| Author | Message | ||
     TruthSeeker (209.150.89.225) |
Correct me if I am wrong (I am not), but I am always told that Mormons believe in both the Bible AND the Book of Mormon. However, when discrepancies arise, which book takes authority? Please do not tell me that there are no discrepancies between the two books. That would be intellectually dishonest. There must be. Otherwise, why would there be a need for the Book of Mormon. It must ADD something that is not found in the Bible. Given this is the case, what evidence (other than subjective emotional feelings) is there for the legitimacy of either book? | ||
| Anonymous (172.173.91.82) |
The Christian Bible is very much verified by historically contemporary secular witnesses. The Mormon book is not. | ||
| Anonymous (63.163.24.188) |
Can you give us an example of a discrepancy? | ||
| TruthSeeker (205.188.117.20) |
Alma 7:10 states that Jesus was born in Jerusalem. This is in direct contradiction to the Bible and extra-biblical historical records. This is an explicit example. I feel the burden of proof is on you, not me to make an argument for why the Book of Mormon is needed. If there is not any fundamental differences between the Book of Mormon and the Bible, then why is it needed? Why is the Bible not sufficient? Again, do not parse words with me. You must admit that the Book of Mormon teaches things that are not found in the Bible. I am not even considering the other books of doctrine and the living prophet issues. We can, if you wish. I only want to know why the Book of Mormon is needed and what the evidence is for me to believe what is written in it. TS | ||
| eatmorefish (67.181.253.30) |
i think matt stone and trey parker nailed down the mormon religion with there mormon episode. if you havent seen it you should, plus bottom line, there isnt two Gods so we both cant be right, and I'm not | ||
| TruthSeeker (198.81.26.106) |
What? Not sure what fisheater is saying. Anyone else wish to pick up the challenge? TS | ||
| TruthSeeker (209.150.89.225) |
Come on! It is just what I expected. All of you religious types cannot put forth any reasoning as to why you believe what you believe and the evidence to support it. Does not God say somewhere in the Bible that he wants us to worship him with all of our heart and all of our mind? Surely he has given enough solid proof that the OPEN-MINDED skeptic could at least respect? What book stands up to the skeptic? Is it.........The Bible? Or is is...........The Book of Mormon? | ||
| Anonymous (66.109.197.214) |
I don't know much about the religion, but when i feel sick or sad, I call the missionaries and after they lay their hands on my head, things get much better for me! It works! The Mormons really have the keys to spiritual and physical healing!!! I believe!!! | ||
| Anonymous (172.146.125.100) |
So do you believe as mormons believe that they can become perfect like God and create their own planet and create their own worshippers to adore them? Do you believe that God was once a man who became perfect? | ||
| Anonymous (64.40.57.36) |
Everthing is possible if you believe in it. Religion makes it possible, and your heart is the only thing that matters. | ||
| Anonymous (172.158.223.12) |
ok. if thats what you beleive. whatever. you have to answer for your life, not me. | ||
| TruthSeeker (198.81.26.106) |
I am extremely disappointed in the response. It is obvious that cop-outs and emotion reign supreme. Religion is not what I asked about. I asked about secular and philosophical proofs for the Book of Mormon vs. The Bible. In my humble opinion, I believe a God who demands accountability on our behalf would reveal himself to us in a manner that could stand the test of time and the scrutiny of the skeptic. I believe the Bible rises to the challenge while the Book of Mormon does not. I was hoping for an honest dialogue from a sincere Mormon, but I guess that will not happen here. | ||
| Anonymous (4.242.189.34) |
Truthseeker, Here are just a few of the reasons I personally believe in the Bible and not the Book of Morman. I dont believe that I need to walk with blind faith, and by using the Bible I can be sure that I am not. 1) THE BIBLE A) Internal harmony 66 books written by 40 different authors, and written over a period of 1588 years. ( According to statiticians the odds of coming up with a unified faith is ZERO ) B) Provability Acheologically Archeology has NEVER proven the bible wrong, but has only proven the bible to be accurate (the same cannot be said of the Book of Morman). C) Fulfilled Prophecy There are over 330 prophecies concerning Jesus Christ. -Isaih - the way he would be born ( in a manger ) -Daniel- the time he would be born -Micah 5- where he would be born ( in Bethleham ) -Zech.- he would be sold for 30 pieces of silver that would be used to buy property. ( by Judas ) -David- he would be betrayed by his friend. (Judas ) According to Peter Stoner ( a well known statitition ) using compound probability the odds of only these 5 prophecies coming true are 1 in 10 to the 17th power. Thats pretty amazing, at least to me. The Mormans have altered their teachings over 3000 times in a little over 100 years. The bible hasnt been changed in over 2000 years. | ||
| Anonymous (64.40.61.199) |
And their results are more decent than what we see around in some of the clergymen preaching Bible teaching. In many of those cases, those pastors are only doing it for the money, denying in their examples all that they blabberly preach for the paycheck. That is not either the Jesus figure that I can agree with. In my opinion, there is way more decency in the LDS church than you can find in many of the less controversed churches teaching Bible. | ||
| Anonymous (172.144.26.127) |
Blah! Blah! Blah! Why does the mormon church demand 20% of one's wages? Is that decent? I would rather trust a Christian minister who is paid from the tithes than a mormon layman who thinks he can become a God and rule a planet of his own one day. | ||
| dave (4.242.219.89) |
"And their results are more decent than what we see around in some of the clergymen preaching Bible teaching. In many of those cases, those pastors are only doing it for the money, denying in their examples all that they blabberly preach for the paycheck." One thing you must understand is those kind of preachers are not truly teaching the Bible. That was also some of the things that the Pharisees were doing and Jesus Christ told them they were wrong. The example we need to follow is Jesus Christ. It breaks my heart as a christian to see people abusing their position for their own personal gain. The Bible does not in any way teach that. Im sure some mormans have abused their positions as well. We are all sinners and are in need of a savior and that is why Jesus Christ came and died on the cross. | ||
| Anonymous (64.40.61.44) |
Twenty percent? It is ten per cent. Called "tiding." It does not pay for any clergy, but it goes to the cannery, to produce food to feed the hungry. Humm... By the way, many of the ones who get the food are no Mormons. Yep, they act like Jesus. | ||
| Anonymous (65.31.153.32) |
The Bible AND the Book of Mormon are both fairy tales. They read like rediculous fiction, the Book of Mormon is especially lacking in originality. What a crock. "Um. An angel gave me these golden tablets...but I couldn't keep them. Nope, needed in heaven I guess. I had to copy them down. Its true, really." I feel bad about denying anybody faith but seriously have to look down at anybody so weak and so stupid as to cling to such a patent invention. Christ, if you have to be religious at least get some religion that has some history...be a Hindu or Buddist or something without harm at its center. | ||
| dave (4.242.189.15) |
.be a Hindu or Buddist or something without harm at its center. What harm is there at the center of Christianity? | ||
| Anonymous (64.40.60.220) |
"God does not exist, we were the ones who made all life on earth, "you mistook us for gods and distorted our teachings of love" "we now reveal how to realise your potential and achieve global peace" "- Yahweh Read this book dictated by the extra-terrestrial to Rael. Contact those people whose lives have already been radically improved by this revolutionary philosophy http://www.rael.org/english/index.html | ||
| Anonymous (172.139.147.225) |
In other words "cut off your genitals, shave your head, commit mass suicide and return to the spaceship waiting for us behind the comet". | ||
| Truthseeker (209.150.89.225) |
I take issue with anonymous about his anonymous statements regarding the eloquent post by anonymous repudiating the utterly fictitious nonsense of anonymous while adding weight to the argument by anonymous. Anonymous, you are awesome! | ||
| Anonymous (69.242.21.100) |
Galatians 1:8 ' though if we or AN ANGEL from heaven preach ANY OTHER gospel unto you that we have preached let him be accursed " the false teaching of Mormon came from an angel.. remember satan transforms himself as a angel of light.. | ||
| Anonymous (63.230.18.103) |
ok let me see ifi have this correct.........because a religion beleives in 2 books they beleive in 2 gods?? is that what your saying? if it is i suggest you read more about it because that is so not true!! See thats how things get all mixed up find out before you talk it will make you look tons smarter when you do talk alot of garbage ! | ||
| Anonymous (172.135.247.27) |
Mormons don't believe in 2 gods. They believe in millions of gods. THEM. Mormons believe that each one of them can become a God by becoming perfect. That is not Christian. That is not what Christ taught us. | ||
| Anonymous (67.42.123.208) |
20 percent of our wages ....are you sure thats true? see you write alot of stuff but i dont think your really know ........i know you think you do you dont !! | ||
| Anonymous (67.42.123.208) |
no, we do not beleive in 2 gods ........... your posts are almost getting funny because your clueless really...... | ||
| Anonymous (172.164.67.63) |
Do you believe that through spiritual progression you can become a god? | ||
| Anonymous (67.42.123.208) |
in the bible it says there is another book besides the bible ..... | ||
| Anonymous (172.144.138.175) |
Where in the bible does it say that? Chapter? Verse? Answer my 8-18 question also please. | ||
| Anonymous (67.42.123.208) |
dont demand .....do you know how to read then read it for yourself are you helpless? its in revelations .....and it sure does say there is another book that goes with the bible | ||
| Anonymous (67.42.123.208) |
im sorry it is Isaiah also you can look here plainbookofmormon.com./isaiah | ||
| Anonymous (217.42.127.14) |
Lets get back to Truthseeker's original question. I was always bothered by this idea of 'worshiping' a god. Why would a god want us to do that? Isn't wanting to be worshiped a little too human a demand? Frankly I don't want to worship anyone other than my wife! The book of Morman casts new light on this. It explains that we are the spirit children of God who naturally wants the best for his children. We don't have to 'worship' him - just try to become moral people. That to me is a much more acceptable idea. Of course it falls down if you have to spend 3 hours in church each week and donate 10% of your earnings to church (Definately NOT 20%). That sits as well with me as the 'Worship' (not that I sit well in those very uncomfortable pews). Anonymous 4 - Whatever gave you the idea that the Bible has been unchanged for the last 2000 years? There are umpteen diferent versions - all with different text. The RC use a different version to the Angicans, the Mormons use a different version to the Baptists who use a different version to the JW. Even the Jews don't use the same version of the old testiment as the Christians. The new testiment was written 100-200 years after Christ and the whole lot was changed in 631 when the Synod decided which of the books of the bible they were not going to support since they were just too unbelievable or conflicted too much with the rest. The King James version has thousands of translation errors including writing unicorn instead of re'em (wild ox) in Numbers 23:22 and Moses crossing the Red Sea instead of the Reed Sea - if you accept that Moses ever existed since his story seems to have been copied from previous Egyptian and Sumarian stories. As for that scientific and archaeological support for the bible - for every statement there's someone who disputes it on equally valid scientific and archaeological evidence. Even the 'Jesus of Nazareth' term is inaccurate. Jesus is the Latin form of the Greek "Iesous" which in turn is the transliteration of the Hebrew Jeshua, or Joshua. Nazareth did not exist at the time of Jesus. I believe you'll find the term should be 'Joshua the Nazarene' (a jewish sect). Sorry Truthseeker - got off the track a little there and I too am anonymous since I'm sick of spam from posting an e-mail address in places like this. If you want to contact me try looking for me at my website - www.jaydax.co.uk | ||
| Anonymous (172.139.71.17) |
The Bible is more than words on paper bound in leather. It is God's word to man. It's purpose is to trigger man's heart to recieve the Holy Spirit into his (or her) heart. There the spiritual teaching, growth and understanding begins. The Holy Spirit is God's word guiding us day by day as to what His will is and what His plan is for us. That is why it is important that God's word should be as pure as humanly possible. The best Bible is the red letter Bible because it has Christ's words in red. Christ's words can not be misinterpreted. Christ is the master of language. Very clear and precise. You can fault the Christian Bible and revisions all you want to. But it is the Spirit of God that speaks to man from the pages. Not just ink printed on a page. Christ told us to love God, the Father with all of our heats and all of our minds. That is worship. Those who worship God will be blessed! | ||
| Anonymous (217.42.127.14) |
Which version of the Red letter bible do you refer to? I know of several variants (including one produced by the Morman Church) which date from as early as 1901. Assuming you mean the King James Version of the Red Letter Bible then lets look and see if there are any contradictions: Is Jesus in danger of hellfire? Matthew 5:22 ..., whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire. Matthew 23:17 Ye fools and blind: ... On the cross Jesus said to the thief who defended him, “Today you will be with me in Paradise” (Luke 23:43). Yet in John he said to Mary Magdelene two days later, “I have not yet ascended to the Father” (John 20:17). Does this mean that the Father is not in Paradise? Peace or not? (Matthew 10:34) - "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35"For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 36and a man’s foes shall be they of his own household." (John 16:33) - "These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." Can take a staff -(Mark 6:8) - "and He instructed them that they should take nothing for their journey, except a mere staff; no bread, no bag, no money in their belt." Cannot take a staff (Matthew 10:9-10) - "9: Do not acquire gold, or silver, or copper for your money belts, 10: or a bag for your journey, or even two tunics, or sandals, or a staff; for the worker is worthy of his support." (Luke 9:3 is similar) To hate or not to hate? Luke 14:26 - If any man come unto me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my desciple. 1 John 3:15 - Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him. Surely we can rely on the last words of Jesus on the cross? I would have thought these were important enough to be recorded accurately. Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." John19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." Matt.27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost." There's an interesting web page on why the words of jesus should NOT be printed in red at http://www.matthiasmedia.com.au/briefing/webextra/redfaces.html There's a book called "The Five Gospels," containing translations of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and the Gospel of St Thomas. (You can compare them all using http://www.utoronto.ca/religion/synopsis/meta-5g.htm although not in the KJV). It was the result of a six year study by 24 Christian scholars from a number of Western universities. They decided to produce a translation of the Gospels which would be uncolored by the translator's personal faith. It was decided that this translation was to give the reader an honest picture of what Jesus truly said. They scanned the text for the words of Jesus, and collected an index of over 1,500 such sayings. They then tested the validity of each of these sayings, one at a time, to see whether Jesus truly said each one. They then produced a fresh translation, color-coded to show authentic 'Jesus' sayings and those of an unreliable nature. Their conclusion (on page 5) was: "Eighty-two percent of the words ascribed to Jesus in the gospels were not actually spoken by him... The concept of plagiarism was unknown in the ancient world. Authors freely copied from predecessors without acknowledgment. Sages became the repository of free-floating proverbs and witticisms. For the first Christians, Jesus was a legendary sage: it was proper to attribute the world's wisdom to him. The proverb in Mark 2:17, for example, is attested in secular sources (Plutarch and Diogenes for example)...in the parallel to the Markan passage, Matthew adds a sentence which seems to be taken from the prophet Hosea (Hosea 6:6/Matt 9:13)." I still stand by my previous statement that the bible has been dramatically changed in the last 2000 years. We cannot rely on it exactly - including the words of Jesus - You may accept it's guidance but aught you not accept the guidance of other books e.g. the Koran, Vedic literature (Hindu) and even - the Book of Mormon! “If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.” – Rene Descartes | ||
| Anonymous (172.156.226.45) |
Yes, Rene, by your standards I am a seeker after truth. I have several times in my life doubted as far as possible, all things. And now, here I am a follower of Christ.... the way, the truth, the light. | ||
| Anonymous (66.56.149.187) |
Toni Morori bologna i like peanut butter i like jello i like ham and the missionary's soft WHITE hand. | ||
| nwmomike (nwmomike) Junior Member Username: nwmomike Post Number: 27 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 208.24.179.207 |
Quote:There are umpteen diferent versions - all with different text. Response: It's ironic though that we may have translations, but have thousands of manuscripts or the Greek texts that are used to bring the translations to us. Yet I'm sure that you wouldn't have any problem accepting any other historical documents less attested to than the Bible. It's only when it comes to the Bible that people are hypercricital of the texts. Quote:The new testiment was written 100-200 years after Christ and the whole lot was changed in 631 when the Synod decided which of the books of the bible they were not going to support since they were just too unbelievable or conflicted too much with the rest. Response: That is ABOSLUTELY a false statement. You better check with reputable New Testatment Greek scholars and I'm not talking about Christian but secular ones as well. You will find out your statements are false and probably just a re-quote from someone else that told you. Find out for yourself before you tell such things. There are manuscripts dating further back than 631 that is used so how in the world did they change those and still make them look old. Come on. Quote:The King James version has thousands of translation errors including writing unicorn instead of re'em (wild ox) in Numbers 23:22 and Moses crossing the Red Sea instead of the Reed Sea - if you accept that Moses ever existed since his story seems to have been copied from previous Egyptian and Sumarian stories. As for that scientific and archaeological support for the bible - for every statement there's someone who disputes it on equally valid scientific and archaeological evidence. Response: You simply do not know what you're talking about otherwise you would not make such statements. Even secular archeologist use the Bible as a historical record and find it to be accurate. Even when archeology has found some supposed problems later end up only proving themselves wrong and the Bible right each time. They once believe David was a myth and found evidence he was real. The same for Moses and thosands of other historical facts. You need to check source documents from the source instead of whomever is giving you those lines to quote. Quote:Even the 'Jesus of Nazareth' term is inaccurate. Jesus is the Latin form of the Greek "Iesous" which in turn is the transliteration of the Hebrew Jeshua, or Joshua. Nazareth did not exist at the time of Jesus. I believe you'll find the term should be 'Joshua the Nazarene' (a jewish sect). Response:You should check with Jewish scholars and they will tell you that Nazereth did exist. I'm sorry but you need to educate yourself at least on historical facts and stop quoting something from someone else and accepting it as fact. M or Michael | ||
| yaakov (yaakov) Member Username: yaakov Post Number: 65 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 63.148.234.6 |
Quote:Even the 'Jesus of Nazareth' term is inaccurate. Jesus is the Latin form of the Greek "Iesous" which in turn is the transliteration of the Hebrew Jeshua, or Joshua. Nazareth did not exist at the time of Jesus. I believe you'll find the term should be 'Joshua the Nazarene' (a jewish sect). Response: You should check with Jewish scholars and they will tell you that Nazereth did exist. I'm sorry but you need to educate yourself at least on historical facts and stop quoting something from someone else and accepting it as fact. According to a Jewish scholarly website: In "Matthew" we read the following: Quote: ...he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene." The problem is that such a text doesn't exist in the Tanakh. Therefore you cannot fulfill a non-existing prophecy. But let's examine this further by listening to some modern-day apologetics on the missing "prophecy": Quote: In Hebrew, the word "branch" is netzer, actually only three consonantal letters: NZR. Note that the town NaZaReth contains the same three primary letters (plus an ending often attached to nouns). In the Aramaic form of Nazareth, (Aramaic was the common language spoken by most Israelites after the exile), it comes very close in sound to the Hebrew word for "branch." Here are some of the problems with this linguistic dance, which is done to hide the truth. 1. The idea of associating the Greek spelling with the Aramaic is a problem. The Greek texts use "Nazoraios." If you use the related Armaic, you end up with the word "Natzoriya". In the Hebrew plural, this would be "notzrim". So if you wanted to use Aramaic as a cop-out, then you would have the say that "he shall be a heretic" was the actual prophecy, and I think there is a theological problem there. (And the term notzrim is used in the Tanach, typically in Jeremiah, which preceeded Christianity. And this term is derogatory.) 2. There is a false claim that "he shall be a netzer" was noted by the prophets. (Notice that Matthew speak in the plural). Only one prophet even uses the term netzer 3. There is a false claim that "he shall be a netzer" was made by even one of them. Isaiah, the only prophet to use this metaphor, never says "he shall be a netzer" The reason they don't say "he shall be a netzer" is because it is a metaphor and is spoken of as an "it" since it is a "branch" that grows forth. But let's look at the use of Netzer by the only prophet who speaks of it:: "..and a netzer shall grow..." and "..cast out from your grave like an abominable netzer..." and " "...they shall inherit the land forever, the netzer of my planting...". And only the first instance is metaphorically Messianic, the second is an insult and the third refers to the Jewish people. 5. There is neither "he shall be a nazari" nor "he shall be a netzer" in the works of the prophets. And so this entire linguistic dance is all nonsense. Now, why is this new-day argument of "netzer" nothing but smoke and mirrors? 6. What did Jesus do for "Matthew" to say that the prophecy was fulfilled? Jesus went to Nazareth. It is self-evident that the "prophecy" was noted after Jesus became a Nazarene. If "Matthew" had made a comment that Jesus was the "son of David to fulfill the prophecy...", then that is something else. But it didn't and it doesn't. Jesus went to Nazareth and fulfilled the non-existant prophecy of becoming a Nazarene. In the 1800+ years of this "gospel's" existance, the Church has never considered this to be a problem, noting that Jesus goes into a town, and a prophecy is therefore fulfilled. It has never changed "he shall be a nazereth" to "he shall be a netzer". The reason is obvious: because the texts speaks of "Nazareth" and then declares a "prophecy". In short, the "divinely inspired" text has a problem. Another "prophecy" not fulfilled. | ||
| ccccarah (ccccarah) New member Username: ccccarah Post Number: 6 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 24.2.73.168 |
I'm sure my LDS friends would back me up on this: You people need to understand what we REALLY believe and then bash us, or whatever. We do not still practice polygamy. We do not believe in millions of gods, we believe in one god. God the eternal father and his son jesus christ and the holy ghost. we believe in the bible and the book of mormon equally,they were both ordained by god for the use of man. Also people seem to have a fetish with mormons becoming gods one day. we believe in 3 levels of heaven and the highest being just the holy of holy people. not every mormon will be a god. just the really, really good ones. There, i'm out of breath. -sorta. (Message edited by ccccarah on November 23, 2004) | ||
| franklin (franklin) Intermediate Member Username: franklin Post Number: 182 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 152.163.101.12 |
Then you are not Christians. | ||
| franklin (franklin) Intermediate Member Username: franklin Post Number: 186 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 172.153.19.106 |
Yaakov, you are not keeping to the bargain we made. You've allowed it to become wide open for me to criticize the Torah. Is that what you want? | ||
| ccccarah (ccccarah) New member Username: ccccarah Post Number: 9 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 24.2.73.168 |
A christian is someone that professes belief in Jesus as the Christ. Latter-day saints do this better than anyone else. no ifs, ands or buts. It doesn't matter what else we believe in, but when it comes to christianity then we ARE followers of christ. | ||
| nwmomike (nwmomike) Junior Member Username: nwmomike Post Number: 36 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 207.43.195.205 |
Joseph Klausner Historian and Professor, Hebrew University 1874-1958 Jesus of Nazareth…was a product of Palestine alone, a product of Judaism unaffected by any foreign admixture. There were many Gentiles in Galilee, but Jesus was in no way influenced by them. In his days Galilee was the stronghold of the most enthusiastic Jewish patriotism…In all this Jesus is the most Jewish of Jews…more Jewish even than Hillel. Jesus of Nazareth (New York: Macmillan, 1925), pp. 363, 374. Gottlieb Klein Chief Rabbi of Stockholm 1852-1914 The background [of the Synoptic Gospels] is definitely Jewish. The odor of the Palestinian earth which streams up from these pages is so strong that only unbridled fantasy could transform this historical Jesus into a myth.… Here is a fact which rests on so firm a foundation that no philosophy can shake it: Jesus of Nazareth is a historical personality. In "Is Jesus a Historical Personality?" cited by Pinchas Lapide, pp. 116, 118 in Israelis, Jews, and Jesus (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1979). Maimonides (Moses Ben Maimon) Philosopher and Legal Codifier 1135-1204 All these matters which refer to Jesus of Nazareth…only served to make the way free for the King Messiah and to prepare the whole world for the worship of God with a united heart, as it is written: "Yea, at that time I will change the speech of the peoples to a pure speech, that all of them may call on the name of the Lord and serve him with one accord" (Zeph. 3:9). In this way the messianic hope, the Torah, and the commandments have become a widespread heritage of faith—among the inhabitants of the far islands and among many nations, uncircumcised in heart and flesh. "Mishneh Torah" (Hilkhot Melakhim XI, 4), cited by Pinchas Lapide, p. 143 in The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1983). M or Michael | ||
| nwmomike (nwmomike) Junior Member Username: nwmomike Post Number: 37 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 207.43.195.205 |
The town is not mentioned in the Old Testament, nor even in the works of Josephus. Yet, it was not such an insignificant hamlet as is generally believed. We know, first, that it possessed a synagogue. Neubaurer (La géographie du Talmud, p. 190) quotes, moreover, an elegy on the destruction of Jerusalem, taken from ancient Midrashim now lost, and according to this document, Nazareth was a home for the priests who went by turns to Jerusalem, for service in the Temple. Up to the time of Constantine, it remained exclusively a Jewish town. St. Epiphaenius (Adv. Haereses, I, ii, haer., 19) relates that in 339 Joseph, Count of Tiberias, told him that, by a special order of the emperor, "he built churches to Christ in the towns of the Jews, in which there were none, for the reason that neither Greeks, Samaritans, nor Christians were allowed to settle there, viz., at Tiberias, at Diocaesarea, or Sepphoris, at Nazareth, and at Capharnaum". St. Paula and St. Sylvia of Aquitaine visited the shrines of Nazareth towards the end of the fourth century, as well as Theodosius about 530; but their short accounts contain no description of its monuments. The Pilgrim of Piacenza saw there about 570, besides "the dwelling of Mary converted into a basilica", the "ancient synagogue". A little treatise of the same century, entitled "Liber nominum locorum ex Actis", speaks of the church of the Annunciation and of another erected on the site of the house "where our Lord was brought up". In 670 Arculf gave Adamnan an interesting description of the basilica of the Annunciation and of the church of the "Nutrition of Jesus". The toleration which the Moslems showed towards the Christians, after conquering the country in 637, did not last long. Willibald, who visited Nazareth about 725, found only the basilica of the Annunciation, "which the Christians", he says "often redeemed from the Saracens, when they threatened to destroy it". However, in 808 the author of the "Commemoratorium de easis Dei" found twelve monks at the basilica, and eight at the Precipice, "a mile away from the town". The Greek emperor, John Zimisces, reconquered Galilee from the Arabs in 920, but, five years afterwards, he was poisoned by his eunuchs, and his soldiers abandoned the country. The basilica, finally ruined under the reign of the Calif Hakem (1010), was rebuilt by the crusaders in 1101, as well as the church of the Nutrition, or St. Joseph's House. At the same time the Greeks erected the church of St. Gabriel near the Virgin's Well. The archiepiscopal See of Scythopolis was also transferred to Nazareth. After the disastrous battle of Hattin (1187), the crusaders, with the European clergy, were compelled to leave the town. On 25 March, 1254, St. Louis and Queen Marguerite celebrated the feast of the Annunciation at Nazareth; but nine years later, the Sultan Bibars completely destroyed all the Christian buildings, and Nazareth soon dwindled down to a poor village. In the fourteenth century, a few Franciscan Friars established themselves there, among the ruins of the basilica. They had much to suffer during their stay, and many of them were even put to death, especially in 1385, in 1448, and in 1548, when all the friars were driven out of the country. In 1620 Fakher ed Dîn, Emir of the Druses, allowed them to build a church over the Grotto of the Annunciation; but it was ruined some years later by the Bedouins. The Franciscans nevertheless remained near the sanctuary, and in 1730 the powerful Sheikh Dhaher el Amer authorized them to erect the church which is still to be seen. M or Michael | ||
| nwmomike (nwmomike) Junior Member Username: nwmomike Post Number: 38 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 207.43.195.205 |
Then speak to him, saying, 'Thus says the Lord of hosts, saying: "Behold, the Man whose name is the BRANCH! From His place He shall branch out, And He shall build the temple of the Lord; You leave out references to the branch as messianic at all or even possibly referring to a person. You also leave out how locations were named after what they stand for. Oh well, I see no point in furthering the argument. You didn't think Nazareth existed so why would you accept anything else? M or Michael | ||
| rebelrenegade (rebelrenegade) Junior Member Username: rebelrenegade Post Number: 32 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 12.214.86.140 |
"Twenty percent? It is ten per cent. Called "tiding." It does not pay for any clergy, but it goes to the cannery, to produce food to feed the hungry. Humm... By the way, many of the ones who get the food are no Mormons. Yep, they act like Jesus." Number 1 it is called "Tithing". Number 2 There are plenty of organizations that feed the poor and hungry but are in no way christians. I know of even some athiests who help feed the poor and hungry, but they are sinners. Sorry to burst your Bubble but good works won't get you to heaven my friend. | ||
| rebelrenegade (rebelrenegade) Junior Member Username: rebelrenegade Post Number: 33 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 12.214.86.140 |
"I feel bad about denying anybody faith but seriously have to look down at anybody so weak and so stupid as to cling to such a patent invention." Doesn't that statment sound just like the Devil? | ||
| ccccarah (ccccarah) New member Username: ccccarah Post Number: 13 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 158.91.55.3 |
Mormons do good works out of the goodness of their heart. Not an eternal reward. And is there something wrong with making the world a better place? | ||
| rebelrenegade (rebelrenegade) Junior Member Username: rebelrenegade Post Number: 36 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 12.214.86.140 |
"And is there something wrong with making the world a better place?" nope. I never said there was anything wrong with it. I just said Good works won't get you to heaven. | ||
| franklin (franklin) Intermediate Member Username: franklin Post Number: 191 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 172.148.54.249 |
"It doesn't matter what else we believe in, but when it comes to christianity then we ARE followers of christ." In the Bible in which mormons claim to believe in, it states that we as Christians are forbidden to ADD or subtract from the scriptures. Yes it does matter what else you believe in. If you ADD to the Bible then you are not Christians. As a Christian you can only believe all of the Bible. But we can not add to it. | ||
| nwmomike (nwmomike) Junior Member Username: nwmomike Post Number: 46 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 207.43.195.205 |
cccarah, I don't have the Articles of Faith here but is this true or not? Good works are necessary for salvation, Articles of Faith, p. 92. If it so then it's hard to see it as selfless motives. M or Michael | ||
| solopilot (solopilot) New member Username: solopilot Post Number: 2 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 216.190.204.218 |
Truthseeker: Yes, we believe in both the Bible and in the Book of Mormon. Our Scriptures also include the Doctrine and Covenenant and the Pearl of Great Price. When a conflict arises, we generally hold the Book of Mormon to be the authority, because it is a more accurate testimony about Christ. Remember that the books of the Holy Bible were originally individual, separate letters. The Councils of Carthage gathered as much as they could of these various letters, then decided which were and were not scriptural. These councils took place nearly FOUR HUNDRED years after the birth of Christ, and what they worked with were copies of copies of copies of copies, brought down by hand over a period of 375 years. Even the Bible itself mentions a number of books which were not included, and the Protestants added some books back which the Carthage priests considered to be apochryphal. The Dead Sea scrolls included several other books which would have probably been in the Bible if the early Roman church had known of them, and they also have slightly different versions of some letters than they had at Carthage. There is NO perfect scriptural book, none which is absolutely complete and inerrant, but the Book of Mormon is closer than is the Bible as it exists today. Mike: You are putting the cart before the horse, this "question" always does. If you are a Christian ("Christ-following"), you will do as Christ would have you do. He told us to do a number of things, and if you don't do them, then you are not a follower of the Christ of the Bible. "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only . . .For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." James 2:24 and :26 Franklin: The "add to or take away from" only means the one book, Revelation, which was separate from all other books until AD 394. Note that a similar prohibition is in Deuteronomy 4:2, which would leave us with not a whole lot of Bible, ha? For that matter, Revelation was not the last book of the Bible which was written. The order in which the books were collated was completely arbitrary. In fact, the Bible that you use today is different from even the earlier editions of the King James Version (the 1611 edition of the KJV underwent various changes in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1762 and 1769, including the removal of various of the books which had been included). There is enough difference between the various current versions of the Bible that all other than the KJV are copyrighted as unique works, separate from all others. Rebel: You can't get into Heaven without being a follower of Christ. If you follow Christ, you do good works. The works won't get you there, but NOT doing the works will keep you out. Ccccccc: We don't do it better than everyone else, we just do it with better knowledge about why we should. Remember, one can do what Christ wants without ever hearing His name, and be more of a Christian than the TV preachers who scream "DO YOU BELIEVE???" | ||
| solopilot (solopilot) New member Username: solopilot Post Number: 3 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 216.190.204.218 |
Anonymous wrote: "The Christian Bible is very much verified by historically contemporary secular witnesses. The Mormon book is not." Uh . . .no. There is NO contemporary secular verification that Christ even existed. NOTHING. The best that we can do is Josephus, who wasn't even born until several years after the Crucifixion. Of course, if there were such a record, it would mean that we could "walk in pure knowledge" of Christ, and we Latter-day Saints know that we are in this life to walk by faith, NOT knowledge. Thus, the lack of absolute proof is in keeping with the Plan of Salvation, while "mainstream" Christians seek proof as justification of their faith. | ||
| solopilot (solopilot) New member Username: solopilot Post Number: 4 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 216.190.204.218 |
Truthseeker: No, Alma 7:10 says that Christ was to be born AT Jerusalem. Bethlehem is five miles from Jerusalem. The lesson was being taught to a people living TEN THOUSAND MILES from Jerusalem, who would be a lot more likely to know the name of Jerusalem (from which their forefathers fled) than the name of a town just outside the walls. If I told you that I lived in Mililani, you might not even know what country I meant -- but if I say HONOLULU, you know right away because you have a reference to it . . .and YOU have access to modern maps, and are closer to Mililani than the Nephites were to Bethlehem. To be this picky is pretty silly, but let's look at the Bible in the same way. Num 23:22: "God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of a unicorn." Compare the relative challenges of "rounding up" a reference to geography and saying that God has the strength of an IMAGINARY ANIMAL! | ||
| nwmomike (nwmomike) Member Username: nwmomike Post Number: 65 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 208.24.179.29 |
solopilot, You misunderstood the whole faith. Romans 10:9 - that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. James says faith without deeds is dead. We DON'T work for our salvation, we work FROM it. A truth faith produces works, not the other way around. But we are not justified before God. Romans 4:2 - For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. Our works may justify us toward men that we are who we say we are. What work can you do to add to what Christ has already done. You have to soly depend on the atonement Christ did on the cross, otherwise you have something to boast about. I addressed your issue of no secular witnesses in another article. Better check out Tacitus and quite a few other actually hostile witnesses. They may have spoke viciously about Christ but certainly didn't deny his existance. Also denying Christ existance is to deny your own faith you claim: Article of Faith, 1976, Chapter IV, The Atonement and Salvation, pg. 74 Article 3 - We Believe, that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. So it's illogical to deny the existance of Christ and at the same time say you believe in salvation through him. M or Michael | ||
| solopilot (solopilot) New member Username: solopilot Post Number: 17 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 64.122.31.130 |
Mike: I have never denied Christ's existence. I have simply asked you (and others) to provide records proving it, to show that lack of proof is not proof of lack. Tacitus wrote a century after Christ, he is even more "heresay" than Josephus. They commented on the ripples on the water, not the stone thrown into it. Those "ripples" are undeniable, and continue to this day, but nobody reports seeing the rock, not even those whose duty to Rome would have required such reports. I see the lack of contemporary secular record as another proof of the Plan of Salvation. We were born to walk in faith ONLY, not by knowledge of the Lord. I KNOW that my Redeemer lives, but I had to learn that for myself! That's like climbing a mountain, rather than being dropped at the peak by a helicopter. Which gives the greater appreciation for the mountain? We Latter-day Saints don't work FOR our salvation either. The Lord expects us to do our best. Whatever is left, HE takes care of. Think of it like trying to reach to the top of the Andes from the valley floor. Someone who can reach 7 feet is expected to do so, someone who can only reach 4 feet is expected to do so, and the Lord lifts us the rest of the way. But if you can reach 7 feet and only reach 4 feet, are you REALLY following Christ? If you don't do what you can, should the Lord make up for what you didn't bother to do? All that He requires of us is what we can do, nothing more. In the Book of Mormon, we are told that the Lord will never require anything of us, save that he provide a way for us to obey. Yes, all will be "saved." Is being "saved" enough? Is it truly praising our Father in Heaven to make it past first grade, then stop and be satisfied? BTW, I chose the Andes because they are the tallest mountains in the world. You probably "knew" that Everest was the tallest mountain, but this is not true. Everest is the HIGHEST mountain, but the Andes rise higher from their base than do the Himalayas. What you "know" isn't always true. You have to study for yourself, instead of just accepting what you've been told. | ||
| nwmomike (nwmomike) Member Username: nwmomike Post Number: 67 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 208.24.179.29 |
Why should I? Mention a historian like Philo, Josephus, you just deny them as relevant to the discussion. I take you you would deny Jewish discussion also? Let's put it this way your analogy on the ripples doesn't fly. Otherwise you could say that Paul or any of the other didn't exist because you don't trust historical sources unless they come from the past to tell you. The historical record as well as scriptural record testify to his existance. The fact the scriptures are backed up by fulfilled prophecy, signs, and wonders testify that what they told us were true. "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God". Faith is not a faith in no evidence but a faith in evidence already presented so that I can trust what Christ has done. Mormon Beliefs About the Bible and Salvation http://www.probe.org/docs/mormon1.html In The Articles of Faith Article 3 talks about works for salvation. Salvation in Mormonism http://www.contenderministries.org/mormonism/know.php http://www.carm.org/dialogues/lds_salvation.htm http://www.midwestoutreach.org/journals/mormon_view.html Defining the Terms It is important to understand how the LDS Church defines these terms in order to communicate with Mormons effectively. Like virtually all cults, the Mormons use the same vocabulary as Christians but a different dictionary. When a Christian asks a Mormon, “Have you been saved?” the latter can respond “Yes” truthfully and sincerely according to his understanding. Yet, the Mormon may be answering a completely different question than the one the Christian intended to ask. Salvation, according to Mormonism, can mean many things. LDS doctrinal authority Bruce R. McConkie, for many years one of the 12 “apostles” of the Mormon Church, taught that there are three distinct categories of salvation. In his highly respected book, Mormon Doctrine, McConkie wrote: 1. Unconditional or general salvation, that which comes by grace alone without obedience to gospel law, consists in the mere fact of being resurrected. In this sense salvation is synonymous with immortality; it is the inseparable connection of body and spirit so that the resurrected personage lives forever. This kind of salvation eventually will come to all mankind, excepting only the sons of perdition ... But this is not the salvation of righteousness, the salvation which the saints seek. Those who gain only this general or unconditional salvation will still be judged according to their works and receive their places in a terrestrial or a telestial kingdom. They will, therefore, be damned; their eternal progression will be cut short; they will not fill the full measure of their creation, but in eternity will be ministering servants to more worthy persons. 2. Conditional or individual salvation, that which comes by grace coupled with gospel obedience, consists in receiving an inheritance in the celestial kingdom of God. This kind of salvation follows faith, repentance, baptism, receipt of the Holy Ghost, and continued righteousness to the end of one’s mortal probation. (D. & C. 20:29; 2 Ne. 9:23-24.) ... [D. & C. = Doctrine & Covenants, one of the books considered to be Mormon Scripture; 2 Ne. = 2 Nephi, one of the books contained in the Book of Mormon] You can read the rest with quotes from Mormon prophets: http://www.midwestoutreach.org/journals/mormon_view.html All our righteousness is as filthy rags so the best we can do isnt' good enough. After receiving Christ it should produce good works but they in no way affect our salvation itself. It's basically a done deal. But the result should be working out of love. M or Michael | ||
| nwmomike (nwmomike) Member Username: nwmomike Post Number: 68 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 208.24.179.29 |
Salvation by Works in Mormonism Salvation. Mormon theology teaches that the atonement of Christ was essential to our salvation and eternal life with God, but that it is not sufficient. Christ's shed blood on the cross provides for universal resurrection of all people, but does not pay for personal sins; according to Mormonism, only Christ's blood shed in the Garden of Gethsemane atones for personal sin. Besides faith in Christ, complete and permanent repentance of all sin as well as many good works are required. See: (1) Book of Mormon: 3 Nephi 27:13-27; Moroni 10:32-33; Mosiah 15:26-27; Alma 12:14-28; 34:32-35; 1 Nephi 3:7; (2) Doctrine & Covenants: 14:7; 58:42-43; and (3) Miracle of Forgiveness (Kimball): pp. 206-210, 313-315, 321-322, 354-355. M or Michael | ||
| solopilot (solopilot) New member Username: solopilot Post Number: 19 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 64.122.31.130 |
You should do your own research because if you don't, it means that you are either so stupid that others need to think for you, or you are afraid of what you will find. It's like those moronic screams of "DO YOU BELIEVE?" The only valid answer is "in WHAT???" You can't even ask your own questions, you can only parrot what others have said. I, at least, am able to make my own assertions and arguments, I don't have to cut-and-past everything from others. You don't have the slightest idea what the truth is about Mormonism, but you are sure firm in your lack of knowledge. | ||
| nwmomike (nwmomike) Member Username: nwmomike Post Number: 69 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 207.43.195.13 |
lol cute. You better search Greater Grace World Outreach discussion for my posts and you will see otherwise. I'm not afraid of anything, contrary to your assertion. I can ask my own questions when I feel like it. You assume because I don't I can't. My cutting and pasting is why reinvent the wheel when others have already addressed this issue time and time again. I provided it for your benefit. Okay, then answer this. Does Mormonism teach a works salvation? Oh, I understand Mormonism quite well. I have it's 4 standard works, plus online resources from Mormon sources. I've also studied comparison to Christianity and Mormon objections. Thank you for your kind words. I assume your brothers would approve. How do you know how much I do or don't know? You assume by what you have seen so far but haven't read anything else I've posted. But that's okay. It's not the first time I've been attacked, rediculed, or maligned. Jesus said if they hated me they will hate you. I've been persecuted before so that's okay too. Are you denying that the information I posted is true on the beliefs of Mormonism? If not show me which ones are incorrect. M or Michael | ||
| solopilot (solopilot) New member Username: solopilot Post Number: 21 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 64.122.31.130 |
True, I assume that you can't if you don't. ;) It's okay as far as I'm concerned to paste in passages which you would otherwise have typed in, but to just blorf a whole long chapter into the discussion is really kind of hard to deal with when I am typing my responses. I've read this stuff time and again, and it still isn't accurate. If I wanted, I could set up an automatic bot in my computer to paste the appropriate response to whatever you have pasted in, but I'm here for discussion, not to prove who can paste the most words in the shortest time. Gee, Mike, if the criterion for being Christian is being hated like Jesus was, then we win, hands-down! ;) Have you actually READ the Standard Works? And if so, did you do it with a desire to know what they said, or to find material to use in arguments? No, my brothers would not approve. From what I've seen of Protestants, however (including some of your own comments), I would be approved of by YOUR brothers if I had been attacking Mormons the same way. Are you denying that the information I posted on Protestants is untrue? Oh, wait, you already have. And you said that what I posted about Mormons was untrue. Thus, you assume that I am either lying or stupid, because what I say doesn't match your prejudices. I know that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the true, restored church of our Savior. I came to this knowledge over years of study and skepticism, and by watching many things take place over three decades. Is the Church perfect? Nope. Am I the end-all expert on Mormonism? Nope. But I can eat a peach without being able to tell you how a peach tree grows. I can tell the difference between doctrine which makes sense and doctrine which doesn't. I much prefer the Mormon belief that we are here as part of a plan of progression, than the Protestant belief that we are here either as some kind of pet, or that we were created solely to worship God. Do you REALLY want to believe that your Creator had such a low opinion of himself that he would have to create a whole universe and all of us just to hear us tell him how great he is? My Heavenly Father LOVES me. He created us, his children, with the hopes of all parents, that we would do well and progress. He gave us laws to follow, because any loving father guides his children. He gave us the freedom to make mistakes, because that is how we learn. He gave us his Only Begotten Son, a blameless sacrifice to take on the blame of us all, because he loves us; Jesus, our Elder Brother, suffered those things because he loves us. I can't share the "mainstream" Christian ideas that all of this was for nothing, that marriage and family unity are dissolved at death, and that we have no purpose other than to sing hosannas through the rest of eternity. Those ideas simply make no sense, and God is not the author of nonsense. | ||
| nwmomike (nwmomike) Member Username: nwmomike Post Number: 71 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 207.43.195.13 |
This goes back to one question of which you responded: On the big argument question, "Can man become equal to God?" the answer is no -- anymore than I can become equal to my Dad, just because I have grown up. Can man become "Heavenly Father" to his own children? SURE, the same way that I am "Dad" to my own kids. The problem is it is in direct contradiction to the beliefs the Mormon prophets themselves have indicated. "As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become." (Prophet Lorenzo Snow, quoted in Milton R Hunter, The Gospel Through The Ages p.105-106) I don't need to quote the rest from: Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 1:04 pm: The other quotes are better suited as they plainly teach that man can become God. This plays into the very thing that got Satan into trouble. Believing he can become like God. God will not share His glory with another. I guess I'm trying to see the way you believe and how those statements agree. M or Michael | ||
| nwmomike (nwmomike) Member Username: nwmomike Post Number: 72 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 208.24.179.208 |
>I understand what you are saying about being >historically set. However, the specific form of >Christianity to which you adhere is not really >that much older than Mormonism, if it is at all >>(depends on which sect you belong to). >Protestant doctrines are constantly evolving, >sometimes rapidly and sometimes over a span of decades. You confuse form with substance. That is why I mentioned the essentials because we can have unity around the essentials. We can worship as Baptist, Methodist, etc. However Baptist and Methodist have different forms of governing based on differences of opinion and thought. But that does not mean we have a different faith. You might recall earlier that I mention I moved from a Methodist church to a Baptist church. The Baptist church accept my faith and the baptism that I had from the Methodist. It’s because we believe in the same essentials. These essentials go back to the early days of Christianity. These forms of governing (probably not using the term used by some) of which Baptist, Methodist grew were out of others. I don’t do well in a church that likes to lift up hands, shout, and other things. I’m more comfortable in a church that is more conservative in those areas. Is either wrong? No. Is either denying any of the essentials? Not necessarily. So to play the whole of Protestantism as opposing itself in some way no. Are there churches out there that have wondered off and don’t believe the essentials? Sure but are they indicative of the whole? Not hardly. I'm not sure what you're talking about our doctrines evolving over time relates to. The same could be said about Mormonisms stance on pologomy and it's number of changes in the BOM. > The fact that you repeat them says that either you don't know as much about >Mormonism as you think or that you are not as honest as you want to believe that you >are. I prefer to think the former, of course. That is a fallacy of the “either or”. If I repeat them is because I have studied Mormonism and other false doctrines for the past 6 years. Reading both sides of the issue. Do I know all about Mormonism? No, as you yourself admit you don’t either. I could almost say the same about you. The problem is the beliefs of Mormons like for example on the teaching about man becoming God seems to contradict what you say you believe. So it’s the least confusing. So it was helpful to find out what you believe vs what Mormons believe and where they intersect or diverge. >BTW, there are several dozen "counterfeit" Mormon churches, to use your phrase (I would >just say that they aren't associated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints >and leave it at that). Most, but not all, are involved with polygamy. That’s good because our discussion should be on the ones that are associate with LDS and not spurious ones, etc. >The fact is that the only people who have ever shunned me were Protestants, who even >encouraged my family to lock me out of my own home, claiming that I would sign it over >to the Church. I was treated atrociously by one small group, I don't hold all Protestants to >the same low standard, but when you told me to "leave and see what they do," you were >directly attacking ME as someone who would do that kind of thing to others who leave the >Church. _I_ am the "they" in this case. I am sorry that anyone who were so-called Protestants would do such a thing. Clearly that is against any protestants confession of faith or beliefs in dealing with anyone. Again it’s sad that some group would treat you like that. To give you a little more background I live in a large Mormon population. My neighbors are Mormons and their kids play on my driveway because it’s large and they can ride their bikes easier in safety. I also gave them items for their new baby when it arrived. I take loving my neighbor as myself seriously. That doesn’t just include neighbor in the sense of someone near me, but in the sense anyone puts in my path that I can help. >My purpose is attacking you personally was to get you to respond personally -- to actually >discuss this with me, rather than just cut-and-pasting long passages from others. I am >sorry that this was necessary, and I hope that you understand that it was not intended to >cause you harm. I am sorry if it did. Unfortunately my time is obviously more limited than you. Most of this stuff I’ve gathered and collected and as I studied them kept them for reference. I do have to applaud you in your efforts. It worked. Lol I also accept your apology gladly. >Evil doctrines and practices, backed up: >Protestant churches in the South: Supported, sponsored slavery, lynch mobs and the Ku >Klux Klan. We have to be careful here. I don’t condone and neither do most denominations. I can’t speak for them as I don’t know the whole issue surrounding it. Did they do it out of ignorance of scripture on that issue or blatanly disregard scripture? I think most believed they did. But it was Christians that rebuked and corrected them and later caused slavery to be abolished and abhorred. >Protestant churches in Ohio, Illinois, Missouri: incited the rape, murder, theft, mutilation of >Mormons, arson of Mormons' homes. If this is referring to the time in those states when Joseph Smith was alive or around that time you have to be careful too. Both sides commited atrocities embarrassing to both. >Protestants in those areas: coerced (through perjury) Missouri governor Liliburn Boggs to >issue an order that all Mormons be exterminated; ordered Alexander Doniphan (militia >commander) to assassinate Joseph Smith; incited mob violence against Mormons; >attempted to force Joseph Smith and others to swallow poison; formed a mob to attack >the Carthage Jail, resulting in the martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith. The violence >continued until the Mormons were forced to leave city after city, eventually leaving the >United States for what was then Mexican territory -- then the Protestants demanded that >Mormon men be drafted to fight in the Mexican-American War, thus leaving our emigrants >on the plains without the young men needed to protect and move the thousands of people >who had fled Nauvoo. I don’t know this whole issue enough but I’d like to see evidence of perjury and the orders and their context. But I don’t think the state of Missouri necessarily represents Protestantism, although I’m not saying there weren’t some involved. I’m just making a distinction from the state and how it behaved. Now on the martyrdom of Joseph there is a twist. He wasn’t so innocent as many believe. He had a gun too and used it. The Mormons were forced to leave largely in part to the teaching at the time that Mormons were going to rule the country and everyone took them at their words and actions. So lets not leave out what Mormons did during this time as well. Who are you equating Protestants to that demanded Mormon men be drafted? Anti-Mormons accused Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum of mixing politics and revelation. That there was a great deal of truth to this charge is verified by the History of the Church. Under the date of August 6, 1843 History of the Mormon church on Joseph Smiths Death http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/josephsmithsdeath.htm >I would also add that I consider it evil to tell lies about other people's churches, which is a >Protestant trait more than most other folks' (I've never seen an anti-Mormon pamphlet >from Catholics). I have no idea what you’re talking about here. I confront false teachers posing as mainline protestant churches or whatever they claim to be if you are in any reference to something like that. Catholic Information on Mormonism http://www.ewtn.com/library/answers/mormon.htm http://www.catholicsource.net/articles/mormonism.html If that is the case then why do Mormons make the statements: We believe the Bible is the Word of God but is corrupted because the Catholic Church took away from the original translations. There are more statements against Catholics so I don’t see any improvement on the argument. If Catholics aren’t anti-Mormon then why do Mormons have so much to say about them? >It is one thing to be mistaken or fail to understand, something entirely different to spread >falsehood for profit, which is what most of the people you get your material from are >doing. Who is making what profit and how do you know? You have to make proof of first falsehood, then make a case that they are making a profit off of it. Most of the ones I know have to follow strict guidelines as a non-profit organization. Not all that I quoted may fall under that line but it doesn’t not necessitate that the information is untrue. Mormons make profits off what it sells and some of it speaks harshly against protestant, catholics, etc. which each could make the same claim. >I can go into nearly any mall in the country and find a "Christian" bookstore, run by >Protestants. It will have several shelves of books condemning other religions, and I can >spend over $1100 buying anti-Mormon books, pamphlets, audio and video materials, and >only buy one of each. Is it possibly because no one counterfits Mormonism but Christianity. The Bible clearly teaches to stand up against false teachings, false prophets, false apostles. I live near a major city with approx. ½ million people. They have numerous outlying urban areas with malls as well. In ALL the bookstores I’ve been in the shelves addressing cults vs the rest is a very small percentage. Most of the ones around here have one side of one bookshelf when they have some as few as 15 shelves and a Mardells that has too many that I could count without walking around the whole place. >I can go into Protestant churches and see movies being presented which lie about my >church. There is your opportunity to stand up for your faith and present your side. If you don’t you’re giving into them. I don’t know what your point is here. >I can visit Temple Square for religious meetings and be confronted by Protestants who are >screaming obscenities at women and children or fondling women's undergarments and >making lewd comments, have my friends be the target of racist slurs, and watch >Protestants throw scriptures on the ground and stomp on them, all in an attempt to incite >hatred and violence. Who are you classifying as Protestants here? Are they people you assume protestant because they aren’t Mormon or what? You keep using the term protestant as if it applies to anyone that says they are Christian or you think are Christian. I must let you know that JW claim to be Christian as well as many that don’t even know what the faith is and claim it only in name only but never in deed. >Protestant churches spend thousands of dollars each year to send these people to try to >disrupt our conferences, Tabernacle Choir concerts, special events, and even just our day->to-day greeting of visitors. I was once stopped at a traffic light in California, and a man >used a BULLHORN to scream lies at me from two cars back in the next lane. As he passed >me by, I saw that he had a "Clergy" sign in his window (used for parking at some >hospitals). I have read very little of any disruptions at conferences. Most have been civil. Again are you equating every protestant as an absolute indicator of the whole? >Protestants have incited violence against Mormon missionaries even in recent years, at the >open guidance of their pastors. Who, when, where? Are you assuming that all churches are under the approval of the denomination it supposedly represents or that it represents Protestantism as a whole? Let me tell you. I recently learned too that there are independent Baptist churches like Fred Phelps. He is not part of the Southern Baptist Convention and does not represent Protestantism as a whole and largely most of Protestantism rejects his views. It’s unfortunately they misrepresent others. It’s still much smaller cases of small groups of individuals going against scripture, against a denominations beliefs and practices, not a representative of the whole. It is a problem? It happens so it is. But again we have to be careful of throwing the baby out with the bathwater so to speak. >It's one thing to think that you are closer to true Christianity, it another thing to use these >tactics to "prove" it. If by what you stated of how you were treated I say is you won’t find it in any statement of faith or beliefs in Baptist, Methodist, and others. I’ve never ever heard of such treatment where I live or any place I’ve been and that’s hard to see, seeing that we live probably in what I call a 50/50 croud. In that probably 50% are Mormon and 50% are not. They are clearly in contrast to what the Bible and their statements of faith say in any case. I would sharply rebuke my pastor, or any church member, or any church for that matter that used verbal or physical abuses like you stated above. No, those tactics like that don’t prove much in helping any church. I can see this are largely due to where you live and probably your involvement in specific areas. Especially if you live in say Utah. Hope that helps. I spent too much time on this already. M or Michael | ||
| rebelrenegade (rebelrenegade) Junior Member Username: rebelrenegade Post Number: 42 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 12.218.74.77 |
"This kind of salvation eventually will come to all mankind, excepting only the sons of perdition ... But this is not the salvation of righteousness, the salvation which the saints seek. Those who gain only this general or unconditional salvation will still be judged according to their works and receive their places in a terrestrial or a telestial kingdom. They will, therefore, be damned; their eternal progression will be cut short; they will not fill the full measure of their creation, but in eternity will be ministering servants to more worthy persons." So mike what your saying is that if I believe I am going to Heaven no matter what but don't do the things required in the Bible I am not Heaven bound? What about if I believe in unconditional Salvation, but I do what is required of me by God according to His Gospel? Am I still not Going to heaven Just by the Mere fact I believe in Unconditinal salvation? God Bless | ||
| rebelrenegade (rebelrenegade) Junior Member Username: rebelrenegade Post Number: 43 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 12.218.74.77 |
"All our righteousness is as filthy rags so the best we can do isnt' good enough. After receiving Christ it should produce good works but they in no way affect our salvation itself. It's basically a done deal. But the result should be working out of love." Sorry I think I misunderstood what ya typed a few minutes ago so disregard my last post. :D | ||
| rebelrenegade (rebelrenegade) Junior Member Username: rebelrenegade Post Number: 44 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 12.218.74.77 |
"I know that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the true, restored church of our Savior." So are you saying that all other Churches are False? That the "Mormons" are the only ones who have the right way? If that is the case then you need a reality check. Every single church in this world, unfortunately, has something wrong in it. I believe that 99% of the churchs today are offbase in 1 degree or another. Why? Because of the Devil. He likes to spread untruths and lies and deceits. Does that mean we quit going? No. The Holy Bible tells us to try the Spirits. To test the words of a man or woman who claims to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ to see whether or not they be of God or not. God Bless | ||
| nwmomike (nwmomike) Member Username: nwmomike Post Number: 88 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 207.43.195.203 |
rebelrenegade, Hey, no problem. Had me wondering for a minute. You can now edit your post by clicking on the Paper icon with the pencil on it. Sorry if I can't keep up on the conversations. I need to spend more time in GGWO discussion. Plus with this time of year I have wayyyy too much to do. M or Michael | ||
| solopilot (solopilot) New member Username: solopilot Post Number: 22 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 216.190.204.218 |
Sorry, been busy the last few days. Gonna take the posts in reverse order. Reb: If the only answer that you will accept is yes or no, then yes. However, it's not black and white. Are the Baptist more Christian than the Presbyterians? They think so, the Presbyterians think it's the other way around. To me, one is pretty much the same as the other. Something else to consider though, is that ALL of the Protestant churches are rooted in Catholicism, and ALL of them say that the Roman Catholic Church lost the authority to act in the name of Christ. The doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that, yes, the authority was lost, but that it has been restored. Other Christian churches, while they don't have the priesthood authority, do preach much that is correct. Unfortunately, they also spend a lot of time in internecine warfare, trying to prove that they are that 1% more Christian than the others. Is 56% really that much better than 55%? Or 90 more than 89? You're absolutely correct, we should "try the spirits": "And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, is these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost." -- Moroni 10:4 | ||
| solopilot (solopilot) New member Username: solopilot Post Number: 23 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 216.190.204.218 |
Mike: You are leaping to a conclusion. I have only lived in Utah for a short while, temporarily here with my work. I have also lived in Michigan, Indiana, California, Nevada, Georgia, Florida and Hawaii. Those things don't make me a UAW member, a wheat farmer, a movie star, a pit boss, a peachgrower, Mickey Mouse or Kamehameha. When I joined the Church in the 1970s, my nearest LDS neighbor was two miles away. I have spent less than 3 years, total time, in places where there were enough Mormons that we didn't all know every LDS for miles around. So, what I say about the Church is what I had to learn for myself, what I had to research, and what has been witnessed to my by the power of the Holy Ghost. I'm not always the best spokesman for the Church, but that's not what I'm called to do. I'm inperfect, but in the Restored Gospel, have learned many things which give me hope that even someone like I have been can once again be with our Eternal Father. The Restored Gospel MAKES SENSE. There are answers to questions which other Christian churches doesn't even address. Yes, Mike, Baptists and Presbyterians DO have different faiths, different doctrines. Back when it mattered to me, I could tell you what those differences were. But then, there are many different Baptist churches, with widely-divergent beliefs. Yes, Christian churches believe in the same essentials -- mostly. Protestant doctrines evolve over the years . . .only 200 years ago, travelling on Sunday might result in the local Protestant congregation chasing you down and putting you in the stocks until Monday noon, for your sin of not honoring the Sabbath. History lesson 1: Polygamy was given for special reasons, for a limited amount of time. A sizeable number of polygamous marriages were "solemnized but not consummated," in an age where many men died, and where many women were not desirable as the only choice that a man might have for a wife. Surely you can think of a woman or two who will probably never marry for one reason or another; under polygamy, those women might actually be wives and mothers. History lesson 2: Even the first 5000 copies of the Book of Mormon were not identical. The galleys, coming of the press, often had errors and even omissions. The type would be reset, but they couldn't afford to throw away already-printed galleys. Other changes over the years were the result of changes in English usage (for instance, the Lamanites becoming "white and delightsome" was changed to "pure and delightsome," because the latter word makes the meaning more clear. Remember also that Joseph Smith, Jr was pretty much uneducated, and his scribes weren't much better off, so some grammar was fixed over the years. Wow, you've researched Mormonism and other "false" doctrine for the past 6 years. I was a Protestant for about 20 years, and have been a Mormon for nearly 30 years. I studied them a whole lot longer, and found that the Protestant doctrines are the false ones. But hey, who's counting? Where's the contradiction? If we are truly the children of God, doesn't that mean that he was once like us, and we might become like him? Nowhere in what scriptures you have is this refuted, it's just doctrines of men which say it can't be. No, that is NOT "against any protestants confession of faith or beliefs in dealing with anyone." It is still preached from Protestant pulpits not to associate with Mormons. There is sure a lot of false witness preached from those pulpits, but then, the idea that someone would preach for free threatens their incomes . . .that has to be countered any way they can. For you neighbors, let me thank you . . .and I think that, to you, their religion doesn't make a difference in whether they can play over in your yard. Perhaps I should mention that the first few Protestant churches in Utah were built on land donated by the Church. Oh, and let me publicly thank the folks who gathered at the last couple of General Conferences to show that not all Protestants are like the rabid anti-Mormons. These neighbors of ours stationed themselves along the sidewalks to prevent the antis from taking up that space (there's a city ordinance mandating minimum spacing between activists) and causing even more problems than were the case. There are a lot of Protestants who act like Christians. Let me amend that, there are a lot of Protestants who ARE Christians, and if you're a Christian it shows in how you act. Roger that on the apology. No, I really don't have a lot of time. I have to borrow it from other things, then pay back, but I think it's important to discuss these things. I'll sleep when I'm dead. ;) Mike, TODAY few if any denominations are in favor of slavery. In 1857, though, there was almost no argument from most of the Protestant churches over the Dred Scott decision, which said essentially that blacks aren't people. In 1859, abolitionism was a minority position among Protestants, and was one of the causes of friction between Mormons and Missourians during the 1830s. In fact, the whole Abolitionist movement was started by a Deist (Benjamin Franklin), and only taken up by a few Christian churches until much later. Many of those were not interested in the black slaves, but only the white indentured, who might join their congregations. Mormons were tried on various false charges, few stuck, with non-Mormon courts and juries. Protestants boasted loudly about the things that they did to Mormons. There's a big difference. For perjury, consider the "Mormon War" of 1857. Federal appointees reported to the White House that Mormons had run them off at gunpoint, after burning the Federal courthouse and all of the records therein. This led to the expedition of Johnston's Army, charged with putting down the "insurrection" by whatever means necessary. When Johnston's Army arrived in Salt Lake City, the Federal officials with the column found that, not only were the courthouse and records intact, but they had been maintained and cared for during the months between the departure of the old officials and the arrival of the new. There are a number of other examples in the History of the Church volume which includes the Exterminating Order, and in Missouri General Alexander Doniphan's memoirs. In one statement, mobbers claimed to have heard a six-pounder (cannon), with they "knew" the Mormons to have, some thirty-seven miles away. The Mormons' cannon, named the "Old Sow," now rests in the Church museum in SLC. It's a whole, whopping three feet long. When whole batteries of Civil War cannon could only be heard ten miles away, it's not likely that the Old Sow would have been heard from the next county over. That testimony led to the order that all Mormons were to be exterminated. In 1833, the Missouri government DID represent Protestantism, as did the various preachers and newspapers who demanded an end to Mormonism by any means possible. Yes, Joseph Smith had a gun at the Martyrdom, and he used it. But now think about this. He was in JAIL, and the jailer not only let the men keep weapons, but he and his wife gave the men their own bedroom. The Illinois governor was in the town, with his state guard, and had promised to protect the Mormon prisoners. When Joseph and Hyrum were arrested, they rode out of Nauvoo on their own horses, unshackled, then their handful of captors remembered that they were also supposed to collect the militia weapons, so they turned around and went back into Nauvoo to get them. Nauvoo, at the time, was the largest or second-largest city in Illinois (depending on how you counted), it was the city of the Mormons, and these men had just arrested the Mormons' leaders . . .yet they felt safe in riding back into a town which knew what they had done, going to the armory and collecting the state-owned muskets from inside a city of 15,000, each man owning at least one gun (and most were better than the muskets). Would YOU have done any of these things if you believed that the Mormons were in a state of rebellion, or if there were anything to the tales of Mormon atrocities? If you wouldn't, why do you think that they would? Let's assume that they knew their neighbors better than the people who wrote the anti-Mormon "histories" which you have read. Let's also not forget that, following the martyrdom, the Mormons didn't come after the mobbers, Carthage, or Thomas Sharp (newspaper editor who incited violence in his paper). When the opportunity was handed them to harm Liliburn Boggs (the governor who had signed the Exterminating Order), not only did they not harm him, but they provided protection for him all through Utah to California. Come on, Mike, you know as well as I do that the United States of the 1840s was predominantly Protestant, and there was no "separation of church and state" doctrine in effect. Churches had a very strong voice in local government, why should Nauvoo have been any different from Springfield. The draft call was done with the intent of weakening the Mormon migration . . .who but the anti-Mormon Protestants would have wanted to do that? BTW, Utah Lighthouse Ministries is not a credible source. They have posted altered material in the past, and dodge around court orders and injunctions. It's funny to see you, a Protestant, defending the Catholic church on the subject of scriptures. I've discussed the Councils of Carthage, in which the Catholics came up with a different Bible than Protestants use, yet you condemn me for also not accepting their translations as being accurate. If they weren't making a profit, the market would have dried up long ago. If there weren't a strong market, this stuff wouldn't be given so much shelf space in "Christian" bookstores. Look at the prices of these books, on cheap paper, and tell me that when they sell a few thousand copies, someone isn't make a LOT of profit from it? Show me Mormon hate literature. Just show me some. I've never seen a single book in a Mormon bookstore which specifically attacks any other religion. None which takes Protestant doctrine out of context to "prove" it wrong. None which compares to the garbage that I can find in any "Christian" bookstore about Mormonism. And it's not because we couldn't write such books, it's because that's not the kind of thing that we do. "Nonprofit" doesn't mean that nobody makes any money from it. Many nonprofits pay their staffs huge salaries for their work. "Mormons make profits off what it sells and some of it speaks harshly against protestant, catholics, etc. which each could make the same claim." ? Huh? Tell you what. You come here to Salt Lake City, and bring your checkbook. We will go together to a "Christian" bookstore and the Deseret Book store across the street from the Church headquarters. We will buy one of each example of attack literature, videos, etc that we can find. We will add up the amount of money spent on each type, anti-Protestant and anti-Mormon, then weigh what we have. For every ounce of anti-Protestant attack stuff we find, I will pay an amount equivalent to the total cost of the anti-Protestant stuff to the charity of your choice. For every ounce of anti-Mormon attack stuff, you pay the the equivalent of the cost of all anti-Mormon stuff to the LDS humanitarian effort. No, Mike, the opportunity to stand up for my faith is not presented in the Protestant churches, even when they have shown lies and innuendo. I suppose that I could shout and be obnoxious, but we leave that sort of thing to the Protestants who parade around our gatherings. I am classifying Protestants and Protestants. Baptists and Methodists and "Evangelicals" and the rest. I'm not assuming anything, they will freely tell you if you ask, which one of the various Protestant cults they follow. I can't help what you have read about the disruptions at General Conference and other gatherings, but here, check http://www.fairlds.org/apol/antis/streetpreachers.html for some examples. BTW, as you look around on that site (a primary forum for countering anti-Mormonism), you will see a very polite rebuttal of the anti-Mormons who you will see there. Compare that to the things the antis are shown doing. | ||
| nwmomike (nwmomike) Member Username: nwmomike Post Number: 90 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 208.24.179.27 |
Quote:However, it's not black and white. Are the Baptist more Christian than the Presbyterians? They think so, the Presbyterians think it's the other way around. To me, one is pretty much the same as the other. I'm done with this. You still make it sound as if they are all against each other, which is a flat LIE. You later agree they agree on the essentials. That's what it's centered around. You totally ignored the fact that I transferred from Methodist to Baptist. The Baptist accepted my confession of faith and my baptism because it was based on the essentials. No ONE thought that one church was more Christian than another. It goes with the scripture "one says I am of Paul, another of Apollos". Is Christ divided, NO. We are centered on Christ. In FACT, each year the local churches which are the Baptist, Presbyterians, and a couple others. I don't know which all take turns delivering the Christmas message in which members from the other churches attend to listen. They also have other community workings in which the work together and call each other Christian brothers. It matters not that one doesn't approve of dancing and another sees it as no problem. We gather around Christ. We all confess to his diety, his virgin birth, death, and physical resurection. It doesn't matter what denomination or local body of believers we chose to have fellowship with on a regular basis with. It doesn't matter what name it is. So what if Baptist have a different form of operating than the Presbyterians, Church of God, etc. If we were so divergent as your claims it doesn't make sense that they any other would accept my confession of faith and they do not claim that one is MORE christian than another. Quote:Mike: You are leaping to a conclusion. I have only lived in Utah for a short while I SAID:"Especially if you live in say Utah." I simply made the argument that I would expect it in that place IF you lived there to be more pronounced. You infered your own conclusion on that one. Quote:I'm not assuming anything, they will freely tell you if you ask, which one of the various Protestant cults they follow. LOL. I'll tell you which congregation I fellowship with but I'm just as freely to tell people that I also belonged to the Methodist. Neither reject me and both consider me a beloved brother. BTW, I still go to some of the Methodist services. I would expect by your statements one or both would reject me. I would rather attend any of them than a total blasphemous false prophet cult such as Mormonism. The rest is not worth answering as I'm done with your rhetoric and even distortions of my own statements altogether. I had thought you were open to discussion but you still won't address essential doctrinal statements and beliefs and jump off to rhetoric and personal subjective opinion. M or Michael | ||
| solopilot (solopilot) New member Username: solopilot Post Number: 25 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 64.122.31.130 |
OF COURSE they are all "against each other." Each of the 1000+ separate (registered) Protestant churches is different from all of the other in one way or another, and firmly convinced that they are the most correct. If you look at your congregation and you DON'T think that this is the most correct, then you start looking for another, whether you admit it or not. This is called "pulpit shopping" and is a major activity in the Protestant world. I had one friend who spent 18 months trying to find the "best" Baptist church after he retired from the Navy and settled in Virginia. If you have ever been to VA, you know that there are Baptist churches there like there are LDS chapels here in the Valley of the Great Salt Lake, and it still took him a year and a half to find one that he liked. To him, all of the others were Christian, but not Christian enough, and his search was limited to Baptist churches. WE ALL agree on the essentials, that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten, that he is our Savior and without him none can enter Heaven. It's after that that you went wrong, Mike. ;) If Protestant doctrines DON'T diverge, then why aren't you all one church??? Not even all of the Baptist churches agree with all of the other Baptist churches, and the same for the Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and maybe we shouldn't even mention the Episcopalians! One of the proofs that Mormonism is correct is that our doctrines are the same worldwide. We are the only Christian church with a worldwide scope which has a single doctrine worldwide. That's why your inference about my being in SLC doesn't work. It doesn't matter where I am, it's still one Lord, one faith, and one baptism. I am open to discussion, but -- as I said -- I will not let you force the assumption that your version of Christianity is the true one, and you have been unwilling to offer any kind of proof of your assertion. Your cult is divergent from a church which your cult's founders and professors say was itself divergent from pure Christianity, yet you expect me to buy the idea that you can grow good fruit from a poisoned tree. At the same time, in just about every post, you have slammed my church, and by extension, myself, having come here in the first place for that reason. You admit that your "familiarity" with Mormonism is from a mere 6 years of study, yet have told me that I know nothing about Protestantism, of which I was immersed for over three times the span which you have been studying Mormonism. You have also said that I don't know what my church believes, despite the 29 years that I've been a member. You have distorted my beliefs and my statements, yet now you run because I am giving you the same level of courtesy. You are really good at cut and paste, but have proven yourself far short of true familiarity with the Restored Gospel. When you really want to know the truth about Mormonism, here I am. If you are content to smugly assume that you are right, then it is a waste of my time to discuss this with you. I will simply offer the truth when you say something about my religion, and wish you a good life. | ||
| nwmomike (nwmomike) Member Username: nwmomike Post Number: 92 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 65.66.130.111 |
When you really want to know the truth about Christianity, here I am. If you are content to smugly assume that you are right, then it is a waste of my time to discuss this with you. I will simply offer the truth when you say something about my religion, and wish you a good life. It works both ways. Your problem is still you equate church to a building which it ISN'T or to a name. You act as if Mormonism is a monolithic group which by your own admission they aren't from an earlier post. Done with the discussion. I got news for you, I haven't CUT AND PASTED in a long time. I cut and paste from Word only because I can't stand this dinky little window, but not as you assume and criticize falsely that I'm not using my own material. You're really good at accusations about me without any proof whatsoever. I don't run from anyone bud. I choose not to "do not answer a fool according to his folly". am open to discussion, but -- as I said -- I will not let you force the assumption that your version of Mormonism is the true one, and you have been unwilling to offer any kind of proof of your assertion. Your cult is divergent from a church which your cult's founders and professors say was itself divergent from pure Christianity, yet you expect me to buy the idea that you can grow good fruit from a poisoned tree. Your own rhetoric speaks against you. M or Michael | ||
| solopilot (solopilot) Junior Member Username: solopilot Post Number: 26 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 216.190.204.218 |
I do know the truth, and I have a greater understanding of Jesus Christ. And you are the one who smugly assumes that you are right, that your beliefs are the baseline by which all others are judged. They aren't. Yet this site, and many others, is promulgated on the idea that one, narrow interpretation of Protestantism is the "truest" and all other beliefs and doctrines are wrong. And that is why you are here, because it agrees with your form of Christianity, and supports your prejudices. And yes, I do pretty much equate Protestant churches with their buildings. After all, congregations circulate, and pastors are replaced by others based on purely arbitrary factors, then they have to look for another job in another building somewhere. They don't take their "church" with them, it stays with the building they are leaving, with the people who will hire another preacher. | ||
| cindig (cindig) New member Username: cindig Post Number: 7 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 64.219.62.118 |
Amazing! I have spent sometime reading these posts. I will begin by saying without a doubt Mormons are a cult. I don't give a hoot if I have never been to one or read one single sentence in the Mormon bible. I don't care if you love others or if you are very family oriented. I don't even care if you say that you follow Christ. You have a very disorted view on Christ. You don't believe that he was born of a virgin and was always perfect. You think you all can be gods. And there is more bunk you believe. The Holy Bible is the only book! All of you all can say be tolerant, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. That is true, everyone is also entitled to go to hell. Jesus own words: I am the way the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father but by Me. | ||
| nwmomike (nwmomike) Member Username: nwmomike Post Number: 93 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 208.24.179.28 |
Cindi, It's amazing though but they deceive people. They give commercials on TV giving away Bibles to get them to listen to them, use Christian terms, but then when they bite the bait tell them what they want them to hear. They tell them the Book of Mormons is the most correct book. But yet they know it can't be because it had over 3900+ changes. They have no problem believing two mutually exclusive views. Angels and prophets tell them the book needs no changes and is correct, but then if you call their bluff they slip into admitting some changes without addressing the first issue that their prophets and the supposed angel that told them it was correct LIED. But they can't admit to it either way because then that would make the Mormonism to be a liar and a deceiver. Sorry, but Christ said "upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. " The church has been safe since it's beginning. People try to counterfit it, distort it, malign it, but it still stands. Nobody tries to counterfit a gumwrapper because it's worthless. Nobody counterfits Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnesses because they are not the real thing. Mormon's and others have tried to counterfit Chritianity but they can't do it consistantly. The church stands and will stand. M or Michael | ||
| overseas (overseas) Junior Member Username: overseas Post Number: 27 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 164.143.240.33 |
Mormons are cultists by far and their faulty doctrines are straight, one cannot confuse that with Bible Christianity. You can identify a cultist when he says: "It is not enough that we talk around the Bible, you have to read our books x,y,z" or "you have to hear our leader". I met Mormon teams in my country (Europe) and the moment I asked them why the Smithsonian Institute of Washington denies their claims that archeological proofs confirm Book of Mormon, they ran like rabbits. As we differentiate between sociological and theological approach on cults, must say that they may show some apparent positive social features (family focus etc.), but they fail the most important test - theology. They may give people a family to live on earth, but take their souls to hell ! | ||
| solopilot (solopilot) Junior Member Username: solopilot Post Number: 30 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 216.190.204.218 |
When I was a kid, I was told that it wasn't enough to listen to the preacher, I had to read the Bible. What's the difference? I meet Protestant teams all the time in my travels across the United States, and when I ask them to write a book as complex as the Book of Mormon, to do it in the same time frame, and to include ancient Hebrew literary styles which are currently unknown but will be rediscovered decades after they die . . .well, they all run like rabbits. The Smithsonian Institution does NOT deny that archaeological proofs confirm the Book of Mormon. The Smithsonion does not use the Book of Mormon as a guideline for archaeological research. This is quite different. Prove that Mormons' souls go to hell. Prove that your particular interpretation of Christianity is the true one. You can't, but I always love watching kids like you try to do it. | ||
| overseas (overseas) Junior Member Username: overseas Post Number: 34 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 164.143.240.33 |
Solopilot, I see you just keep playing with the fire, that is God's truth. Calling me 'kid' is your best shot ? Just tell me how it is possible that NO archeological proof came up to confirm any 'ancient history' from the Book of Mormon. And I see you came to lies: just tell what lay scholars agree that there are 'Hebrew literary styles' in the Book of Mormon ? So now you prophesise that these Mormon literary styles will be rediscovered sometime ? That's an illogical paragraph. You do have a problem with me because in my country people are usually Eastern Orthodox (EO); the few protestants are former EO members that had the courage to read Bible for themselves so such protestants are very different to what you have in America. Most of your protestants are like EO here. You would be surprised to know how EO is quite similar to Mormons: they have Bible + tradition. Tradition is 2 fold: interpreting Scripture and addition to Scripture. Some of the addition to Scripture came from EO monks that had visions with angels. Ring a bell ? Moroni, Joseph Smith, angels, (false) addition to Bible.... Do people here understand why you defend Mormon Institutions so hard ? I tell you why ! Because much of your doctrines comes from people/ not God and if you have to admit that Mormons "Fathers" were erroneus, you'll have to drop those doctrines without Biblical ground. Now I know you are not a victim of Mormons, you are an executioner. People already can see I do not advertise my denomination here, but ask you to read Bible without Mormon guidance and then talk to me like a real human being... Yes, I will come up with details on Joseph Smith. God will be done ! | ||
| solopilot (solopilot) Junior Member Username: solopilot Post Number: 34 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 216.190.204.218 |
No, I had assumed from your arguments and grammar that you were one of the teenagers and young adults who show up in places like this. That was before I read that you grew up in a different country. But to me (pushing 50), most people are kids. ;) I can't tell you something which is not the truth. There are a number of archaeological findings which back up the Book of Mormon and it's origins. Stone fonts have been found which are the appropriate size to be baptismal fonts, yet which (due to their location relative to other buildings in the settlements) have no other logical use. For that matter, the stone vault described by Joseph Smith was laughed at as being pure fabrication, until other vaults of the same design were found in the 1960s. The Hebraic literary style of "Chiasmus," unidentified at the time of publication of the Book of Mormon, is identified all through the book. It wasn't until a decade after Joseph Smith was killed that the first major work on the existance of chiasmus in scriptures was published (in Scotland), and years after that before scholars studying the Book of Mormon discovered that this ancient writing style is found in a number of places therein. Oh, so Eastern Orthodox are heretics too, according to your version of Christianity? I defent Mormonism "hard" because I know the truth and want others to know also. You are fed a steady stream of lies and out-of-context stuff by people who make their money off your faith in their interpretation. I'm here to try to get you to THINK rather that PARROT. You go to church, sit down, and listen to someone who a small group of your church's leaders hired to read the Bible to you. You pass around a plateful of money (sometimes more than once), and don't think that nobody knows how much you are putting in. Much of what goes in that plate goes into the pocket of the preacher. When I go to Sacrament meetings on Sunday, the "preaching" is done by several different members of the congregation, who do their own research on whatever subject they are addressing. Nobody is paid to be there. I have no vested interest in convincing you of anything, but we were together in Heaven before we came here, and I think that we promised to help each other get back home, so here I am. You really don't know half of what you think you know about Christianity, and not a tenth about Mormonism. You are either still learning, or you have become lazy and satisfied with what little you know, and will defend your right to remain ignorant about the rest. Which is it? | ||
| cindig (cindig) New member Username: cindig Post Number: 14 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 64.219.62.118 |
overseas, By reading solopilot's comments it is very clear why it is called a cult. He is brainwashed, and there is nothing anyone can do to convince him. Everyone will face Jesus on the judgement day, he will know then, only it will be too late. | ||
| solopilot (solopilot) Junior Member Username: solopilot Post Number: 40 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 216.190.204.218 |
Cindig: Ah, yes, if you can't refute with facts, you can always fall back on ad hominem. Seems to me that you are far more brainwashed than I am. I came to my religion as a skeptic, and have had it proven true time and again over three decades. Faith unquestioned is a questionable faith. But then, I forget, the whole reason that you are here is to preen and smugly say that yours is the true faith and all others are "cults." | ||
| nwmomike (nwmomike) Intermediate Member Username: nwmomike Post Number: 121 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 207.43.195.205 |
Quote:You go to church, sit down, and listen to someone who a small group of your church's leaders hired to read the Bible to you. You pass around a plateful of money (sometimes more than once), and don't think that nobody knows how much you are putting in. Much of what goes in that plate goes into the pocket of the preacher. Response: That is the biggest lie I've heard. You call up the Southern Baptist convention or any church, or for that matter any other denomination. As part of the law set by government for non-profit organizations they have to have strict documentation on where money goes. It's also public record. In fact I'm on on the finance committee at our local church. The pastor has to get any money he spends from the church approved. We know exactly what money goes where and if you saw the salary our pastor gets it's a sacrifice doing pastoral work when he could get a much better paying job doing practicaly anything else. Not like someone already drawing a salary and getting up to preach. In fact his wife has a second job to help pay the bills and they still live with less than most in the congregation. So don't pull that one you simply have NO idea what you're talking about there. Look up wages in the new testament about receiving wages for the ministry. It's not at all wrong and it certainly isn't like you so bodly lie about. M or Michael | ||
| overseas (overseas) Member Username: overseas Post Number: 68 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 82.76.248.249 |
Solopilot: ok about the kid thing. About Mormon archeological proof, as Paul says in Acts 'we will talk some other time'. My point is that Bible is by far muc more supported by such proof. For Chiasmus, I will keep this in mind for study. Eastern Orthodox - the way I did it for many years and according to their full theological position, they do no not recognise salvation by faith alone, by grace, they ask you to pray to dead 'saints', you have to do good deeds all your life and maybe you get saved in the end, but you never know in this life (and there is more other stuff); the only great thing is they hold to Bible (among other). I understand you defend Mormonism, it should be clear for everybody. I only defend the right of every people to read Bible for themselves and accept or not, I defend people's right to have personal opinions on the Bible and live by them. I will not respond to your offenses (that I do not know ....bla bla). About the money thing, it is so curious you make such noise. It is Mormons that are obssessed with money and have such influence in business. I trust you that your preachers are not paid, but anybody knows that if one leaves Mormonism they cannot find a job in your state. I think I'll call it done here. Take care. | ||
| solopilot (solopilot) Member Username: solopilot Post Number: 56 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 216.190.204.218 |
Mike: The question is not one of documentation. I have no doubt that your accountants are as honest and concientious as any. The problem is that you are paying someone to preach to you. If preaching is such a sacrifice, then please explain how about one million Mormons -- such as myself -- can do it without pay, including 60,000 at any given time who save to pay their expenses on missions around the world. I don't need to lie about it -- the truth is far too much fun! Or are you going to tell me that your church is one of the few Protestant cults which doesn't pass the plate? Or, if the plate is passed, this doesn't happen during the sermon, under the eyes of the preacher? Or that you have never looked to see what others were putting in the plate? I don't see anything in the New Testament about paying anyone, only about feeding the Apostles as they travelled to spread the word. Nothing about setting up shop in one town or another and having the people pay . . .this was one of the Pharisees' practices. Overseas: Archaeology is a separate subject, worthy of discussion. If you are truly Christian, you will do good works. Those works don't save you, but NOT doing the works proves that you are NOT Christian, and all the Sunday self-righteousness in the world won't change that. This was the parable of the good Samaritan, who helped his neighbor despite danger, trouble and expense. The "Mormons are obsessed with money" thing doesn't explain the millions upon millions of dollars which we spend each year providing health care, disaster relief, education and teaching materials, food and other things needed by people around the world. We don't ask if they are Mormons, we don't force them to come to our churches (in much of the world were we do this, the nearest LDS chapel is hundred of miles away), we don't proselyte while handing it out. We just hand it out. LOTS of it. We have a whole huge center here in Salt Lake City which is there ONLY to prepare and store the shiploads and planeloads of humanitarian supplies which go out every week. Does your church preach giving to the poor, then actually EXPECT you to do it? The first Sunday of every month, faithful Mormons around the world fast for two meals, giving the money which would have been spent on them to the Welfare Fund, which buys food by the ton to give to those in need. We volunteer our time to prepare this food, assemble these bundles, sort the schoolbooks, fix the wheelchairs, build the furniture and load all of this onto the trucks that will take it where it will be needed. We have influence in business because we are sought after by those businesses. In fact, it is easier for a Mormon to find work outside of Utah than here in the state, because of our reputation as employees. Here, a Latter-day Saint is just one more Mormon among many, and employers have their choice. In Nebraska, Virginia and Washington, businesses ask the local Bishops to send them candidates. Draw your own conclusions. I find it interesting that someone so far away is one of the "anybodys" who knows something about my state which is just plain not true, and never has been true. My employer is from one of the pioneer Mormon families, his ancestors were in the Church in the Ohio days. He owns a company with about $15,000,000 MONTHLY cash flow, and about 200 employees. Of the people in the offices closest to mine, only two of five are Mormons. I know that one of them left the Church about 5 years ago. He not only was able to "find a job in this state" but he makes well above the average American wage. He left the Church but didn't leave the ethics of honesty and doing a good job, and this is reflected in his promotions and income. Maybe you should come to Utah before you believe every silly lie that you are told about life here. | ||
| nwmomike (nwmomike) Intermediate Member Username: nwmomike Post Number: 122 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 208.24.179.207 |
solopilot, But your charge was quite different. You said "Much of what goes in that plate goes into the pocket of the preacher." That is a flat lie. We're paying him but it's also biblical too to pay him as well. It certainly is a far cry from MUCH that you claim. It's also different when a Mormon can go out and get a job that pays well then he can afford to preach for nothing. That's fine and even if he didn't have a job that's fine too. But you make the charge that it's wrong and that the pastor gets MUCH of what goes in the plate. Go find a retired preacher and see how they live. My current pastor has two vehicles, but each one is barely held together and barely run. He must be putting it away somewhere if he is getting MUCH of what goes in the plate. That doesn't fly either because I know the bankers personally where he banks. The plate is passed and I have no idea how much money is in there. Most of it is in envelopes for special offerings and covers up money. So any looks are pointless. The pastor isn't even standing up when the plate is passed around so I don't know what your point about in the pastors eyes. He still doesn't get MUCH of it. Luke 10:7, 2 Corinthians 11, 1 Timothy 5, 1 Corinthians 9, plus Paul discussed this issue thoroughly. Enjoy the conversation. I'm going on vacation and need to get to the work God called me to do. Merry Christmas! M or Michael | ||
| solopilot (solopilot) Member Username: solopilot Post Number: 60 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 64.122.31.130 |
Mike: Unless your preacher has an outside job or you have an additional source of revenue in your congregation, much DOES go into his pocket from the plate. Food, fuel, rent/house payment, clothing, retirement savings, health costs (or insurance), and all of the other things that he has come from that plate. That can run to quite a bit, month after month. While some preachers live below the poverty level, they are the exception rather than the rule, and few do this for very long or due to personal choice (those who DO choose the low-income positions have much more of my respect than the rest). In all of the Protestant churches I attended while growing up, the plate was passed during the sermon. I can recall more than once that the plate was passed a second time, and a few even a third (with the final being for a special, specific offering, such as for a member who was in need, so I don't count this against the pastor). However much he gets, though, he is still taking money for preaching, something which we not only do for free, but often pay out of our own pockets to do. Right now, we have 60,000 missionaries worldwide who are doing just that, and many of them also pay for the books and other supplies which are given to those they teach. We don't puff up about this. The only time it even comes up is when comparing what we do to how other churches do it, or when reading the verses which address what we call "priestcraft." More than once over the years I've heard young Mormons express surprise that other churches pay their ministry, because nearly all of our men over the age of 12 hold the priesthood. For us to pay our ministry would be like a dairy farmer buying milk. Hope your work goes well! Maligayang Pasko! | ||
| godchild (godchild) Junior Member Username: godchild Post Number: 45 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.52.188 |
I find it interesting that mormons quote often the Bible, but not the Book of Mormon. Why not quote us some Book of Mormon scripture? How about 1 Nephi, who speaks of ONE GOD. JS translator got a little lazy there and forgot to change what they believe. Oh no, that's not the case. Even though JS had God and angels talking to him, he had the much used excuse of being just a poor ignorant farmboy. The fact of the matter, the Book of Mormon had another author SP something, I can't remember the name. JS (for want of a nicer word) stole it then made up his story of finding the plates. For more info. you can contact The Lighthouse Ministry of (UH_OH, out it comes). Mrs. Tanner is a greatgranddaughter of Brigham Young. Mr. and Mrs. Tanner have devoted their lives to publishing (with the help of greedy mormons willing to sell)documents which you can easily get copies of. They are located in Salt Lake City. It doesn't matter that sp mentioned them as antimormon, which they now are and have been for years. If sp has so much negative to say about them, let him tell us how he met them and spoke with them. | ||
| godchild (godchild) Junior Member Username: godchild Post Number: 46 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.52.188 |
Where are the gold plates? Where is the urrim and thummin? Stolen by some person who has managed to keep them his for over 100 years. A thief who doesn't sell. If he had sold them, you bet the buyer would have shown them by now and earned millions. Where are they? Poof, they are and never were. 11 men as witness. It is easy enuf to find the history of those men and how their lives ended. Not happily, I'll bet. Some of them quit the church even though they supposedly wouldn't deny witnessing on their deathbeds. Yeah, right. | ||
| godchild (godchild) Junior Member Username: godchild Post Number: 47 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.52.188 |
The mormon church spends millions on archaeology. They also buy (what are those boxes mummies are buried in?). The church was exposed as fakes when they claimed one heiroglyphic was proof of mormon history confirming the book of mormon. They were embarassed when they found out the writings were describing an Egyptian lady at the time of her death. There are many other accounts. The church claims they have a prophet that has a direct line to God. Why didn't God warn the prophet? Anytime evidence is found against the church, they are quick to buy it up and hide it. (Somebody may think I'm a dreamer, but I have seen copies of such documents. I and many others who got out of the church. The temple is open to the public. But in no way are you allowed to watch the sealings, baptism for the dead, etc. They supposedly have men councelled by God to know if someone is not sincere. They call the goings on sacred, not secret. So how did men (nonmormons) convince these guards to let them pass and see all that goes on in the Temple. Where is God's hand in this? There won't be any direct answers to these questions any more than we have gotten direct answers to the other ones, only accusations of lies. Now, what could I possibly get out of putting down the Mormon church? | ||
| godchild (godchild) Junior Member Username: godchild Post Number: 48 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.52.188 |
Spaulding. That was the name of the man who wrote the historical fiction that JS stole and said was the continuing word of God. | ||
| godchild (godchild) Junior Member Username: godchild Post Number: 49 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.52.188 |
Anonymous 6316324188 go to your library and get a copy of the book of mormon. Read it yourself, decide for yourself. If you don't want to take the time, then we will respond in kind (as I as a mormon was taught to say), It is not for me to prove. It is for you to disprove. (I will be accused of making that up too) There is a book for mormons on how to answer people's questions that mormons can't or don't want to answer. Ask sp about that. He should be able to quote his scriptures. He certainly has memorized all the answers in that book. If he won't, ask a mormon missionarey. They carry one. | ||
| godchild (godchild) Junior Member Username: godchild Post Number: 50 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.52.188 |
Where in the Bible, or Book of Mormon does it say God had intercourse with Mary to conceive Jesus? Also, where does it say Jesus was married to the Mary's? Mormons definitely teach that. Since to them Jesus was just a man, he had to be married to get to the Celestial Kingdom. | ||
| solopilot (solopilot) Intermediate Member Username: solopilot Post Number: 282 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 216.190.204.218 |
GC: I don't usually quote from the Book of Mormon when talking with Protestants because you generally don't believe it to be scriptural. When I say something, I want you to think about what I said, not be wondering where it came from and if you should believe it. You're referring to the "Spaulding Manuscript," which isn't even close to the Book of Mormon. not that it matters, it was not published until 1885, 41 years after Joseph Smith was martyred. If he cribbed from it, then he HAD to have been a prophet! BTW, it was published by the LDS and Reorganized LDS Churches, to show that it was not related to the Book of Mormon! The original manuscript is in the possession of Oberlin College. Even anti-Mormon Fawn Brodie, reading the original, concluded that there was no reasonable way to make a connection between the two, even if it had been published prior to the Book of Mormon. Actually, I have met the Tanners. I visited their Nuthouse Ministry office several years ago, on an early visit to SLC. I bought several of their pamphlets, which proved to be little more than an unattributed rehash of a lot of Wally Martin's stuff. They're about 2 miles from the house I bought here in SLC, but they keep a fairly low profile these days, compared to the protesters who wander around town. Sandra was polite but guarded when I explained that I only wanted to know what they had to say from a research standpoint. I'll deal with the rest of this tomorrow, it's been a long day. | ||
| godchild (godchild) Member Username: godchild Post Number: 53 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.53.86 |
for anyone interested in christianity: www.insptoday.com or www.awmi.net | ||
| ex_yathed (ex_yathed) Intermediate Member Username: ex_yathed Post Number: 190 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 24.183.33.235 |
ex_yathed (ex_yathed) Intermediate Member Username: ex_yathed Post Number: 176 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 24.183.33.235 Rating: N/A Votes: 0 (Vote!) Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 7:12 pm: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I just saw on another page of the Religious Cults and Sects page that David Alexander(aka Daveed Derush) is evangelizing (recruiting) all over this web site with links to their newest "Free Papers"(Litmus Test). Its from a computer in Georgia so he is either at their Savannah or Brunswick community. So, if you dont know, the Twelve Tribes are considered a high control destructive fundamentalist group (cult) by countless professionals and Cult experts. | ||
| solopilot (solopilot) Intermediate Member Username: solopilot Post Number: 283 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 64.122.31.130 |
GC: Gee, maybe the golden plates are with the original manuscripts of the New Testament, which also can't be found. The Temple is NOT open to the public. ANY Mormon -- and any visitor to any of the 120 Temples around the world -- knows this. If you were a Mormon for 26 years, why don't YOU? It's so hard to take you seriously when you make such comments. | ||
| godchild (godchild) Member Username: godchild Post Number: 55 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.54.251 |
Eatmorefish, who are Matt Stone and Trey Parker and what Mormon episode are you talking about? Please respond, thanks. | ||
| ex_yathed (ex_yathed) Intermediate Member Username: ex_yathed Post Number: 224 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 24.183.33.235 |
As you can see, David Derush has taken my warnings to all the boards as a chance to recruit for his cult which claims they are the Only Ones and the Only Way and if your not with them, your going to the Lake of Fire for eternity or to the first death to pay for your own sins if you can. They are just like the rest of the cults on the factnet boards. To see both sides of the story go to http://www.twelvetribes-ex.org/ or if you wish, you can contact me personally at exyathed@yahoo.com | ||
| godchild (godchild) Member Username: godchild Post Number: 59 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.50.214 |
EVERY MORMON TEMPLE HAS A VISITOR'S CENTER, WHICH IS A PART OF THE TEMPLE, AND YOU CANNOT DENY THAT. | ||
| godchild (godchild) Member Username: godchild Post Number: 60 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.50.214 |
SP You have access to Church Archives, I assume. Let's settle this once and for all so you will stop calling me a LIAR. I have my marriage certificate right here and I will read it for all of you: STATE OF ALASKA CERTIFICATE of MARRIAGE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT: __________ and ________________ of SOLDOTNA, ALASKA of SOLDOTNA, ALASKA WERE UNITED BY ME IN HOLY MATRIMONY In Accordance with the Laws of the state of Alaska on the 13 day of October, 1973, at Soldotna, Alaska Witnesses Officiant: Signature____________Signature Waldo Bishop Signature____________Official Title President, Church of Jesus Christ of L.D.S. Now I am typing a certificate I received in 1974 Teacher Development Certificate Awarded to ________________________ TD for having satisfactorily completed the Teacher Development Basic Course of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Branch President Ward Branch Teacher Develop- ment Director _______________________________________________ Signed by my Stepfather Signed by Mary String- Waldo Bishop Stringham Date April 28,74 Ward/Branch Soldotna State Ala Dist Ala,B.C. miss. Now, you jerk, look familiar? Look it up. You don't need anymore names. At that time Ala meant Alaska, B.C. meant British Columbia I was baptized in Anchorage, Alaska in 1960-61 along with my Stepfather, my Mother and one brother, two sisters. I hope you are man enough to apologize, as I am brave enough to give this information. I kept my excommunication letter from Salt Lake for several years as I was very proud of it. When I moved from Alaska in 1988 after the death of my husband, I threw it out. I am not so good that I could remember all this information after all these years. | ||
| solopilot (solopilot) Intermediate Member Username: solopilot Post Number: 292 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 216.190.204.218 |
GC wrote: "EVERY MORMON TEMPLE HAS A VISITOR'S CENTER, WHICH IS A PART OF THE TEMPLE, AND YOU CANNOT DENY THAT." I HAVE to deny it, GC, because it is NOT TRUE. Here is a list of only the temples which I have gone to which don't have visitors' centers: Jordan River, Bountiful, Mt Timpanogos, San Diego, Provo, Ogden, Las Vegas, Snowflake, Chicago. SD and LV may have VCs, now, there was talk about building them at some point in the future, but they didn't have them when I was there. There are many others without VCs, but I haven't ever been to them. Visitors' centers are NOT part of the temple with which they are associated. They are ALWAYS in seperate buildings some distance from the temple. The first problem with your "proof," GC, is that no, the average member has no access to another member's records, and especially someone who has been excommunicated. It's on a need-to-know basis, and I don't have a need to know. The second problem is that there are many sources where such a document could be found to quote from. I KNOW that there are discussions in some anti-Mormon circles on "how do I prove I'm an ex-Mormon?" We have a basic problem here in that, if you are telling the truth about having been a member, you are about ready to scream and pull out hair because I don't believe you, while I'm just seeing so many things which you would HAVE to know better than to say! Let me think about this a bit, there has to be some way for you to prove yourself out (in private, so that you don't risk some lunatic trolling your information off the site). Of course, if you do, I WILL tell everyone here that you proved that you were LDS. If you come up with any ideas on this, let me know. | ||
| godchild (godchild) Member Username: godchild Post Number: 66 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.51.205 |
I do not care who knows I was a mormon. I only care that they now know I AM A CHRISTIAN.  | ||
| godchild (godchild) Member Username: godchild Post Number: 67 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.51.205 |
my posts end this morning. I now go on to follow the teachings of Christ, James 1:27 For believers or seekers after truth, James 4:7 Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. i would like to say thank you and god bless you to the people who have created this site to enlighten us.  | ||
| godchild (godchild) Member Username: godchild Post Number: 68 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.51.205 |
my posts end this morning. I now go on to follow the teachings of Christ, James 1:27 For believers or seekers after truth, James 4:7 Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. i would like to say thank you and god bless you to the people who have created this site to enlighten us. | ||
| solopilot (solopilot) Intermediate Member Username: solopilot Post Number: 294 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 216.190.204.218 |
Same here, except that people like you demand the right to say who is and is not Christian. It is not your right, and I do not grant you that power. | ||
| godchild (godchild) Member Username: godchild Post Number: 75 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.63.153 |
What gave you the idea you were able to 'GRANT' me anything, or that I wanted you to. God is my judge, not man, and never a man who worships a God not found in my Bible. When my oldest daughter turned eight years old, my Mother, a very strong Mormon, gave her the King James Version of the Holy Bible, which at that time was approved by the the mormon church (as far as it was translated, in their words). Shortly my daughter was baptized into the Mormon church. They took the bible her Grandmother had given her as a gift, and gave her one that had the KingJames Version and the Book of Mormon, and told her she didn't need the other one. It was senseless and stupid. What they were telling my Mother and my daughter is: without the Book of Mormon, the Bible is useless. Another reason I will not join any denomination is this: I ask them if to become a MEMBER of their church, I have to Baptized in it (I have already been baptized) and they say yes. That is not scriptural. Did John the Baptist say, repent and be baptized and join this church, NO! Though this is not in the Mormon Joke section, it is appropriate here: When I was a mormon, they laughed at the Baptist Church because they thought, Baptists thought that was John's last name, and that Baptists must worship John the Baptist. The mormon bible is called Book of }Mormon. | ||
| solopilot (solopilot) Intermediate Member Username: solopilot Post Number: 309 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 216.190.204.218 |
GC: You want me to grant you the power to decide who is and is not Christian. I do not grant you that power, because Jesus did not grant you that power. The Mormon bible is called the Bible. English-language Mormons use the KJV. We have always used the KJV. If they gave your daughter a book with the Bible and Book of Mormon in it, then what they actually gave her was a "Quadruple Combination," also containing the Doctrine & Covenants and Pearl of Great Price. The content of the Bible did not change -- an ex-Mormon would know that -- so by "not needing the other one anymore" they meant that now she had one volume to carry instead of three separate ones. This is much more convenient, I carry a "quad" for this reason, even though they are expensive. | ||
| godchild (godchild) Member Username: godchild Post Number: 84 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.61.22 |
Where are all the Mormons? Why aren't they becoming members of factnet and answering questions? | ||
| franklin (franklin) Intermediate Member Username: franklin Post Number: 266 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 205.188.117.12 |
Mormons have no answers. Mormons only have dogma. Mormon men will one day be gods. Reminds me of the Nazi ubermenschen. Why should they waste time with the little people like us? | ||
| godchild (godchild) Member Username: godchild Post Number: 85 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.51.202 |
sp thinks he is giving answers to my questions. I already know mormon's answers. I only pose them as questions to draw out these truths of their beliefs from them. Do not ever think of yourself as the little people. We are God's children. Mormons are to be pitied, as members of any cult. I believe in miracles, and if God wills, perhaps even one will search for the truth, and become his child also. | ||
| solopilot (solopilot) Intermediate Member Username: solopilot Post Number: 320 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 216.190.204.218 |
GC: Most people don't like dealing with bigots. I've done it all my life, and often find it very amusing. I also have the time to do this, when I'm on the mainland. When I visit home, you won't find me here. Besides, it's "One Mormon, one mob." ;) Franklin: To answer your question, the reason that we "waste time" with small-minded people like you is that during the Pre-Existence and the war against Lucifer, we stood together. We chose a life of risk, while promising to back each other up in this life and help each other get home. Yes, even you are worth trying to educate. Perhaps more than some other folks, because it's obvious that you have a great potential and enthusiasm. GC: I'm not giving you questions, your mind is already closed. I'm giving answers to people who might actually believe that you know anything about Mormonism. | ||
| godchild (godchild) Member Username: godchild Post Number: 87 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.62.206 |
Let people seek the truth. Bigotry is apparent by your comments about women. I'm surprised you even waste your time commenting. My mind is never closed. You are the one who has classed all churches who believe in Christ 'Protestantism', and all protestants people who hurt little ol you. Christians stand with Christ, you stand with a false prophet who can change his mind on a whim. A true Christian's doctrine never changes, as our God never changes. | ||
| solopilot (solopilot) Intermediate Member Username: solopilot Post Number: 340 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 216.190.204.218 |
GC: Yes, on this you and I agree, I want people to seek the truth and make up their own minds. Oh, yes, I'm a bigot. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH No, I class all LDS churches as LDS, Protestant churches as Protestantism, Catholic churches as Catholicism, and Orthodox churches as Orthodoxy. These aren't my definitions, they are the definitions of Christian scholars of various faiths. If you have a problem with that, take it up with them. I simply refuse to let you get away with saying that ONLY Protestants are Christian. If "a true Christian's doctrine never changes," then I assume that you don't celebrate Christmas. | ||
| franklin (franklin) Intermediate Member Username: franklin Post Number: 277 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 64.12.117.12 |
Catholics are Christians. Orthodox's are Christian. Protestants are Christians. None of these sects believe that God was once a man. Nor do they believe that man can become a god. Mormons are not Christians. | ||
| solopilot (solopilot) Intermediate Member Username: solopilot Post Number: 347 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 216.190.204.218 |
Franklin: That's why Mormons are more Christian than Catholics, Orthodoxy or Protestants. Our doctrines are more in keeping with early Christianity. | ||
| franklin (franklin) Intermediate Member Username: franklin Post Number: 281 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 64.12.117.12 |
Early Christianity did not teach that God was once a man. Or that man could become a god. | ||
| solopilot (solopilot) Intermediate Member Username: solopilot Post Number: 349 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 216.190.204.218 |
Franklin: Actually, yes, this doctrine (Theosis) was taught then and still is taught. From various sites: "Theosis, also called apotheosis, divinization, and deification, was commonly taught by Church Fathers of the earliest centuries A.D. It is still an official doctrine of the Eastern Orthodox churches and is even mentioned briefly in the current Catechism used in the Roman Catholic Church (Article 460). Though most Protestants don't accept the concept, a few Evangelical scholars have recently written articles demonstrating that Wesley and Calvin taught it. The Church fathers often noted the term "God of gods" (Deuteronomy 10:17; Joshua 22:2; Psalm 136:2; Daniel 11:36), indicating that since God could not be the God of false gods, these must be real gods. Psalm 82:6-7 was cited by Jesus (John 10:33-36) and both passages were frequently used by the Church Fathers to demonstrate that men were gods." "As even a cursory glance at early Christian thought reveals, the idea that man might become as God—known in Greek as theosis or theopoiesis —may be found virtually everywhere, from the New Testament through the writings of the first four centuries. Church members take seriously such passages as Psalm 82:6, John 10:33–36, and Philippians 2:5–6, in which a plurality of gods and the idea of becoming like God are mentioned." "The notion of theosis is characteristic of church fathers Irenaeus (second century A.D.), Clement of Alexandria (third century A.D.), and Athanasius (fourth century A.D.). Indeed, so pervasive was the doctrine in the fourth century that Athanasius's archenemies, the Arians, also held the belief and the Origenist monks at Jerusalem heatedly debated "whether all men would finally become like Christ or whether Christ was really a different creature." (Clyde L. Manschreck, A History of Christianity in the World, 2d. ed., pg 52) According to an ancient formula, "God became man that man might become God." Early Christians "were invited to 'study' to become gods" (note the plural). Though the idea of human deification waned in the Western church in the Middle Ages, it remained very much alive in the Eastern Orthodox faith, which includes such Christian sects today as the Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox churches. (G. I. Mantzarides, The Deification of Man: Saint Gregory Palamas and Orthodox Tradition, trans. Liadain Sherrard (Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1984)) "The chief idea of St. Maximus, as of all Eastern theology, [was] the idea of deification." (Jaroslav Pelikan, The Spirit of Eastern Christendom, p. 10) See? | ||
| franklin (franklin) Intermediate Member Username: franklin Post Number: 284 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 172.153.178.65 |
That is your spin on it. You twist the scripture to reveal your blasphemous mind. What you want to say that some scholar after the New Testament times thought is not relevant. There was much heresy going on then as it is now. You spew the mormon spin. You are brainwashed. You need deprogramming. You can't see the Bible for all the Books of Mormon in your way. | ||
| godchild (godchild) Member Username: godchild Post Number: 90 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.60.102 |
Franklin, If you haven't already, go Google, read Catholic Encyclopedia, also Cath. Encyclo. Montanists. This is about another wacko who thought (not unlike js) that he was not just a prophet of God but that God was speaking through his mouth. It seems logical that our busy friend would accept Catholic text and not the Holy Bible. Funny also that our busy friend went to another discussion 'A racist cult fighting racism'. There he admits (what he called me a liar for saying was that when he joined the mormon church, 'Afros', (his choice of word, not mine) were not able to hold the priesthood. Methinks this is a backwoods boy trying to get in with a church that just loves men like him who are so angry with the world, they say (though they are cowards, re:js), they would die for what they believe. Right! Perhaps someone else would like to ask him where his greatgrandparents went after death. Yes, the mother too, as mormons teach women have to be married (if not now, during the millenium) to a priesthood holder (the men and boys aged 14) in order to reach their highest kingdom. I guess they are all in the lower kingdoms where they cannot see Christ or God, in the lowest, and cannot see God in the lower. Bizarre, isn't it. And yet he still denies members are being baptized in their temples for the dead. Disgusting, perverted beyond fanaticism! | ||
| franklin (franklin) Intermediate Member Username: franklin Post Number: 286 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 172.153.178.65 |
Like the rc's hold their members hostage with their dead relatives still in purgatory until the lives ones pay the church to get them into heaven. The dead are the dead. We, the living, can not do anything for them. Any church that says that they can is nothing but a scam. | ||
| solopilot (solopilot) Intermediate Member Username: solopilot Post Number: 356 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 216.190.204.218 |
Franklin: That's not my spin, that's from non-Mormon scholars. Ah, yes, I need brainwashing, so that I can believe just like you do. GC: The Holy Bible IS "Catholic text." Or haven't you paid attention to the Biblical-history threads? When I joined the Church, "Afro" was the commonly-used term. A blast from the past. Myself, I always prefered just plain "black," even though I'm actually just brown, not black like some folks I've seen. I'm not that worried about it, it's just a label, and can be used for good or bad. Black, white, brown, PLAID, it's just a way of identifying traits which have nothing to do with who a person is unless that's all they have to hold to. Yes, that's right, I'm just a backwoods boy, but at least I don't have to lie about other people's churches to feel good about myself, like you do. Let's not forget that a lot of Mormons DID die -- at the hands of kind, loving, reasonable Christians like you -- simply for the right to worship in peace. My great-grandparents are waiting for their Temple work to be done. They died as Protestants, so they're stuck until the ordinances can be preformed. I've just recently been able to get their records ready, and will get that done on my next trip to the Temple. And, if you had ever really been a Mormon, you would know that it's not just the women who must be married, but also the men. NOBODY gets to the highest levels of heaven alone! BTW, when have I EVER denied that we perform baptism for the dead in the Temples? Not only would I never deny it, this is one of the proofs that God actually does love his children, ALL of his children, not just those lucky enough to be born in the "right" place and time (funny how that "right" place for most of 2000 years was Europe). To your limited idea of Christianity, most of my ancestors aren't good enough to be Christian simply because they weren't born in the "Christian world." Yes, your beliefs certainly are perverted beyond fanaticism, but we love you anyway. Franklin (again): Where in the Bible (which you say holds ALL of God's word) does it say that we, the living, can't do anything for the dead? Make up your mind. Either ALL of God's word is in whichever version of the Bible you believe to be complete -- in which case you have to limit your doctrines to those found there -- or God has communicated outside of that Catholic compilation, in which case you don't know everything that he has said. You can't have it both ways, so pick one set of rules and stay with it. | ||
| overseas (overseas) Intermediate Member Username: overseas Post Number: 274 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 164.143.240.33 |
Q: "Theosis, also called apotheosis, divinization, and deification, was commonly taught by Church Fathers of the earliest centuries A.D. It is still an official doctrine of the Eastern Orthodox churches and is even mentioned briefly in the current Catechism used in the Roman Catholic Church (Article 460). ....to demonstrate that men were gods." I live in a country dominated by Eastern Orthodoxy, I attended this church before being saved and, even if EO is extremely legalistic and wrong in many important issues, EO does not teach nor tolerate such blasphemy: men=gods. The EO teaches that theosis is the process in which we become sons of God in a biblical way not 'gods'. Q: Where in the Bible (which you say holds ALL of God's word) does it say that we, the living, can't do anything for the dead? Right... where does Bible say that Yoga is not the true way, or chanting mantras is not the true way, or any other mess, or that Elvis is not the biggest prophet ... Recently I had a Mormon telling me he believes that Bible is OK because Mormon Church says so. For him, Mormonism comes first as having authority. I understood his position, I think it is dead wrong, but this shows we talk from very different positions. I believe Bible is the truth and only compliance with the Bible validates a church. | ||
| godchild (godchild) Member Username: godchild Post Number: 91 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.53.221 |
See. Just give him a little time and pose the question just right to stroke his foolish ego and he eventually admits all we have accused the mormon church of teaching: His ancestors are waiting for him to finish whatever he has to do (of course that doesn't cost him anything) to be baptised for the 'dead', or 'sealed'. You see, they don't realize they may become their own grandpa. (couldn't resist). Reminds me what I told Mom years ago about all the dead spirits floating around our heads. I had an image and asked her "what happens if they bang into each other". It is all so 'fairy-tale'. | ||
| solopilot (solopilot) Intermediate Member Username: solopilot Post Number: 364 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 216.190.204.218 |
Overseas wrote: "EO does not teach nor tolerate such blasphemy: men=gods. The EO teaches that theosis is the process in which we become sons of God in a biblical way not 'gods'." However: "The Eastern Orthodox church has formulated the idea of theosis, or "becoming god." The belief is that humans through spiritual maturation can actually become gods, and they use Psalm 82:6, quoted in part by Jesus in John 10:34-36, as justification." -- Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church, pg 219 "The Son of God has become Son of Man in order to make us...sons of God, raising our race by grace to what He is Himself by nature" -- St. Simeon the New Theologian (Practical and Theological Precepts no. 120, Writings from the Philokalia on Prayer of the Heart; Faber and Faber pg.26) "Let us become the image of the one whole God, bearing nothing earthly in ourselves, so that we may consort with God and become gods, receiving from God our existence as gods." -- St. Maximus the Confessor You are misunderstanding or misinterpreting what the Mormon told you. I started a thread a couple of months back asking anyone to prove Christianity to be true. This is necessary for setting a benchmark as to what is and is not true Christianity. You never did show any proof. You've already shown by quotations that the version of the Bible which you use is not the KJV. Thus, using the Bible as the sole validation leaves much open to interpretation, which is why there are over 1000 individually-designated Protestant churches just in the US. GC: Come on, show me ANY time that I said that we don't baptize for the dead. . . .or, once again, be seen for the liar that you are . . . | ||
| egk (egk) Member Username: egk Post Number: 51 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.23.214.147 |
SoloPilot: If I claim that the Israelites were atheists, then quoted fron the Psalms "There is no God" would I be correct? No! The EO teaching, following that of the early Christian writers is that the saved, once fully sanctified and at the end of time, will in some finite way, reflect divinity, so much so that they can be called "gods." This needs to be put into the context of early Christian teaching that God is infinite and unknowable in his essence. We creatures can never know Him, except through his actions and his revelation through Jesus Christ. Please read some of the early Christian teachings on the unknowableness of the Godhead. Better yet, ask why your sources (which I assume are Mormon), don't quote these. EGK | ||
| egk (egk) Member Username: egk Post Number: 52 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 147.72.101.2 |
SoloPilot: PS: I'm assuming that you are not reading the entire documents you are quoting. I'm also assuming that these quotes are found either in books or from the net and that the sources you got the quotes from are Mormon. (If you had read the first part of the current Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, you would not have claimed that the article 420 supports the Mormon doctrine of progression.) Please identify your sources and whether or not they are Mormon. EGK | ||
| godchild (godchild) Member Username: godchild Post Number: 92 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.61.23 |
I need to apologise to sp. He never denied the mormon church baptized for the dead. Overseas, I totally agree that the Bible is truth and only compliance with the Bible validates a church. But I will add 'validates a Christ led church'. Back to what sp has said. I am quoting him word for word, so that I won't be accused of lying. And only from this thread, because you will probably not want to read all of this. POST # 23, Monday, Dec. 13, 2004--- History lesson 1: Polygamy was given for special reasons, for a limited amount of time. A sizeable number of polygamous marriages were "solemnized but not consummated,' in an age where many men died, and where many women were not desirable as the only choice that a man might have for a wife. my response: many women were not desirable as the only choice. This is like saying since no one woman could be all that a man desired, he had to take many. At a time when many men died, women were dying too. The lifetime expextancy of women was on average, thirty five years. sp continues, Surely you can think of a woman or two who will probably never marry for one reason or another; under polygamy, those women might actually be wives and mothers. My response; Oh, my goodness. There must have been lots of consummation to make them mothers, and is so proved by historical records showing all the many children fathered by mormon leaders. Because it was so difficult to find Americans to labor for the mormons, they needed lots of children to expand their membership as quickly as possible. Eventually, Brigham Young would begin the famous mormon trek from immigrants and citizens alike that enlarged their membership roles. sp's history lesson 2; Even the first 5000 copies of the Book of Mormon were not identical. Blah, blah. The type would be reset, but they couldn't afford to throw away already-printed galleys. My response; Oh oh, my goodness. So it is admitted that 5000 copies of the Book of Mormon were released to a group of people who thought it was TRUTH, and I imagine many of those copies are still in use, by well meaning people. sp then goes on to say changes over the yeare the result of changes in English usage (for instance, the Lamanites becoming "white and delightsome" was changed to "pure and delightsome," because the latter word makes the meaning more clear. Remember also that Joseph Smith, Jr was pretty much uneducated, and his scribes weren't much better off, so some grammar was fixed over the years. my response; goosebumps! What the mormon leaders were teaching was that the mark of Cain was making men black, as punishment. Genesis 4:11, "and now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand; when thou tillest the ground, it shall not yeild unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth." Cain told the Lord he could not bear his punishment and God put a mark on Cain so that no man would kill him for fear of God. Yes, the Bible says Cain was marked, but it does not say he would be cursed with a dark skin. I agree that African skin is dark as a protection from the sun, though my friend Marcella burns quite easily. As you read the Bible, the Lamanites got the dark skin, then white, then dark again everytime they sinned. Amazing. And that was here in America, not Africa. So are they speaking of the indians, who also have a dark skin. Who knows in their fairy tale. Oh, prabably the Mexicans too. When did all this 'color changing end'. When the mormon prophet got the message from God. Yes, that explains why there are still dark colored people on the earth. And remember, sp claims this is the only church who did not treat him badly because he is black. sp says: There are a lot of Protestants who act like Christians, Let me amend that, there are a lot of Protestants who ARE Christians, and if you're a Christian it shows how you act. My response: sp can't seem to make up his mind. sp says: Yes, Joseph Smith had a gun at the Martyrdom, and he used it. my response: Martyrs did and do not use weapons, and died willingly for the Lord. sp says: The draft call was done with the intent of weakining the Mormon migration...who but the anti-Mormon Protestants would have wanted to do that? My response: Since Nauvoo was js's chosen place, why were they migrating, doing what men made them do instead of trusting in God to protect them as stated of the diciples in the Bible. The diciples did not fear death, js did obviously. Where was his god? sp says: Show me Mormon hate literature.,blah, blah. My response: If sp's words here aren't hate literature, then what is? I'm going to take a much needed break. | ||
| godchild (godchild) Member Username: godchild Post Number: 93 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.51.219 |
sp says  When speaking about the Book of Mormon), To be this picky is pretty silly, but let's look at the Bible in the same way. And then he goes on to speak of what to his mind are Biblical errors. My response: What can you say about a statement like that? Posted Dec. 6,04 I don't think it's necessary to put all the dates on these any longer. sp says: It's okay as far as I'm concerned to paste in passages which you would otherwise have typed in, but to just florf a whole long chapter into the discussion is reallly kind of hard to deal with when I am typing my responses. My response: How does it feel? One of sp's responses was 4 pages long. sp says: Gee Mike, if the criterion for being Christian is being hated like Jesus was, then we win, hands down! My response: This sounds like a response from a grade school student, not from a supposedly intelligent, experienced man. Get hate out of your vocabulary, please. I don't think people hated Jesus as much as they feared him. Fear does not have to breed hate. sp says: Jesus, our Elder Brother... my response:What planet did you get this idea from? Since you believe Satan and Jesus were brothers, which is abhorrent in my mind, you must claim Satan as your brother also. No surprise. sp says: Quoting mormon Prophet Lorenzo Snow "As man is, God once was; aas God is, man may become". My response, Tears. sp says: We all agree on the essentials, that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten, that he is our Savior and without him none can enter Heaven. My response: None sp says: When I was a kid, I was to that it wasn't enough to listen to the preacher, I had to read the Bible. What's the difference? My response: You should have listened and read the Bible. And I will add a question: why aren't the books written by your prophets after js considered scripture? If they are, how do you carry them all to church, and why does any mormon say, three or four books? sp says: There are a number of archaeological findings which back up the Book of Mormon and it's origins. Stone fonts have been found blah, blah... My response: You said a number of-what are the others? sp says: Faith unquestioned is a questionable faith. My response is the Bible's definition: Now, faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1. To my thinking, you have no faith, at least not the faith spoken of in the Holy Bible. Later, | ||
| godchild (godchild) Member Username: godchild Post Number: 94 Registered: 1-2005 Posted From: 64.28.51.219 |
I want to respond to sp's question to me on Jan. 19--I never went to a mormon Temple as a member. In Alaska they didn't have a temple, and to my knowledge, still don't. That would be about a 4.000 mile drive. My parents and my late husband's parents went. And I never had a desire to once I came of age and saw what Mom had to wear. Although, I forgot to ask, do you wear that thing when you go swimming. You don't have to answer. My mormon friend told me, NO. Now what if Jesus came when you were out swimming? Don't bother to answer that either. You have none that make sense. Since we don't know who you really are, why don't you tell us your secret name. Aw, comeon! I don't like making such comments, but my funnybone gets the best of me and I get these funny imaginings in my head. Are you sure I can't be a prophet? Darn! |
