The Goal Of Our Faith

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Originally posted by Snow+Nov 9 2005, 08:37 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Please@Nov 9 2005, 07:38 AM

Thank you for including me on the good list...   I have to agree... snow is mean all the time... not just when he or the church are attacked...

←

Wrong - I am only agtagonistic towards irrationality, bigotry, dishonesty and ignorance with sometimes a slight negative nod towards supercilliousness (not my own) and Celine Dion fans.

←

Then you must really be having a battle with yourself... most of the time...

[Snow]

Originally posted by Ray@Nov 9 2005, 09:31 AM

And btw, if you still feel the need to argue about this, you may argue about this with somebody else.

←

Yeah, I know Ray. You've said that three times now but keep on arguing.

Let me show you the deficiency of your argument and then give you the correction that you yourself should have made when you were given the Church.

As proof of your assertion that the 'Church officially declares that what they taught was inspired or revealed to them by our Lord Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Ghost' you offer:

I don’t recall the specific words, but one reference that comes to mind is from a President of the Church who stated that prophets don’t need to preface a statement with “thus saith the Lord” in order to have their statement regarded as scripture. And since a President of the Church is officially recognized as the highest official in the Church on Earth at any given time, that’s officially enough for me.

Another reference that comes to mind is from Doctrine & Covenants section 50, where it says that everything that leads to do good and believe in Christ is inspired of God… and although some people think some of what Joseph Smith and Brigham Young said went way out on a limb in leading people to do good and believe in Christ, I personally testify that I have been brought closer to Christ through the things they have said.

Both those things may be true but that does not mean that everything the Brethren teach is true nor does it mean the Church has made any such OFFICIAL DECLARATION.

One of the Brethren may speak that which was revealed to them and does not have to preface it with "thus sayeth the Lord" but the Brethren often speak and it is not necessarily true or inspired.

Remeber when Spencer Kimball said that the little American Indian children that had accepted the gospel were starting to turn white? That wasn't true or inspired. Some of what the Brethren say is true and inspired, some is not - obviously - and that is reason that there is no "offical declaration" that [all of] what they teach is true and inspired.

What the Church does officially declare is that the Scriptures are the word of God. Occasionally but not frequently, the First Presidency will make "official declarations" such as they did in 1906 with "The Origin of Man" and in their 1917 doctrinal statement on the nature of the Godhead.

A step below that is that is what the Church publishes in it's magazines and through Deseret Books - though those quasi-official articles and talks do not constitute official policy and doctrine, then can be taken as a reasonable guide of what the Brethren currently think is doctrinal or orthodox.

Since what the Brethren consider doctrinal, official or doctrinal may and does change over time, all statements regardless of who makes them need to be measured agains the scriptures and current teachings of the Brethren.

[Ray]

Snow,

I declare that every message given by any President of the Church when he speaks or writes as the President of the Church, such as when he is introduced to the public or to the Church as the President of the Church before he speaks or writes as the President of the Church, may and indeed should be regarded as scripture even if that message never becomes included in the "canon" or "standard" works.

Furthermore, I also declare that every message now given by any General Authority of the Church when he speaks or writes as a General Authority of the Church, such as when he is introduced to the public or to the Church as a General Authority of the Church before he speaks or writes as a General Authority of the Church, may and indeed should be regarded as scripture even if that message never becomes included in the "canon" or "standard" works.

And I also declare that Presidents and General Authorities of the Church have made declarations like this before, so you're not only disagreeing with me, but you're also disagreeing with them.

And btw, every time you say something like "what about this", and "what about that" with the idea that those things are not true, you sound more and more like an apostate or unbeliever who also does not see how some things can be true, even though those of us who believe can and often do see how those things are true.

Oh, and one more thing. I didn't say that I wouldn't argue with you any more about this issue. I said that if you want to continue to argue about this issue you may do so with somebody else, though I now don't intend to argue with you about this any more myself.

p.s. I also recommend that you read that message given by President Benson, while considering the idea that he really was declaring the word of God, and not just his opinion.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Ray@Nov 10 2005, 12:44 PM

Snow,

I declare[/color that every message given by any President of the Church when he speaks or writes as the President of the Church, such as when he is introduced to the public or to the Church as the President of the Church before he speaks or writes as the President of the Church, may and indeed should be regarded as scripture even if that message never becomes included in the "canon" or "standard" works.

Furthermore, I also declare that every message now given by any General Authority of the Church when he speaks or writes as a General Authority of the Church, such as when he is introduced to the public or to the Church as a General Authority of the Church before he speaks or writes as a General Authority of the Church, may and indeed should be regarded as scripture even if that message never becomes included in the "canon" or "standard" works.

And I also declare that Presidents and General Authorities of the Church have made declarations like this before, so you're not only disagreeing with me, but you're also disagreeing with them. 

And btw, every time you say something like "what about this", and "what about that" with the idea that those things are not true, you sound more and more like an apostate or unbeliever who also does not see how some things can be true, even though those of us who believe can and often do see how those things are true.

Oh, and one more thing. I didn't say that I wouldn't argue with you any more about this issue. I said that if you want to continue to argue about this issue you may do so with somebody else, though I now don't intend to argue with you about this any more myself.

p.s.  I also recommend that you read that message given by President Benson, while considering the idea that he really was declaring the word of God, and not just his opinion.

←

I guess this makes it the 4th time you aren't going to argue with me about this anymore. I wonder how many more times I can get you to do what you say you won't do anymore?

... I'm guessing about 2 times more.

Raymond,

What up with all this "I declare" tripe? I mean what are you - the King of Umbahbahmoumou? Well - I do declare, with full solemnity and stoutness of heart, that you sound like a silly goose when you "declare" anything. How bout just talking like a real human being? Come on Raymond, give it a try.

Have it your way Ray - according to your belief system - It is your official church's policy/doctrine/belief that indians turn white when they accept the gospel, man will never launch into outer space or land on the moon, the Church does not [did not] practice plural marriage, blacks are an inferior race, representatives of Satan and will never hold the priesthood on this earth and whites that have sex with blacks should be killed on the spot, forever and amen, (all spoken or taught by prophets).

Of course, it's worth noting that the church I belong to, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believes none of those things - thank goodness but it shouldn't be a surprize really - after us real Mormons, as a general rule, are a fairly educated lot.

Lastly Ray, and I declare this with effulgent grace and spectacular decorum, your calling me an apostate/unbeliever because I don't agree with your uninformed and illogical opinions is - well - er - ah - stupid Ray. Yes, that's the ticket. Saying I am or sound lilke an apostate is stupid.

[Ray]

I can easily see why you have trouble understanding some doctrine.

I never said I wouldn't argue with you. I told you that you could argue with somebody else, and that I didn't intend to argue with you about "that" issue any more.

I also never called you an apostate. I said that when you say things like "what about this" and "what about that" with the idea that those things are wrong, you sound like an apostate or unbeliever does when they simply can't see the truth.

I also never said that I'm a member of another Church, and since you don't seem to know which church I am a member of, I'll let you know that I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

And my middle name is Ray, not Raymond.

Anyway, believe whatever you want to believe, and I will follow the Prophets.

[Snow]

That's one.

[Red]

Wow, I've been gone longer than I thought!

Oh well, glad to be back and as far as the semester goes its down hill from here and so I'll be posting more in the coming days. I've read through the discussions up to this point and (I'm probably the most shocked at this...) I can't wait to answer Snow's question for the third time now, because as I thought about it I realized that it's just another chance to share the gospel!

But to be fair, Snow (and Apostleknight--in fact please do respond), tell us all exactly where it says in LDS Doctrine that this idea is false, the idea that: "the most obedient/valiant Mormons (most "righteous"--for lack of a better term) will accend to the Celestial kinghom, attain godhood and have children for the rest of eternity, and then rule over those worlds which their children will inhabit." What passage(s) refutes this idea? I've laid out out the "dots" several times now to support this idea, lets see yours.

Again I want all of you to know that my intentions are not malicious but evangelistic in love.

Prisonchaplain, I'm encouraged by your presence here. I hope we can work well together in reaching them (though I am aware you are here more to learn, and I certainly understand that).

God bless

[Snow]

Originally posted by Red@Nov 12 2005, 06:41 PM

But to be fair, Snow (and Apostleknight--in fact please do respond), tell us all exactly where it says in LDS Doctrine that this idea is false, the idea that: "the most obedient/valiant Mormons (most "righteous"--for lack of a better term) will accend to the Celestial kinghom, attain godhood and have children for the rest of eternity, and then rule over those worlds which their children will inhabit."  What passage(s) refutes this idea?  I've laid out out the "dots" several times now to support this idea, lets see yours. 

←

You seem to labor under the assumption that there is some repository of LDS doctrine that specifies not only what we believe, but also what we do not believe. That is an erroneous assumption. With a few exceptions we do not have negative doctrines - stating what we do not believe in.

On page 2 of this thread I gave all the canonical, and thus doctrinal, sources of our beliefs on deification (in the Bible and Doctrine and Covenants). Apparently you have not reviewed them but they say nothing about being Gods of our own world and ruling over countless children.

If you want to know what LDS doctrine on the matter is, then ask, but don't make up what you think we ought to believe and act as if you have proved it when you have done nothing of the sort.

[Red]

Snow’s Question:

“Here's what you said that I am interested in you justifying:

And if you exceed all the others in righteousness you will go on to become a God of your own world and populate it with countless children. But the cycle repeats again doesn't it?”

The quotes on page 3 were meant to answer this. I am familiar with the passages you recommended on page 2: D/C 76 and 132. It would be interesting to see your interpretations of the Biblical passages you mentioned. I honestly do not want to misrepresent your church, and if you can make the case that your church does not teach what I’ve been warning about then I’ll be glad to stop saying what I’m saying. However, the more I re-evaluate my position in light of the objections, and the more I review your scriptures and the words of the one you call a prophet, the more I am convinced that I am truly representing what these doctrines teach. I am trying to tell you that they lead to a very bad conclusion.

I see your question in two parts:

1. And if you exceed all the others in righteousness you will go on to become a God… (I honestly thought it was a given that your church taught this, but here we’ll look at it in detail.)

2. …of your own world and populate it with countless children. But the cycle repeats again… (I addressed this issue on page 4, but we’ll rehash it here.)

Answer to 1:

(Before I start, I realized that the word “all” might be a source of confusion. Forget it’s there, I know LDS doctrine does not teach that only one Mormon will ever attain Celestial Glory and/or godhood! Instead it would probably be more accurate to say “exceed many others…” I hope that clarifies my position.)

I mostly get this idea from D/C 76. Speaking of those who enter the Celestial Kingdom it says that they:

-“shall come forth in the resurrection of the just…” (v50),

-believed in Jesus and were baptized (v51),

-received the Holy Spirit by laying on of hands (v52),

-overcame by faith (v53).

-They are kings and priests according to the order of Melchizedeck (v56-57),

-“they are gods, even the sons of God…” (v58),

-“all things are theirs, whether in life or death, or things present, or things to come…” (v59),

-“these shall dwell in the presence of God and his Christ forever and ever..” (v62),

-and they are “just men made perfect through Jesus…” (v69).

There is a whole lot “to do” in order to make it into the Celestial Kingdom. Not all Mormons will achieve this as it says in v79: “they are not valiant in the testimony of Jesus…” and are a part of the Terrestrial Kingdom and only “receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fullness of the Father” (v77).

Essentially, Mormons who enter the Celestial Kingdom succeed where other Mormons have failed. Let’s explore this more, in the Book of Mormon for example:

“…this much I can tell you, that if ye do not watch yourselves, and your thoughts, and your words, and your deeds, and observe the commandments of God, and continue in the faith of what ye have heard concerning the coming of our Lord, even unto the end of your lives, ye must perish. And now, O man, remember, and perish not” (Mosiah 4:30)

What does this say about the requirement for salvation (i.e. anything besides perishing)? Watch your thoughts, words, deeds and observe God’s law (all of it apparently), and continue in this faith till the day you die and you won’t “perish.” Your salvation as a Mormon depends on your performance. As I understand LDS doctrine, “perishing” or “condemnation” does not necessarily mean burning in hell forever or being banished to outer darkness, but simply being kept from progressing (i.e. remaining in the Terrestrial or Telestial Kingdoms for all eternity).

One more from D/C 132, talking about being sealed in the temple for time and eternity with your spouse, and all the glories, salvation into the Celestial Kingdom and godhood that goes with it, it says:

“Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my law ye cannot attain to this glory” (v21).

So attaining Glory in the Celestial Kingdom (full Salvation) depends on where your heart is (are you valiant or not) and how well you perform in fulfilling the Law. And of course any failure in this area and your place in the Celestial kingdom is forfeit. Though I am aware of D/C 132:26 where it says that only murdering an innocent can cause someone who was sealed for time and eternity to loose their place in the Celestial. Still, the same principle is at work, your performance in this life determines whether or not you’ll spend eternity with your Heavenly Father. Of course he is the judge of all this, and after you do all that you can do, his grace kicks in (2 Nephi 25:23)—essentially a just man who has been perfected.

Answer to 2:

I’ll quote Joseph Smith again, from his King Follet sermon where He seems to clearly imply that he is speaking the word of God, specifically words pertaining to the knowledge of God which is vital to salvation. If any of you like, I have this saved as a word document (un-tampered with of course, only highlighted in some areas), and I’ll email it to you.

“…you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you. . . . . . they shall be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ. What is it? To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a god, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before" (King Follet sermon).

Before this passage he defines God as a being who was once a normal man but is now exalted and obviously ruling over our world. Now here he describes how this process has always been going on, and that we are to follow in the footsteps of God and all those who have gone before. When I consider the phrases “inherit the same power [as God],” “same glory [as God],” “same exaltation [as God],” and “arrive at the station of a god,” call me crazy, but somehow I am lead to the conclusion that ruling over a world with inhabitants on it is part of the package.

Another example:

“…and they [a man and woman who are both sealed together for time and eternity] shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever. Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them” (D/C 132:19-20).

Again, maybe the doctor dropped me once or twice (maybe that would explain a lot of things, woo-hoo), but if these two people, Mr. Jack and Mrs. Jill Mormon are to become gods, and part of being a god is having seeds (which I’ll go out on a not so shaky limb and guess that these are spirit children), then these “seeds” need to live on a world where they can have the same opportunities to grow just as their heavenly mom and dad did.

Well, it’s not a guess at all, according to vv62-63 of the same section:

“And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified. But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfill the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified” (D/C 132:62-63).

These “souls of men” that are born to the women as a result of “exaltation in the eternal worlds” need to go somewhere don’t they? I know about the doctrine of the pre-mortal life as well as you do, and part of that life was that you could progress no further until you lived out a life (a probation) on a sinful world. If that is true then these “souls of men” yet to be born ought to certainly have the same opportunity as you have had.

Snow said:

“You seem to labor under the assumption that there is some repository of LDS doctrine that specifies not only what we believe, but also what we do not believe. That is an erroneous assumption. With a few exceptions we do not have negative doctrines - stating what we do not believe in.”

That is no excuse. Try again. If you can’t find some verse, or even words from one of your prophets that refute this idea categorically, then piece together your case from multiple sources—at least make a case! And no, I am not laboring under an erroneous assumption in this regard; the Bible is full of material specifically written to refute false doctrines—especially the Prophets of the Old Testament and letters in the New Testament. So why not also in the BoM, D/C or PGP if indeed these texts are “God-breathed.” Your church has been around for about 200 years, and I’m sure this controversy we are duking out right now must have been around since the King Follet Sermon—somebody must’ve written something! Surely there are recorded, constructive arguments for and against. You seem to be a knowledgeable guy, you know better than to state what you believe to be truth, say the other person is wrong, then not support your position at all as if you didn’t have to.

You’ve heard this I’m sure: “…be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ” (1 Peter 3:15, KJV).

[Red]

Apostleknight: thought I’d answer your objections from pages 3.

“It's absurd really, if you think about it. What you're saying in reality is: "LeGrand, you believe <insert controversial doctrine> is true, but because of <insert anti-mormon argument>, it can't be true. So you really never did get an answer from God, can't you see?"

It’s not absurd at all. “…for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light” (2 Cor 11:14, KJV). If Satan can and does pretend to be an angel of light then all bets are off when it comes to spiritual experiences. Our only hope for finding truth is in God’s word; all spiritual experiences must be judged by it. So the testimony which you received, no matter how powerful it must be, it may or may not be from God. I am pleading with you, telling you that it is not from God. Do I know this because some angel told me so? No, that would mean nothing, as Jason the deist pointed out that he got a “warm fuzzy” about Mormonism and a “warm fuzzy” about deism. Instead I am only telling you what God’s word says.

‘You mean your interpretation of what God’s word says,’ you might say. Of course not, I am learning and practicing exegesis in Bible interpretation, I am being trained not to buy into any “ism” like Calvinism or Armineism and then read through those lenses, but to research and present the plain meaning of the text by looking at context, structure, historical back-round and the original languages. The Holy Spirit does not reveal truth to me, but guides me to truth (John 16:13, KJV). Of course He does give revelations as the rest of the verse says, but I do not have the gift of prophecy. I try to be as honest as possible, true to the intended meaning of the text—to just be a conduit.

[Red]

“An intellectual argument cannot CHANGE a spiritual experience. But a spiritual experience CAN change an intellectual argument.”

In many cases that is unfortunately true. But it is dangerous and questionable territory to wander in. If spiritual experience is the standard of truth, then anyone can claim anything. But with the Word is the great equalizer, common denominator or the standard by which we measure all beliefs. Of course many people have many interpretations, some false, some true, but at the end of the day the Word says what it says and someone will be right in the their opinions and someone else will be wrong.

Many people commune with many spirits; you cannot rely on a spiritual experience for truth. ‘But wait, I’m talking about an intellectual argument vs. spiritual experience!’ maybe you’d say. These arguments involve God’s word, and I am also pointing out a flaw in your method of truth seeking. Many of the people I witness to on the street or on college campuses share your thinking on this subject. They (often agnostic/spiritualist types, etc.) place their spiritual experience over any reasoning I present and so I fear for you and all Mormons.

[Red]

"In the end, you need to share with us how you were scarred (not scared) by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. For every thousand hacking at the leaves, there is one hacking at the roots of the issue. We've hacked enough leaves, let's address the roots now. We know WHAT your position is in relation to LDS teachings. You believe we're wrong (and damned).

Tell us HOW that became your position...what event/s involving the LDS church required that God "save you" from it? This will ultimately foster more understanding than all of our posts put together. So if it's not too personal, let's get down to it...what happened?”

Well my testimony isn’t too amazing, but it certainly drives me. The LDS Church has scarred me in no way whatsoever; I have nothing against any of you for any reason. I accepted Jesus as my Lord when I was 5 years old, probably heard the gospel multiple times in Sunday school and from my parents. One night I couldn’t sleep, so I got up and asked my mom and dad to pray with me, and so I became Christian that night—then I could go to sleep. The Lord has always been my rest.

I’ll rewind a bit…once upon a time my dad was a Mormon, through highschool, a failed marriage and up to 1979 when he came to know the Lord. Long story short, he mentioned never really buying into it, and he told me a few things here and there but I grew up in a home generally indifferent to Mormons (he had moved to California, remarried and so here I am). The attitude was, “Mormons and JW’s are cults, be polite and say ‘no thank-you’ when they come to the door.” From your mission trip you might be familiar with this. Key: normal; nothing traumatic to report.

But here’s were it gets interesting: anyone knows they could die any second, and any religious person knows they only live because God let’s them, but I have a very acute awareness of this fact. Your aortic valve in your heart is tricuspid, but mine is defective and is bicuspid. That means it doesn’t open as wide or close all the way, which can cause plenty of problems—so much so that doctors wanted to do surgery on me as an infant! I could have had a plastic valve in there and replaced it every two years—that’s open heart surgery, not much fun. Instead, God had other plans: my parents prayed and a pastor even anointed me with oil for healing and I was healed. The problem is still there but the symptoms are not. My heart shouldn’t be working normally but it is. It’s as if God is beating my heart for me every second. So you can imagine how that thought can drive a person and make him live with a sense of urgency. To me, evangelism and building up the body of Christ are the most important things in this life.

As for my experience with Mormons: back in my freshmen year of college, the college group at my church went on a mission trips to Salt Lake City where we witnessed to Mormons (and anyone else). At the end of the week I had found my calling: you guys. Later on, I kept it up on my own at the community college I went to. There is an LDS Institute of Religion building right next door, and so one day I decided to go in there and see who I could talk to. Of course I was cocky had all my verses, arguments and pamphlets lined up but I was scared straight real quick. Long story short, I was confronted by a demon trying scare me away (not that I saw it of course); but I called on God like never before and went in anyway. That experience taught that this was no game, that the spiritual warfare is real and that you guys are in danger.

[Red]

“We are criticized for being so "exclusive." I would be offended too if I didn't believe the LDS church's claims are true, and IF the promises weren't offered to everyone.”

Actually I would argue the opposite: you are far too inclusive. Yes, in both our faiths the offer is open to any man woman or child on this planet anywhere. But here’s the key difference: my faith says that all (no more, no less) who believe in Jesus will be with God forever, while those who do not believe will be condemned. But your faith says that just about everyone (except the sons of perdition) will go to heaven, it just a matter other which degree.

The latter belief is lethally common, starting with Islam which that just about everyone is likely to spend some time in hell, depending on how their good deeds measure up their bad. Some may skip hell entirely and go straight to paradise, and other truly evil types may never get out of hell, but generally everyone goes to paradise in Islam (after walking through hell). So I can live out my life and never worry if Islam is true because I’m a descent guy, if I do guy to hell it won’t be for long and then I’ll have eternity in paradise to look forward to.

In Hinduism everyone reincarnates over and over until they achieve Mocksha. Your karma (and deeds and bad deeds) determine the status of your next incarnation. Again, if I remain a good person I’ll be just fine ignoring Hinduism even if it’s true. In a few thousand life times I’ll eventually achieve Mocksha.

Similar story with Buddhism, except Nirvana is more like nothingness while Mocksha is unity with all. Either way, there are no lasting consequences for unbelief.

Those are some of biggest ones, many other belief systems shoot off from them, but essentially they all say that almost everybody gets to go somewhere better that here (eventually), but that their way is the best and will take you the furthest the quickest. (Correct me if got any of these wrong, Prisonchaplain, if you wouldn’t mind.)

This idea is worldly and so it is Satanic, it sets itself up in rebellion against God. Does Mormonism follow this pattern? Yes.

I know what D/C 76 says, and I know that if Mormonism were true and I ignored it for the rest of my life or even continued witnessing, that I would have a place in the Terrestrial Kingdom. Sure, I’ll probably sit through hell until the resurrection, (though hell in Mormonism isn’t a burning place but a state of intense guilt) but in the end I’ll be ok.

These religions have no teeth. Their sole purpose is to distract us from God and divide us—“I always hear, ‘I’ll believe what I believe and you can believe what you believe.’ People who say that speak out of tolerance and a desire for unity, but there is no love there. It only brings about division not diversity, and everyone stays at a spiritual arm’s distance smiling as they pass. Divide and conquer.

Again, these religions are rebellious, they seek to control some aspect of their own salvation, when it is God you has done all and ought not be supplanted by our efforts.

Christianity is the only one I know that has teeth. The God who loved us is the same who made hell to protect us for all eternity from those who would (and do) rebel. If Christianity is true then many will meet a horrible surprise and have no excuse because salvation was so easily given.

I’ll probably post some more this week, I want to finish answering your objections from page 4.

God bless you all.

[Ray]

Red,

I'd just like to offer a warning by saying that it would not be wise to base your understanding of official Church teachings on anything Snow says, or on anything ApostleKnight says, or even on anything I say, because while we may honestly believe we do know the truth or the teachings as taught by the Church, we may have an incorrect understanding of at least some of the doctrines, and you would then be building your foundation upon what we have said which may not be correct.

Or in other words, if you truly want to know the truth concerning the teachings of the Church, ask God to help you understand what He has revealed to His prophets, and more particularly to the members of the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve Apostles of His Church in these latter days.

[Josie]

We gain a testimony (confirmation of the truth or validity of something) when we study it out in our own hearts and pray about it and received confirmation from the Holy Ghost. Whether it be scripture or our Leaders, we must study it, pray about it, and seek confirmation from the Lord. If I believe Gordon B. Hinckley is a prophet of God, and I do, then that is because I have gained a testimony of that fact by confirmation of the spirit. If I believe he is a prophet, then I can and do believe whatever he says...

[Jason]

Originally posted by Josie@Nov 14 2005, 12:14 PM

If I believe he is a prophet, then I can and do believe whatever he says...

←

Spoken like a true Mormon Polygamist. That's just the argument they use...

Well done!

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Originally posted by Jason+Nov 14 2005, 12:17 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Josie@Nov 14 2005, 12:14 PM

If I believe he is a prophet, then I can and do believe whatever he says...

←

Spoken like a true Mormon Polygamist. That's just the argument they use...

Well done!

←

A statement made by one does not negate the validity of the other.

[Jason]

Originally posted by Please@Nov 14 2005, 12:27 PM

A statement made by one does not negate the validity of the other.

←

Yeah, that's what we call a "double standard".

[Red]

Originally posted by Ray@Nov 14 2005, 12:50 PM

Red,

I'd just like to offer a warning by saying that it would not be wise to base your understanding of official Church teachings on anything Snow says, or on anything ApostleKnight says, or even on anything I say, because while we may honestly believe we do know the truth or the teachings as taught by the Church, we may have an incorrect understanding of at least some of the doctrines, and you would then be building your foundation upon what we have said which may not be correct.

Or in other words, if you truly want to know the truth concerning the teachings of the Church, ask God to help you understand what He has revealed to His prophets, and more particularly to the members of the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve Apostles of His Church in these latter days.

←

Ray,

Thank-you, and advice taken, but don't worry, I am basing my argument on the Bible first of all, and then measuring their words against both the Bible (as honestly as I can possibly represent it, without bias hopefully, but plain exegesis) and the teachings of your church as I understand them (again, to the best of my ability and understanding). I would be willing to accept what they as truth if and when they do make their case (as with anyone period), but I'm not trusting them to "spoon feed" me either.

You see, I respect you more them, though they seem to (or at least just Snow does) accuse you of being some kind of naive "newby" (I had thought only Christians shot their wounded...). But actually your loyalty to you leaders is far more admirable. No matter what they say, you'll stick by them for better or for worse--though on occasion you may adopt an interpretation of their words which may not exactly be apparent in the plain wording, as in the case of Brigham Young's words about white men and black women (I thought I picked up on hints that you took a more "spiritual" interpretation?).

Either way, I respect you for your loyalty, but at the same time I desperately warn you that your devotion is lethal to you.

I ask God all the time about your church and the answer is always no, it is not true. Once I even opened myself up to the possibility that all my prayers were really just going to a figment of my imagination or something worse. So I prayed, in a Mormon church, along with two LDS missionaries and I addressed what I called "the God I haven't prayed to--the LDS God" if by chance I had not actually addressed Him and if He were actually the true God. The answer was silence. Not that the answer never came and I got impatient, but it was silence. Then the voice of the Shepard I know spoke again, not in words or burning bosoms, but in the simple, quiet and steady assertion of truth He said, "See Red, he has no authority over you. You can even cast him out in My name."

That's what I learned that day, and so I apply it. I have found this lesson to be tested true as I continue to read His word. So as I ask God for guidance in truth in reading both your leaders and the Bible, I find more and more that LDS doctrine does not measure up to God's word.

You know the gospel I've been preaching; what holds you back?

[Red]

Response to Apostleknight continued...

“Having said that, the argument is always advanced, "You silly mormons, all you have to do is believe in Jesus to be saved." When we say, "But we do," the response is, "No, not THAT Jesus, THE Jesus."

You have to admit, we are talking about two different Jesus’. Only one of them could have been the true historical Jesus who now rules from the right hand of God. Your church certainly teaches this:

President Gordon B. Hinckley, answering those who claimed the LDS Church did not preach the traditional Jesus, he said, “No, I don’t. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak” (Church News, 20 June 1998; speaking to LDS Church in Paris).

Apostle Bruce McConkie: “Virtually all the millions of apostate Christendom have abased themselves before the mythical throne of a mythical Christ” (Mormon Doctrine, p269).

And most importantly,

Joseph Smith Jr. wrote: “I was answered that I must join none of them [any church on earth apparently], for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight…” (PGP: Joseph Smith—History 1:19).

So don’t run from the argument as if the argument itself were bad. Your own leaders use the “No not THAT Jesus, THE Jesus” argument. Your prophet said that God said that the body of my faith is an abomination. Your Apostle said that the Jesus I know and love is a mythical figment of my imagination. Perhaps then, you’ll excuse me when I take issue and defend my faith as I am instructed to do throughout the Bible, and to evangelize as I am also instructed.

Just as a fundamental difference between the two Gods we each pray to exists, so too between our two Jesus’ whom we trust in for our own salvations. Mine was and always is God in human flesh. Yours was once unorganized intelligence, then organized by your heavenly father and mother (who were once both mortal humans themselves), as their first born/created spirit child.

My Jesus offers a salvation/atonement which covers all my sin, past present and future—I can add nothing to it, and if I tried to it would be a very rebellious act on my part. In response to receiving this freedom by no effort of my own I ought to express my gratitude by Godly action, as the Holy Spirit continues to do His work in me. My Jesus IS the Way. Your Jesus SHOWS the way, and His grace catches you only after you do all you can do.

I’ll answer more of your posts pertaining to the question of which is the true Biblical/historical Jesus.

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Originally posted by Jason+Nov 14 2005, 12:47 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Please@Nov 14 2005, 12:27 PM

A statement made by one does not negate the validity of the other.

←

Yeah, that's what we call a "double standard".

←

NO WE DON"T... if a man said he was a woman and a woman said she was a woman... the man claiming to be a woman would not negate the woman's rightful claim to being what she truthfully claimed to be= a woman...

You really need to study things out more..

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Originally posted by Red@Nov 14 2005, 12:53 PM

Response to Apostleknight continued...

“Having said that, the argument is always advanced, "You silly mormons, all you have to do is believe in Jesus to be saved." When we say, "But we do," the response is, "No, not THAT Jesus, THE Jesus."

You have to admit, we are talking about two different Jesus’.  Only one of them could have been the true historical Jesus who now rules from the right hand of God.  Your church certainly teaches this:

President Gordon B. Hinckley, answering those who claimed the LDS Church did not preach the traditional Jesus, he said, “No, I don’t.  The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak” (Church News, 20 June 1998; speaking to LDS Church in Paris).

Apostle Bruce McConkie: “Virtually all the millions of apostate Christendom have abased themselves before the mythical throne of a mythical Christ” (Mormon Doctrine, p269).

And most importantly,

Joseph Smith Jr. wrote: “I was answered that I must join none of them [any church on earth apparently], for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight…”  (PGP: Joseph Smith—History 1:19).

So don’t run from the argument as if the argument itself were bad.  Your own leaders use the “No not THAT Jesus, THE Jesus” argument.  Your prophet said that God said that the body of my faith is an abomination.  Your Apostle said that the Jesus I know and love is a mythical figment of my imagination.  Perhaps then, you’ll excuse me when I take issue and defend my faith as I am instructed to do throughout the Bible, and to evangelize as I am also instructed. 

Just as a fundamental difference between the two Gods we each pray to exists, so too between our two Jesus’ whom we trust in for our own salvations.  Mine was and always is God in human flesh.  Yours was once unorganized intelligence, then organized by your heavenly father and mother (who were once both mortal humans themselves), as their first born/created spirit child. 

My Jesus offers a salvation/atonement which covers all my sin, past present and future—I can add nothing to it, and if I tried to it would be a very rebellious act on my part.  In response to receiving this freedom by no effort of my own I ought to express my gratitude by Godly action, as the Holy Spirit continues to do His work in me.  My Jesus IS the Way.  Your Jesus SHOWS the way, and His grace catches you only after you do all you can do.

I’ll answer more of your posts pertaining to the question of which is the true Biblical/historical Jesus.

←

DO YOU KNOW THAT APOSTLEKNIGHT MAY NOT BE HERE FOR SOME TIME TO RESPOND TO YOU? HIS FATHER HAD AN ACCIDENT AND IT WAS VERY SERIOUS.

[Jason]

Originally posted by Please+Nov 14 2005, 12:57 PM-->

Originally posted by Jason@Nov 14 2005, 12:47 PM

<!--QuoteBegin-Please@Nov 14 2005, 12:27 PM

A statement made by one does not negate the validity of the other.

←

Yeah, that's what we call a "double standard".

←

NO WE DON"T... if a man said he was a woman and a woman said she was a woman... the man claiming to be a woman would not negate the woman's rightful claim to being what she truthfully claimed to be= a woman...

You really need to study things out more..

←

That's called a straw man. And it had nothing to do with what Im talking about.

Religious person "A" and religious person "B" both believe in "X". "A" is LDS, "B" is Mormon Fundamentalist and "X" is a prophet.

If "A" believes in "X", and "B" believes in "X" but they come to different conclusions, how is one more right than the other?

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Originally posted by Jason+Nov 14 2005, 01:14 PM-->

Originally posted by Please@Nov 14 2005, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by Jason@Nov 14 2005, 12:47 PM

<!--QuoteBegin-Please@Nov 14 2005, 12:27 PM

A statement made by one does not negate the validity of the other.

←

Yeah, that's what we call a "double standard".

←

NO WE DON"T... if a man said he was a woman and a woman said she was a woman... the man claiming to be a woman would not negate the woman's rightful claim to being what she truthfully claimed to be= a woman...

You really need to study things out more..

←

That's called a straw man. And it had nothing to do with what Im talking about.

Religious person "A" and religious person "B" both believe in "X". "A" is LDS, "B" is Mormon Fundamentalist and "X" is a prophet.

If "A" believes in "X", and "B" believes in "X" but they come to different conclusions, how is one more right than the other?

←

IT ISN"T A STRAWMAN!

In order for your idea to work you would have to admit there is actually one among these people who actually have truth. That is something you won't do.

You don't believe there is an X or prophet. Therefore you can't possibly believe that one can be more right than the other.

So your whole suposition and questions are really the strawman... meaning you haven't anything to base your side of the argument on... and are only blowing smoke at my example of the man and woman because my point was based upon

your statement that it was a double standard to have two claims ... of having made a true statement and that neither negated the other... just because one was false and the other true.

So... start straightening out your path here fella or I can't continue to discuss this...

[Jason]

Originally posted by Please+Nov 14 2005, 01:28 PM-->

Originally posted by Jason@Nov 14 2005, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by Please@Nov 14 2005, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by Jason@Nov 14 2005, 12:47 PM

<!--QuoteBegin-Please@Nov 14 2005, 12:27 PM

A statement made by one does not negate the validity of the other.

←

Yeah, that's what we call a "double standard".

←

NO WE DON"T... if a man said he was a woman and a woman said she was a woman... the man claiming to be a woman would not negate the woman's rightful claim to being what she truthfully claimed to be= a woman...

You really need to study things out more..

←

That's called a straw man. And it had nothing to do with what Im talking about.

Religious person "A" and religious person "B" both believe in "X". "A" is LDS, "B" is Mormon Fundamentalist and "X" is a prophet.

If "A" believes in "X", and "B" believes in "X" but they come to different conclusions, how is one more right than the other?

←

IT ISN"T A STRAWMAN!

Yeah, that's exactly what it is.

In order for your idea to work you would have to admit there is actually one among these people who actually have truth. That is something you won't do.

Truth is not part of the equasion. And my personal beliefs are totally irrelevant.

You don't believe there is an X or prophet. Therefore you can't possibly believe that one can be more right than the other.

Irrelevant.

So your whole suposition and questions are really the strawman...

Fallacy. Hasty generalization and irrational.

meaning you haven't anything to base your side of the argument on... and are only blowing smoke at my example of the man and woman because my point was based upon your statement that it was a double standard to have two claims ... of having made a true statement and that neither negated the other... just because one was false and the other true.

No. Your statement is illogical.

You know, you can agree with the non-mormon and not damage your testimony at the same time. Did you know that?