pendragon

In had assumed this thread was closed and since I have said my goodbyes I will not continue any loinger...but apparently you do care else why would you have ansered?

Maureen, of course you are right and it was foolish of me not to use it but sometimes the haste to post a thought while it is still fresh in the mind over rides the technicalities of the machine.

Vort: Please give an example of just what I have got wrong about Mormonism apart from not accepting it as valid? I believe you are dishonest in claiming I have said that I "worship a different Jesus from the Biblical Jesus worshiped by Latter-day Saints." I do indeed worship the Biblical Jesus but would, of course, argue that the Mormon Jesus is the one that does not meet the Biblical test. I suppose we shall have to agree to disagree on that. I will ignore your claim to expertise in Christian theology...,after all, according to you, I am the one who deals in snide comments.

Vort: Can you give a single instance of where I have misrepresented you or Mormon belief? I know exactly what Mormon belief is...likely as well as you. I have given my view, I have given scripture and verse to demonstrate my case but it appears you prefer to attack my honesty rather than refute what I have presented. I am still waiting for your followup on the "three heavens" issue that you raised many posts ago and which I answered fully and completely from the scripture as written. Message and messenger come to mind.

PS: I have done extensive, very extensive study of Mormon beliefs and practice. Have you done as much with Christian theology and practice?

Vort: How and why would you expect me to be "charitable" to a faith system that I believe diverts people from a saving relationship with Jesus? Is it any less charitable for the Mormon Church to send thousands of people to the home of "churched" people on the assumption that what it has is somehow better than what they have? I categorically believe Mormonism to be a another gospel. As a Christian I am compelled by all that I believe and the one in whom I trust to play my part in the Great Commission. At some point in the future, hopefully this side of death, you will see how God's prevenient grace has been shown you.

Jerome: I have gone over the thread and can find no instance where I used "spit and venom" nor am I guilty of "boasting of intellect" . To my recollection I haven't even used the word intellect. In one instance I was short, perhaps with you, in responding to a post that appeared to be stock LDS quotes but I have acknowledged that. If I missing something perhaps you can't direct me to specifics. As regards Joseph Smith's translation of the Bible I think that perhaps you are unaware that he himself declared it finished. Re the KJV...I did not suggest there were errors but better translations because of improved scholarship. I guess technically there's nothing wrong with a Model T...driving one today would probably get you where you want to go but a 2012 Fusion would do a better job. My own view as one who rejects Joseph Smith's claims is that he did not translate anything but that it is written in archaic language to give it the flavor of holy writ. I believe the KJV to be one of the greatest contributions to the world in the English language. It has certainly had immeasurable impact on the world and the advancement of the Gospel but people simply don't speak that way any longer.

Bytor: Glad to provide a chuckle but looked at realistically if I do not consider Smith as a genuine prophet but a fraud, surely I would assume he made the whole thing up. Wouldn't that be my obvious conclusion. Smith's whole history, from his conviction for "glass looking" in treasure hunting schemes to his creation of a whole new "theology" surely would take those who do not accept his claims to that conclusion. Why should that surprise you?

PS: Kind of you to point out the poor sentence caused by an active brain not being in tune with poor typing skills... but hopefully you got the point regardless.

Vort: Now who is guilty of sarcasm? I clearly defined the Jesus I believe in supported by the Bible. If you have a reference from the Bible for God as an exalted man and Jesus as the spirit son of this exalted man and one of his spiritual wives I'd be happy to consider it. I suspect, too, that you would have trouble finding one from the Book of Mormon even. But then Mormons tend to do you take my comment out of the contect in which it was given...an explanation to Nora as to why Mormons and orthodox Christians cannot have fellowship.

Just a thought and an opinion: I believe that the Mormon Church insistence on use of the KJV exclusively in any official situation is that it was the Bible used by Joseph Smith when he came up with Mormon theology. To use any other translation, no matter there are those with better scholarship, that might in any way change the nuance or understanding of any passage that seemingly supports LDS interpretation would create a problem. The KJV, as good as it is, uses archaic English and words with archaic meaning not in common usage today. Even the Book of Mormon is written in 16th century English...who knew that "reformed Egyptian" would translate nicely into archaic English But then again, at the risk of sounding sarcastic, there's always the get out of jail free card of "as far as it is translated correctly". I wonder, too, why the LDS Church does not dump all versions of the Bible except the one that Jospeh Smith "translated" and declared complete and finished.

Just-a-guy: From my perspective you appear to be adding 1 and 1 and coming up with five. No matter how you want to interpret the passage you cannot change what is says and the premise of the chapter, clearly stated ("Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him. we ask you brothers, not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come") is what must happen prior to the second coming of Jesus and prior when "the man of lawlessness", the full demonstration of the state of fallen man, is revealed. The anti-Christ is the symbol of that. As I said earlier, to argue that differences of opinion and problems within the Thessalonian church are signs of a complete collapse and failure of the Gospel carries no more weight than me trying to suggest that the large number of people leaving the Mormon Church is evidence of its imminent total collapse. I wish it were true...but wishing doesn't make it so.

Blackmarch: Without wanting to get into a debate about Brigham Young's teaching on Adam-God, it is semantics to argue about what constitutes "a little". Such teaching, accompanied by hymns, is heresy whether or not it's a little or much. The extent of the teaching is out there to be found should you wish to search but I suspect that you will prefer LDS sanitized sources.

Nora: Mormons and orthodox Christians (not the best term but an easy one for distinction of the differences) cannot, IMV, have fellowship. The divisions are too deep and too substantial for meaningful fellowship on theological grounds. I know you would disagree but I believe I worship a different Jesus from the Mormon Jesus, for instance. As I understand it, the Mormon Jesus is a created being, a spirit child of a god who was once a man who was exalted to godhood to have spirit children with a spirit wife. Without getting into that debate, orthodoxy rejects that concept as heresy of the worst kind, denying Jesus the diety that entitles him to everything else. The orthodox Jesus is Emannuel, God with us....the literal human manifestation of one God..."In the beginning was the Word (Jesus is the Word) , and the Word was with God, and the Word was with God." If one or the other's very understanding of just who Jesus is is wrong, if we perceive him in totally different ways and we clothe him in opposing theology, I don't see how one or other of us is not against him. I rest my case and my faith entirely on Jesus and the revelation of him in the Bible....from my viewpoint Mormons put a great deal of faith in the teaching of Joseph Smith so I suppose ultimately, Mormonism stands or falls on the veracity of Joseph Smith and his character above all else. I believe Mormons are sincere in their desire (Romans 10: 1-4 comes to mind) to do what is right but they place an awful lot of trust in the man Joseph Smith. Jesus only is the way, the truth, and the life. Are you sure you are placing your trust there?

I have no problem is essence with what you say but would like scriptural support...the details of heaven are IMV sketchy at best so I content myself with the idea of being present with God my Savior. I do like the scriptural idea that any accolades of life we receive through our faith will be rewarded with crowns in heaven.....crowns that we will cast at the feet of the Savior. My favorite hymn conveys my thinking in this area: "When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of Glory died. My richest gain I count but loss and pour contempt on all my pride." I do perhaps have a problem with the way you suggest "LDS seem to take this further". It sort of implies to me that some allowance should be made for them and that this "taking thing further" is a natural growth process of gospel understanding. IMV is it an add on that is not supported by scripture but fall into the category of "another gospel". I am sure that is not what you mean to say.

I think we are splitting hairs here. My point is that a woman is either pregnant or she is not...there are no inbetweens...two months or six months she is still pregnant....and I don't intend to be sidetracked by a silly issue of semantics. The only reason I asked for clarification is as I stated...LDS and non LDS often use the same terms but mean something very different as is the case with the word "salvation" as has been covered earlier in the thread.

Christians are saved by Christ's righteousness imputed to them through faith in him...when we stand before God we will be clothed in a righteousness that rightfully belongs to Jesus but which he freely gives us through his grace and by our faith. Without it we stand before god in nothing but the "filthy rags" of our works. In the same way righteousness was accounted to people such as Abraham by their faith. I know the reference Mormons use to support a premortal life but that idea is not accepted in orthodoxy. I do not think Adam disobeyed God out of some desire to further God's plan but through his freedom of choice given by God he allowed Satan to beguile him and wilfully made the choice to disobey. It is interesting that one major "prophet" of Mormonism taught for many years that God himself was actually Adam. Do you not find that disconcerting?

PrisonChaplain: I had no real intent. I supposed my question was prompted by my misunderstanding, or imagining, of you using the term holiness for AOG. As I said, I do like the Wesleyan idea of a willful disobedience to God's law and I think that would be encompassed in your use of the word blatant.

PrisonChaplain: I have a question for you. In an earlier post you made reference to your denomination as Assemblies of God and referenced it as a holiness church. I have met and talked with many AOG people and must admit that I cannot recollect them using that term to describe themselves. I must confess that your picture with the collar made me assume that perhaps you were part of a mainstream church, maybe Lutheran, so AOG surprises me somewhat. I do, myself attend a holines church but consider that issues such as when sanctification takes place as purely peripheral and I think they lend support to the LDS notion that the various Christian churches are at each other's throats. I don't care particularly when sanctification takes place as long as it does. But I ramble...the question: I do support the Wesleyan idea of willfulness and would like to know how you would define sin.

Just-a-guy: You raise many points but none confirm from a scriptural basis any kind of complete failure of Christ's church...especially the one under discussion. There is no other reading of the Thessalonians passage that suggests any other time than that period shortly before the revelation of the "anti-Christ'. The two events are clearly linked together in those verses and the whole point of the chapter is relative to the time of Christ's second coming and what will take place prior to it happening. Paul wrote often in his letters of problems within the church as people from various nations, cultures and religious traditions came together in Christ. IMV to assume that such problems were evidence that everything he and others were working for was about to collapse is simply absurd and is not supported by virtually any religious or historical scholarship outside Mormonism.

JanSan: Perhaps you could reference these "veiled put downs" and "sacrcasms" that you accuse me of. I suspect they are there in your sensibilities rather than in reality. Nowhere did I describe anyone as a "horrible person" but I stated clearly that the ultimate object of Mormon "missionaries" is to baptize people into the Mormon Church. Is that a "veiled put down".?....is it "sarcastic"? I did not suggest the idea of "at all costs"...merely stated the primary objective of the Mormon Church proselytizing effort. In general terms, if you want posts that just make you feel good perhaps you should avoid mine....I believe that salvation is too important an issue to leave to flattery. How much honey did Jesus use in the Sermon of Woes in Matthew 23?

It appears to me that your response clouds the issue. You offered the Thessalonians verse as a proof text of the complete breakdown of Christ's church. I have replied with a perspective of why that is a wrong interpretation...a perspective which I contend is supported by the context of the scripture. Now you are changing the subject to other, wider issues. If you disagree with my position on the Thessalonians quote may I hear why you feel that specific quote still supports the idea of a total apostasy going back to almost to the time of Christ himself.

As I've said, if it makes you happy....good. On such a topic one opinion is as good as another.

I can't remember who was after Obama as number one but in general terms politicians, even presidents don't usually feature in my most admired lists. I do very much admire Jimmy Carter but for his humble spirit rather than for any politics he might profess.

Prisonchaplain: I somehow don't think the thousands of Mormon "missionaries" are out there just to be friendly and say hello. They may well be warm and friendly but their purpose in knocking on doors it to bring people to baptism into the LDS Church. Their church leader is interested in how many baptism they have, not how many people they smiled at. I mean no disrespect in this but that is their purpose.