Aog Look At Cojclds - Revisit Of Question #3

[JoshuaFKon]

1. We don't teach that your church is an abomination. Check the facts a bit more closely.

I have have had members on here personally say that all other churches are "an abomination" JS said it him self.

At best, you say we are wrong. which is all I say you are.

2. You have yet to ask a question that I could not answer. In fact, I've seen others answer you numerous times, but you ignored them, which means answers are a waste of time with you.

Then the answers must not have been good enough...people have answered several of my questions on my site and I have removed them. If you feel the answers I have recieved stand up to logic...email them to me and I will post them on my site...let anyone who reads my "hate site" judge.

3. Yes, your site attacks the LDS Church. (In fact, by Open Directory Project standards, it is a hate site. )

lol I think I can guess why....because I dissagree with current mormon doctrine on any point?

Josh B)

[Outshined]

I have have had members on here personally say that all other churches are "an abomination" JS said it him self.

At best, you say we are wrong. which is all I say you are.

Which makes you wrong. The LDS Church does not teach that your church is an abomination; I don't care what "someone told you." I can show you many articles and General Conference talks where the prophet says all churches have some good in them and we are not to look down on anyone else. Need references? Seems you are trying rather hard to find something negative, hmm?

Then the answers must not have been good enough...

For an 18-year-old ego, perhaps. I've reread the thread; you danced around the answers that did not fit your agenda. Hey, what would you do with that site if you had to admit you had answers?

people have answered several of my questions on my site and I have removed them. If you feel the answers I have recieved stand up to logic...email them to me and I will post them on my site...let anyone who reads my "hate site" judge.

If they ever go there, they'll see a hate site for themselves, that's for sure.

lol I think I can guess why....because I dissagree with current mormon doctrine on any point?

Do some research B) ; the ODP is not an LDS organization; it is an organization that categorizes web sites for indexing. http://dmoz.org

I did some consulting with them a few years back. The guideline we were given for a hate site read: Any site that demeans, attacks, insults or detracts from another person or group based on race, religion, color, sexual preference, nationality or gender or that devotes an inordinate amount of its content to the these subjects in a negative manner.

Your site fits nicely. No offense, but I have no respect for your site or what you're trying to do with it. Nor would I if it was attacking any other church, Catholic, Jew, whoever.

Ah, enough hijacking of the thread; you know how I feel about your efforts against the Latter-day Saints.

[JoshuaFKon]

<div class='quotemain'>

At best, you say we are wrong. which is all I say you are.

Which makes you wrong.

Interesting....we dissagree...and that makes me wrong...(and I have an ego?)

The LDS Church does not teach that your church is an abomination;

According to Mormon doctrine, the prime directive of God to Joseph Smith was not to join any Catholic or Protestant church — for they were all corrupt, apostate, and an abomination — but to restore the one true church.

It was this directive that caused Smith to establish his church in 1830.

It was this directive that caused God (if you believe The Book of Mormon is inspired) to reveal that there are only two churches — the church of the Devil and the church of the Lamb (1 Nephi 14:10).

It was this directive that caused LDS Apostle Orson Pratt to teach that marriages outside of the LDS church were illegal and the children of those marriages are illegitimate.7

It was this directive that caused LDS Apostle Charles W. Penrose to state in his Rays of Living Light — Divine Authority that Christian creeds are valueless8 and that Christendom has no inspired apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers and hence no authority.9

It was this directive that caused the LDS church to produce a tract in 1982 titled “Which Church Is Right?” and state on page 17 that other churches cannot save souls and that they have no divine authority.

It was this directive that prompted the LDS church to publish the words of Brigham Young University Professor Kent P. Jackson that Satan sits as head of Christian churches10 and Apostle Boyd K. Packer’s statement that baptism and other ordinances by other churches are not recognized.11

And finally, it is this directive that causes LDS missionaries to go door-to-door by the multiplied thousands with the agenda to convince the householder that their church is right and all others wrong.

For an 18-year-old ego, perhaps. I've reread the thread; you danced around the answers that did not fit your agenda. Hey, what would you do with that site if you had to admit you had answers?

Please cite examples. You say I need references to say that mormons believe all other churches are wrong, lol but you can just say "you danced around the answers that did not fit your agenda."

If they ever go there, they'll see a hate site for themselves, that's for sure.

Only if you don't refute it with what you consider the truth. I'm willing to hear both sides...I'm willing to make my site show both sides...what more do you want?

I did some consulting with them a few years back. The guideline we were given for a hate site read: Any site that demeans, attacks, insults or detracts from another person or group based on race, religion, color, sexual preference, nationality or gender or that devotes an inordinate amount of its content to the these subjects in a negative manner.

Ok, then using that lds.org is also a "hate site" because it "detracts" from my religon which says I am correct.

Josh B)

[Outshined]

Interesting....we dissagree...and that makes me wrong...(and I have an ego?)

No, the fact that the Church does not teach it makes you wrong; ego has nothing to do with it.

According to Mormon doctrine, the prime directive of God to Joseph Smith was not to join any Catholic or Protestant church — for they were all corrupt, apostate, and an abomination — but to restore the one true church.

You confuse Church history with Church doctrine.

Please cite examples. You say I need references to say that mormons believe all other churches are wrong, lol but you can just say "you danced around the answers that did not fit your agenda."

All one has to do is read your introductory thread. It's all there.

Only if you don't refute it with what you consider the truth. I'm willing to hear both sides...I'm willing to make my site show both sides...what more do you want?

Let's not pretend. Your site is not about truth; it's about convincing others that the LDS Church is false. If you were remotely interested in answers, you'd have found them yourself already. You dug hard enough to find what you consider dirt...

Ok, then using that lds.org is also a "hate site" because it "detracts" from my religon which says I am correct.

Nice try . Of course you know that lds.org is a Church site which detracts from no others. Yours is there only to tear down a church with which you disgree. As I said, if you only put that effort into actually understanding LDS doctrines and beliefs...

Let me know when you're finished hijacking the thread.

[Princess3dward]

AHHH! STOP THE ARGUING!

Can I put an idea out there please?

It is not my own and I apologize if I explain it all wrong....

But I was told (it was his personal opinion) that it isn't in where in the bible it was translated wrong... but HOW, and that the JS translations are for CLERIFYCATION.

I don't know... but I wanted this idea read.

[Outshined]

I was told (it was his personal opinion) that it isn't in where in the bible it was translated wrong... but HOW, and that the JS translations are for CLERIFYCATION.

I don't know... but I wanted this idea read.

Yes, there is no teaching that the Bible was translated wrong, nor that any particular verse might be "wrong". Check some of the links on my site; a lot of good answers there.

[JoshuaFKon]

You confuse Church history with Church doctrine.

doc·trine (dŏk'trĭn) pronunciation

n.

1. A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma.

2. A rule or principle of law, especially when established by precedent.

3. A statement of official government policy, especially in foreign affairs and military strategy.

4. Archaic. Something taught; a teaching.

I think you misunderstand the word "doctrine" My Chruch teaches that we are saved by grace alone...that is our "doctrine" your church teaches that LDS is the "restored" church.

All one has to do is read your introductory thread. It's all there.

wow. thanks for pointing that out.... How could anyone now argue that I didn't "dance around the answers"

Let's not pretend. Your site is not about truth; it's about convincing others that the LDS Church is false. If you were remotely interested in answers, you'd have found them yourself already. You dug hard enough to find what you consider dirt...

Did God tell you this? "If you were remotely interested in answers, you'd have found them yourself already." since you don't know my heart, isn't that slightly judgemental?

Ok, then using that lds.org is also a "hate site" because it "detracts" from my religon which says I am correct.

Nice try . Of course you know that lds.org is a Church site which detracts from no others.

Are you saying that lds.org dosn't "detract" from other churches?

Josh B)

[Princess3dward]

<div class='quotemain'>

I was told (it was his personal opinion) that it isn't in where in the bible it was translated wrong... but HOW, and that the JS translations are for CLERIFYCATION.

I don't know... but I wanted this idea read.

Yes, there is no teaching that the Bible was translated wrong, nor that any particular verse might be "wrong". Check some of the links on my site; a lot of good answers there.

Also, the footnotes help, especially in conjunction with the bible dictionary and tropical guide.

[Outshined]

I think you misunderstand the word "doctrine" My Chruch teaches that we are saved by grace alone...that is our "doctrine" your church teaches that LDS is the "restored" church.

I think not, though the attempt at condescension is noted. This shows an elemental misunderstanding of LDS doctrines. See, the Church does not teach that your church is "an abomination", so it is not a doctrine. Not so hard to understand if you try. See, the LDS Church also teaches that Christ's grace alone "saves" us. I can recomnmend a lot of good reading on the LDS Church if you want some help.

The only mention of "abomination" in the First Vision is in Joseph Smith History:

18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight.”

God said the creeds of men were an abomination, not your church...Now if you need some quotes from the Prophet saying that all churches have good in them, let me know.

Did God tell you this? "If you were remotely interested in answers, you'd have found them yourself already." since you don't know my heart, isn't that slightly judgemental?

Not at all; all one has to do is visit your site, which is anti-LDS. If you put the energy into finding the answers to your "questions" (or just paying attention to the ones you get), you'd be fine. But it is clear that isn't what your site is about...

Are you saying that lds.org dosn't "detract" from other churches?

Show me an article on lds.org about any other faith that remotely resembles the attempts you make to "disprove" the LDS Church. (Psst! You can't! B) ) If your site was about any other church, it would be as wrong. A site that is aimed at tearing down the faith of others can never be used for good. Period. You want to create a worthwhile site? Make one that promotes your faith and praises God instead of attempting to find fault in the beliefs of others. That would earn my respect. :)

I'm quite through wasting this thread if you are. I really haven't much else to say anyway, you are well aware of how I feel about your site. It's just going in circles.

Also, the footnotes help, especially in conjunction with the bible dictionary and tropical guide.

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/respons...nt_griffith.htm

http://www.lightplanet.com/response/answer...-translated.htm B)

[boyando]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

I agree with the Book of Mormon.

I expect to never hear that ever again..

*ahem* read.

lol probably not....

Of course, the theology of the Book of Mormon is not far off from prodestant theology...Only when you add the D&C and PoGP, do you really find any difference... :)

love to know what you think about those verses though...

Josh B)

They are true. Along with all of the Book if Mormon, D&C and Pof GP.

Just wondwering, how much of the Book of Mormon have you read?

[JoshuaFKon]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

I agree with the Book of Mormon.

I expect to never hear that ever again..

*ahem* read.

lol probably not....

Of course, the theology of the Book of Mormon is not far off from prodestant theology...Only when you add the D&C and PoGP, do you really find any difference... :)

love to know what you think about those verses though...

Josh B)

They are true. Along with all of the Book if Mormon, D&C and Pof GP.

Just wondwering, how much of the Book of Mormon have you read?

A good portion....I'm working my way through it...

Josh B)

[Princess3dward]

A good portion....I'm working my way through it...

Josh B)

That is good to hear!

[prisonchaplain]

But this conflict is not deadly - and could be a friendly conflict pending how each of us uses this conflict to understand each other.

I'm trying to answer your latests posts more carefully, by reading more carefully. Take this as a sign of respect. Often, the hardest part of tests/posts/dialogue is really understanding what the question is. :-)

First - Creation: As a scientist and a devout believer in G-d: I believe in creation of this physical expanding universe. I believe G-d did it and that we can call everything in this universe physical. There are two parts from a perspective of someone living on earth. All the things on the earth is one and everything else which is referred to as the heavens (the sun, moon, planets, galaxies, black holes, dark matter, and things we have not conceived - both seen and unseen) is the other. This is not to be confused with the “heavens” that is the realm of G-d. That was not part of the creation in Genesis.

So far, I'm nodding, listening, more or less in agreement as far as I understand what you are saying.

The Genesis creation is all about the physical universe and its beginnings. When in this physical creation, reference is made to image and likeness I believe we are talking about a physical relationship. Man is the only “thing” in the image and likeness of G-d - even though G-d pronounced all of creation “good” and the fact that G-d the Father himself is “good”. Only man is in the image and likeness of G-d. The spirit of man was not part of this physical creation and was with G-d in his realm when this universe was created.

Your belief that Genesis is all about physical creation stems from some presuppositions, just as the view that the "image of God" verbage refers to character "good and upright." If God has a body, then your belief has much merit. It falls right in line with the rest of the account. If "God is spirit," and does not have a body, then the belief obviously does not stand: How could we possibly be made in the physical image of one who has no physical image?

Second - Fall: I believe there were two falls. The first fall was the fall of Lucifer and his angles that became Satan and his devils. They were removed from the realm of G-d and have complete access to this universe. I believe when man went to the moon he could still be tempted by Satan. Even though the moon is in the heavens it is not in the realm of G-d the Father.

The second fall is the fall of Adam and Eve and that fall affected all man. It appears to me that Eden was a unique place where Adam and Eve lived without possibility of death, some access to G-d and yet Satan had some access in order to tempt them. When Adam and Eve fell they were sent out of the Eden garden to this physical earth as we know it.

I'm back to nodding in general agreement with what I understand you to be saying.

I think that at the same time all men (spirits children of the Father) became fallen as well and went to reside in a realm separated from the Father’s.

At this point you invoke the premortal existence of humans--a distinctive teaching of Mormons.

Jesus, the Son of G-d the Father, and the Holy Ghost, were the only ones that are spirit children of the Father that did not fall but they left the realm of the Father and came with the spirits of man.

Another crucial set of Mormon distinctives: That Jesus and the Holy Spirit (Ghost) are not one essence with the Father, but are spirit children (as we are). Note that this contrasts with the traditional Christian view that the Son and Holy Spirit are alone in being co-equal and co-eternal with the Father.

Jesus is the only one that has access to the Father and the Father’s realm in order to mediate in behalf of all men. In the book of Job when Satan comes to the throne of G-d it was not the Father in his realm but Jesus, who is now the G-d of this universe on the throne of his realm surrounded by the unborn spirits of man - though fallen from the realm of the Father still unsoiled and unborn on earth.

Jesus being the one to dialogue with Satan in Job would qualify as speculation for us. Not an impossible understanding, but not one that can be said with certainty either. Of course the part about the realm including the unborn spirits of man (women too, I suppose?) would only work in Mormon theology.

Please note: You may not agree with my beliefs and my understandings but they are clear and straight forward. I do not have to play with strange and odd definitions of words and things to explain them.

Not sure what to say about this comment. I would point out that when traditional scientists debate evolution with Young Earth Creationists, quite often the YEC guys win because they are able to explain their views in popular language, whereas the scientists are unused to having to do so. Nevertheless, as a scientist, you would probably find the evolutionist side to have offered the superior set of evidence and arguments.

Now I come to one thing I do not understand. Adam and Eve were created in the image and likeness of G-d. Their physical bodies were not subject to death and could not die until after their fall. All other men are created with physical bodies that are subject to death and able to die. We were not created the same (as Adam and Eve) and I do not know how to reconcile this fact with scripture.

Genesis 3 introduces sickness and death into the created order. Since we are all ultimately descendents of Adam and Eve, we inherited the corrupted nature they brought about.

And exactly what is the image and likeness of G-d and what is not in the image and likeness of G-d except to understand that our mortal physical bodies are similar to and a model of G-d the Father’s glorious immortal physical body in the same way the Adam and Eve’s amortal physical bodies are similar to and a model of the Father’s. Any other explanation of image and likeness makes no sense at all because some men live good and upright lives and some don’t and I have to believe it is not because of G-d or anything G-d has ever done or will do including his creation of man in his image and likeness. The choice is man’s and man’s alone to live good and upright or not and G-d did not create that part of man that makes that choice - G-d is not responsible in any way for man making the choice beyond G-d enticing each individual man to chose the good and upright and Satan enticing each individual man to reject the good and upright.

We're all capable of both good and evil. All that is good stems from the image of God in us. The reason you struggle with this understanding is that you do believe the Father has a body. If God has a physical body then all you say could be persuasive. However, if he does not, then other explications are necessary. The image of God may be equally (or equitably) planted within each human, but that does not mean that the image will grow and produce the same. I believe this is what you call free agency, or what we call free will.

The final point concerns G-d being the creator and man being a different “created” species. I do not see things in this manner. G-d the Father is an everlasting being. He was not part of the creation (beginning) of this universe - he was an everlasting being before this universe was begun or created. I believe that it is the destiny of man to be resurrected to everlasting life that is everlasting in every sense of understanding as G-d’s life is everlasting. I also believe to deny this great truth is the essence of denying the Christ and his mission and atonement. The Traveler

Yes, we gain everlasting life. However, the promise of eternal life, is not necessarily an affirmation that we have already lived eternally. In order to gain something, it has to be something you did not have. If we've always had eternal life, then Christ would not be giving us eternal life, but simply reawakening our awareness of it.

Note on LDS view of non-LDS Christians: If the COJCLDS teaches that we are abominations, then Mormonism has to be the nicest religion (except perhaps Universalism) on the face of the earth, because it also teaches that most observant non-LDS religionists (not just Christians) will end up in the Terrestial Kingdom (just one step down from the Celestial Kingdom).

Of course, we'd all prefer the best. But, it's a merciful end to "abominators." :-)

[Princess3dward]

The posts have NOT become Desiré friendly suddenly (length).

I DO like to read.... but not off the computer. It is soo bad for my eye sight (which is really bad to begin with).

[JoshuaFKon]

The posts have NOT become Desiré friendly suddenly (length).

I DO like to read.... but not off the computer. It is soo bad for my eye sight (which is really bad to begin with).

lol....little long for me too....

Josh B)

[Princess3dward]

<div class='quotemain'>

The posts have NOT become Desiré friendly suddenly (length).

I DO like to read.... but not off the computer. It is soo bad for my eye sight (which is really bad to begin with).

lol....little long for me too....

Josh B)

Well... I have to read 500 pages of Don Quixote by tuesday and clean me room by 6 tonight!

Is it okay to read it on Sundays?

It is a good book and so far has no sadness or death. It is quite light-hearted.

I'll be back soon!

[JoshuaFKon]

Is it okay to read it on Sundays?

I haven't been struck by lighting yet....

Josh B)

P.S. didn't you just read my last post?!

[Princess3dward]

Is it okay to read it on Sundays?

I haven't been struck by lighting yet....

Josh B)

P.S. didn't you just read my last post?!

I ment a non-scriptural book.

Smart mouth!

[JoshuaFKon]

<div class='quotemain'>

Is it okay to read it on Sundays?

I haven't been struck by lighting yet....

Josh B)

P.S. didn't you just read my last post?!

I ment a non-scriptural book.

Smart mouth!

he he he

Josh