe this because of the parable of the lost sheep. I try not to limit God. But besides, these days that kind of idea just isn't that realistic. There are millions of Christian missionaries on every continent preaching the message of Jesus. I read once that 500,000 missionaries are killed every year (I'll post the source if I find it). I can't honestly see that there are people groups out there who don't know who Jesus is. I believe there are many people out there who have rejected him though.

Really? What non-LDS?There is a problem. Moses was most likely a dark skinned man and Brigham Young hated dark skinned people. But he didn't live in a time where men of God were expected to be faithful to ONE wife.

Funny, I have been saying the same thing about the golden plates, but you don't seem to need evidence to believe in those! You may need to make up your mind why you believe what you believe.

I'm wouldn't consider myself "anti-mormon", I'm just pro-bible. If they happen to be the same thing, then that's life.

You have made very general statements. Get a little more specific and I will address it. So far you have done nothing but say "you are a liar". You have not stated what I lied about, what is wrong with the lie, or what is the truth. If you want to act like a 5 year old that is your choice but I won't play along. What type of fruit are you referring to? Again, very general. You are still staying pretty general, but you did mention the trinity.OT example: ~ Gen 1:26; God is not speaking to an angel because angels were not a part of creation, they were created beings that were created with creation. There is a running constant in the bible that separates the created from the creator. It is like a twin telling the other twin "I created you". ~ God was not speaking to another God because in Isaiah 45:5-6 it says there there is only 1 God ~ Gen 3:22, 11:7, and Is 6:8 all have God speaking as though there are more than one person involved in the process NT example: ~ John 1:1-4; Again, more than one person present at creation. Who was the word that was with God? Who was the word that was God? In this context John is speaking about Jesus. Is God schizophrenic? ~ I believe it is somewhere in John where Jesus says that he is in his father and his father is in him. Though not much by itself, this is very interesting when combined with the above information. There is a lot more than this, this is just an introduction into the topic. I have a book somwhere that is something like 600p in length so i can't possibly communicate all my thoughts into one post. If you don't like the trinity..... wel it doesn't matter if you like it or not because reality is not dictated by what you want to believe. I have noticed that you are now into saying the word "interpret". You are using it a lot more than you should be because there is not a lot of interpretation required for understanding salvation. You are using that word to make the bible say what you want it to say. All interpretation is subject to the interpreter and your bias is so thick I'm surprised you're not choking on it. If were were talking about other issues (tongues, miracles, women wearing head coverings, or Revelation) then you would have a point with the interpretation. But the NT is very cut and dry when it comes to salvation. As well as you are ignoring many pieces of scriptures, as well as parables that contradict your "interpretations". If you are going to ignore very relevant points then I don't have the inclination to waste my time. Is this the same snow that got all bent out of shape with me and accused me of speaking for Jesus?I guess I will provide a translation as to what snow means: if you don't believe what snow believes Christ says, you are wrong. I am getting good at speaking snow's language. It has been a very painful road but i think I am nearly fluent.

This coming from you.... means little. An snob like you is the last person I want to come into agreement with. When I start saying things that you do like, that is proof that I need to re-evaluate my views.There are many mormons, athiests, and agnostics on this board that I do think well of, we just disagree in our views of religion. Those people do not include you. I do not think highly of you at all because I have no reason to. You have held yourself above everybody else since the first day you got here, and nothing has changed. I don't understand what you get out of acting like you are better than anyone else. i can only think that your life must be pretty sorry that you have to come onto an internet discussion board and act like the know-it-all pillar of self righteousness that you do. So I don't have credibility in your eyes, why should I care?

So we are back to the argument that because a lot of people belief something, that makes it correct? I don't care too much about what people do, I do care about the motives behind what they do. The mormons that I actually know typically obey the teachings of their religion out of fear, not out of love and joy. They obey because they fear the consequences of what they believe will happen if they don't. Living a life of fear is a lousy way to live. And no, I do not see a great deal of fruit from the lives of the mormons I know. I see people that are striving so hard to be worthy they are not enjoying the life that Christ died to give. i see athiests getting more out of life. If an athiest gets more enjoyment out of life than a religious person does, then that is enough proof that their belief system is doing nothing but keeping them down. That is EXACTLY what the issue is. Mormons do not believe Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was sufficient enough. Obviously I don't have enough free time to go over each one. Give me one or two that you think are unbiblical concepts. No, it's just that word is used as though there is some kind of secret behind it. The early church was surrounded by paganism. As an example, people say that Christmas is a pagan holiday. It was celebrated on a day that that pagan celebrations occurred. What people forget is that the Christians were celebrating Jesus on a day that the pagans were celebrating their own things. These are not two connected events. Millions of people go to their various churches on Sundays in North America, does that put them under the same umbrella? Of course not. I know this idea came out of nowhere, I was just illustrating a point. People try to link things together that just aren't linked in the way they'd like.In regards to all the scriptures you posted, I do not have the time or the inclination to go over each one of those, because you didn't do your own research. I don't have the luxury of a cut and paste function that you used. I will go over the one that you mentioned numerous times; the great commandment. What is the great commandment? It is a command to love God and to love others. Love is not a work. Love does lead to good works, but they are two completely different and separate things. If you want to address a point that you have actually researched and wish to discuss, then I'll gladly do so.

Stephen, I hope you understand that it is not your job to make people believe what you wrote. There are a few of people on this board who do not want to know God but those who just want to feel like they are better than anybody else. It is hard to exalt yourself above others when you are learning from them.

SRM, Matt. 16: 27, 2 Tim. 4: 14, Rev. 20: 12, and James 2: 21-24 do not even hint at the fact that works lead man to salvation, or heaven, or anything else of that nature. Each one of them is in the context of living a better life on earth. They are in the context of man's soul (which is your mind, will, emotions, personality). Salvation and going to heaven is in the context of the spirit (the one that is born anew when we receive Jesus). 2 Cor 7:1 draws a distinction between them. If you are going to use these scriptures, at least understand what they mean.

Well said

Humble myself, admit I have accepted extra-biblical teachings, and repent for idolatry. And accept my FREE gift of forgiveness. But that is what I would do.

What I have learned over the years is that the word "interpret" is often used by those who are trying to get around an issue in the bible. The basic principles of salvation do not require any interpretation because they are very straight forward. The biblical idea of salvation is a very simple to understand at face value. You use the word "interpretation" to imply that something hidden is present. You are trying to search for something that is staring you in the face. When somebody says, "water is wet" there is not interpretation needed for the point they were trying to make. It is not that cut and dry. There are many other issues why Jesus condemned the Pharisees. Stating the obvious is not the judgment that Jesus warned people about. Jesus said that unless people go through Him they will not go to heaven. The fruit of the mormon church does not suggest that Jesus is the focus on the LDS church. Dishonesty? I have heard numerous mormons tell me that they are saved by grace AFTER all they have done. The bible directly says that we are saved by God's grace, mormonism suggests that God's grace alone is insufficient. If God's grace was sufficient, then why would works be required? Unbiblical? How so? If you mean because those exact words don't appear in the bible, that is true. However there are fewer creeds out there that better represent the core values of the bible. Pagan? You like that word don't you? The Nicene creed was meant to make the Christian church distinct from other pagan belief systems at that time in history. People were calling themselves Christians but utilizing a completely different belief system(kind of like what the mormons do) and the creed was meant to draw a boundary line. Were pagans involved? Yes, but not in the way you've tried to suggest. Don't quit your day job.

So you are saying his/her experiences aren't true? Who are you to state that another's experiences are or aren't true? Nobody asked you if you believed it was true. No, some people just spend all their time telling others how bad other churches are. You once called me a molestor, rapist, and abuser. Why is it ok for you to hurl out insults but not others? Have you read what some of your prophets have said over the years? And you would never do anything like that! There are those two words again. Hate and bigotry used to describe what you do not liek, nothing more. How do you know? My aren't you self absorbed.

You don't actually believe that do you?

enlightenme, According to the definition that you provided, anyone who is an exclusive member of a religion can be classified as a bigot. In the context of a religious discussion that word should never be used because it is always inaccurate.