JeepMoab

I'm only saying what historic Christianity has always taught. Look it up online- I'm sure anyone can find it. No, it's not what the LDS church teaches but then the LDS church has said they have no part of affiliation with any other religion. And they owe their beliefs to none of them. They said, "We disclaim the whole of them (JM add- them means all other religions); claim no 'affinity' to any of them" (JoD 11:218). Then in the HoC Index volume, pg. 63 it says this under 'Christianity', "devil is hope of salvation of, V5:218". In HoC 5:218 it says this, "What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by which he deceives the whole world." So I thought my definition of Christianity was 'devil worship' to the LDS (since the church put it in their history and gave sermons to that effect) and wouldn't be offensive or insulting to any LDS. No offense was intended. But I find your church's words to be very offensive. And, I'm just stating the facts as the LDS church taught, recorded/printed and published them.

I'm sure I'm missing some comments- I can't keep up (haha)- but...are you saying the church did not accurately record what happened as it was happening (or shortly thereafter)? That's not what the HoCs say or the men who are "Called' to be leaders of of God's only true church on earth. Are you trying to say that those men, who actually lived it, don't know as much about their church's history- and their own- as men today who are more than 170 years removed from the events? Are you really going to try to pass that off? I don't buy it. And, JS said he believed the Bible said what it means and means what it says. I say the same about the LDS leaders who all had to see Jesus personally before becoming Apostles and going out into the world (HoC 2:182-190-ish). If you can't trust these men (mid-1800s) then who can you trust?

First off, I didn't mean to imply BRM was a liar. I meant those who say one thing then change it, for whatever reason, are hiding something. And, if it came from God the first time then they are leading people astray with false doctrines (not accusing anyone here- just saying). The LDS church, through BY (JoD 9:289), said God would quickly sweep any LDS leader off the earth if they 'tried' to lead the church astray. And, BY said 'all' of his sermons were scripture (JoD 13:95). So, if they try to change something, any thing, then they should have been swept off the earth or someone was leading the people/church astray by saying he would. Also, I have found, in my 25 plus years researching, that most of what BRM said was actually taught as LDS doctrine and/or scripture by the church/its leaders. I see no tradition there but rather truth, LDS church truth.

K. Thanks. Actually, yes but they never go with what has already been revealed to us. When it comes to visions, dreams, angels, spirits or feelings we are to never contradict what has already been revealed to us. Thus Paul saying the devil can appear as an angel of light. With revealed truth in hand we can know what a bad feeling or spirit is by examining that entity (spirit, dream, feeling, etc) with what we know is from God. God does not send mixed messages or change His doctrines (etc). How can I trust Him to not do so later on to the exact opposite once He starts doing it? That's not a perfect, just and Holy God. Ok. Will go there with this stuff. Again, thanks.

Funny! Did you notice that they were all wrong (haha).The Bibe, even Jesus, said no one knows he day or the hour. So when people start saying Jesus is coming this day or that you know, beyond all feeling or reason that person, persons or church is false. God never fails in anything He says because He knows everything all the way to the end of the earth 'before' He created the first thing. That is also why i say a church that changes its doctrines, etc. is false because God knows everything so He, if it is Him talking and not some guy, never says what isn't true the first time. He'd be a liar and fraud if He did that- and not a God I would ever serve. By the way, calling yourself or someone a prophet doesn't mean you/they are. 1 Jn. 4:1 clearly tells us a lot of false prophets are in the world. Jesus did too in Mt. So, how do we know the true prophets of God from the false ones? Easy- wtach what they 'prophesy'. If they have to change it, make excuses for it, deny they said it or- most impotant of all- if it doesn't come true 'in every minute detail' then you know without doubt or question that guy/guys/church is false.

But we were talking about Isaiah. If that is true then why did JS and other teach Missouri was Zion, the 'only' gathering place? There are no moutains there. I actually wondered about using that term, instead of Native Americans (which they aren't that, either- they are from Mongolia. Nor are they Jews as some have categorically said they were.), but decided it would be ok without explanation. I was wrong. haha. Yes, He did. But what are those 'works'? According to Jesus they are simply and only- "that you 'believe' in Him (Jesus) whom He (God) sent" (Jn. 6:29). Christians have done amazingly bad things in the name of God. I don't discount that. I abhor it! It's one thing for a so-called Christian to do heinous acts- in the name of God or not. But it is a totally different thing when a God tells people to do heinous acts. That is deplorable. And that's a god I can't follow or believe in. I've read some horrible things supposedly done because God commanded it. I know my God, Christianity's God, would never do that. Why would He die for my sins if He wanted to murder tens of thousands (maybe millions) for no reason whatever? He didn't have to die such a cruel, horrible and, indeed, completely meaningless and worthless death if He wanted to torture me/us.

That is what the LDS church teaches. But in Christianity no one has to be a member of any church to be a Christian. Remember, no church existed at the time John came preaching repentance and forgiveness. Salvation by repentance and grace came first then baptism then the church was organized. Also, baptism has been given a sort of bad rap. No where in the Bible does it teach that baptism is required for salvation. In fact, Jesus never baptized anyone the Bible says. Paul said he wasn't sent to baptize and only baptised a few of the thousands he preached to.

Those who accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior are forgiven. So, the most important part of being a Christian is living like one- having a personal relatiopnship with Him. Reading and obeying the Bible is how we do that. No matter how long we live all of us will sin until we die. Most of us will sin every day and sometimes multiple times a day. That doesn't mean we aren't Christians but that we are human. We are controlled by a sin-nature- we simply can't help but sin. God knew that and that is why a perfect sacrifice had to be offered for our sins. One who had no sin was the only payment acceptable to a Holy, Righteous and Perfect God. Thus Jesus came into the world. When you consider religion note that all of them are about the teachings of the man/men who founded it. Christianity is vastly different than that. It is about the man, Jesus Christ. The word Jesus means 'God's salvation'. The word Christ means 'God's annointed One or Chosen One'. Jesus is God's chosen one for the world today. When we take our eyes off Jesus is when we begin to fall backwards or are unable to stay pure in heart. Or, if we don't know Him it is equally impossible to be moral people- morality only comes from God (not man).

Actually, I am only repeating what the church has taught and taking it to its logical conclusion. Please be more detailed in how I am personally interpretating what the church said. That wasn't my intent or desire. In your scenario each successive war could have been bigger than the last. But to say our historical records are true when there are only a few years worth of records (1929-1844) then say they aren't is someone changing something, That is obvious and it has nothing to do with being personal or anyone's individual interpretation. In fact, I have found quotes from my 1918 D&CC (D&C Commentary)where the church had put something in its history (HoC) only to check my modern (paperback) HoCs and find that it was taken out of the HoC. That's changing your history, isn't it? If not, what do you call that? The records (HoCs and the words of the church leaders who put them together) stand for themselves. If they were wrong back then, show/say how don't just say it and move on as if nothing was ever said. That is , at least, misleading people who haven't studied the church like I have. What?! They had all of the reords of their church in their hands. They 'lived' through the times or they had trusted men who did . How can you even 'think' such a thing? Hey, now, name calling is undeserved. If you can't refute or explain your churches changes to its history, doctrines and prophecies without name calling and being mean then maybe you should not reply. And, maybe you should study your history and teachings more. I don't know everything about anything especially my own religious beliefs or yours. But what I do know is what your church/leaders said their God told them was his forever, true and unchanging doctrines many of which are either denied, hidden or outright rejected these days. I'm not looking for a fight I am just trying to figure out why all the changes from an 'all-knowing' God. If you can't answer then allow someone who knows to answer but don't start name-calling because you don't like the truth or can't defend your churches teachings. That is wrong every time.

Thanks.

We aren't forgetting the distinction we are banking on it. God became a man in order to pay for the sins of mankind because the righteous requirement of God demands a perfect and sinless payment for our sins. God made us perfect but we 'chose' to sin. God then had to redeem us but He couldn't find any other way or person who could (Is. 59:15-17). So, He became the payment by becoming a human. Hebrews says He became a man like us, signifying that we were human then God became a human to be the full payment (propitiation) for all sin. 1 Corinthians 15 speaks of this to some degree as well- we are flesh first then we become spirit. Since God is a Spirit He had to become flesh, like us, and be one of us to die for us. (Hebrews 2:17)

Christianity sees it differently. We see it as God being able to do anything He choses (within reason and common sense- can God create a rock to big for Him to lift, etc. These are mere tactics of distraction from the anti-God people). As He chose to show (manifest) Himself in the OT (pillar of fire by night, cloud by day- many different and varied forms) He has chosen to do so in this the last dispensation of time- the Gospel Age. There are no good explanations/descriptions that I know of that do justice to the Trinity but I'll try (If I could fully understand God then I'd be Him)- A man can be a dad, an employee and a husband. While he is doing each one he doesn't stop being the other two. He simply has a job to perform as each while he is in each position. Jesus is the only God but He also became the full price paid for our sins on the Cross at Calvary. While a man He laid down a portion of His Godhood (for example, He couldn't be everywhere at once). And, since God, the Father is a Spirit and He had to provide someway for our forgiveness God had to become a man like us, Hebrews says. What Jesus did down here was for us to see, hear and accept for our salvation. When or if we say God can't be more than one Person we severely limit God's ability and, really, try to say we understand His purposes more than He. I find no evidence (and I've looked! haha) to say Jesus is another God or not the one, true God. I've seen no evidence that those who say such are from God, either. Sure, they say they are but where is the proof that they are other than their 'own' words to that effect? There are none. So until I am shown or find clear proof I have to stand pat that Jesus is the only God manifested in the flesh to die for my sins and offer me free and forever life with Him if I will repent of my sins and live to the best of my ability what His Word says. That is the Christian perspective.

Well put. But, how do we know, for certain, that someone has 'authority' from God to officiate? We can't trust our feelings or spirits or men who say they are from God. So how do we know? The Bible gives us tests to apply to spirits, angels and men. Those tests apply to the Bible and all other religions that say they are from God. And, IF God is all-knowing and all-powerful then what he says through his leaders always comes to pass and is always true since God never changes. Only men change. So if there are changes to God's words or anything else he does (prophecies) then you know that church is manmade. Truth never changes. What was true is still true or God is lying all the while forbidding us to lie. That would also make God a hypocrite to his own cause.

If that is true why are some here acting like the 'new' stuff (which I didn't even know about) has changed some things? According to LDS doctrine the truth is the same in every generation (Mormon Doctrine (MD) 810). It never changes and if it does it wasn't true when they said it was. Whoa. I wasn't picking anything apart I was just saying what the church said- its history is the most correct ever written. I agree with people saying bad things from all religions but...the LDS church is different insofar that it is run directly by God. Christian churches are guided by the Bible, not by revelation straight from God as the LDS is. That's the difference. There have always been bad Christians in high positions. But a bad LDS in a high position was 'Called' to be there by God. See the diff? I don't dimiss any 'leader' from any church from any time period. If they were bad they should be called bad. But when its an LDS that says or does bad it falls to the feet of the LDS God because he knows everything (the future included) and he called this guy knowing he would act/speak that way. I fully embrace my history. It seems the LDS are always wanting to change theirs and make excuses for it then demand everyone else accept the new as true. I don't do that for anything in life- I follow the facts, whatever they say and wherever they lead whether it's agreeable to me, you or whoever. That is the nature of truth- we don't always like it but truth never changes or cares about what we 'think' or 'feel' about it.

Did you read what the church leaders said? They were eye witnesses or first hand accounts of what happened. So please explain how their methodology was flawed or how they were biased. Also, if that great work- said to be the most correct history ever- isn't then why should we believe anything the LDS church says is true- like the BoM, which is 'said' to be the most correct book on earth? And, with no evil intent here, they were either telling (writing) the truth or lying. There isn't any other way to look at it. The HoCs as originally published are true or church leaders and a soon-to-be church Prophet led the church astray- and both BY and WW (the one who helped compile the HoCs) said God would never allow the leaders to do that. Really? They were living at the time and they had the past and present church records readily available. How did they 'lack' access? Also, there wasn't near as many records to sift through so it was, really, an easy thing for them to do. But you say they got it wrong. So do you really think, with almost 200 years worth of records to sift through they will get it any more right 'this' time? What about next time when they say this time was...something? Another motto of mine is, never use an excuse for an escape. Honesty is the best policy the first time or you end up changing your unchangeable God's words, doctrines and your own recorded history over and over as we see happening now with the church.