Quoted: First of all, God can't be tempted by you or anyone else.  If you think He can, you have more issues than I realized.  You and the LDS folks don't control God.  If I were you, I would seriously consider re-checking my salvation since Satan can also visit in a personal vision if your heart doesn't belong to God.  And I did answer your question.  "I believe the KJV is the most accurate version of the Bible available to us.  It was translated from the original text (1611).  The Bible can stand alone. "  The book of "Smith" adds confusion by NOT being the Word of God.  Simple enough to understand that.  I would think that God Himself would have mentioned it to one of the disciples if indeed He thought it was His word, don't you??  Or are you saying God just forgot about that part of His word and when He remembered, Joseph Smith was there to receive it?  Do some research on cults and you might be surprised how many similarities you find with the LDS folks.

Hmmm...so your answer is that because the KJV was translated "from the original text (1610)", it is true.

What about faith?  What about testimony?  Is your faith and testimony based off of when a translation was done or how old the text is?


ETA:
Interestingly enough, you ask about Jesus mentioning things to his disciples.  Jesus himself said, "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd."  These "other sheep" included the Nephite people here on the Americas.  The Book of Mormon is their record.

Hey isn't it great, Jesus did mention it to his disciples!

Quoted: Quoted: You have to be one of the worst moderators in the history of this site.  (Now, THIS is a PERSONAL criticism of you and your actions. It is not an attack, although you might be tempted to call it that.  It is a personal opinion based on how you have handled yourself in these discusions) But pertaining to Mormons?  I have attacked NO ONE. Do you understand that?  You accused me of making PERSONAL ATTACKS AGAINST INDIVIDUALS. You are completely and utterly WRONG. What I HAVE done is stated FACTS about Mormonism, and cited the statements of MORMON LEADERS to do that. I do not dislike Mormons, I dislike Mormon-ISM. You might be incapable of distinguishing the difference. The earlier discussion in another thread of the Mormon doctrine of blood atonement was started by someone else.  I commented and stated, USING BRIGHAM YOUNG'S own words to prove that the doctrine was established by a Mormon leader.   Because I stated that some Mormon apologist called me a troll.  You blindly jumped on the bandwagon. That is  standard operating procedure for Mormon apologists.   It should not be so for forum moderators. NOW another Mormon apologist comes along and tries to dispel Mormon "misconceptions."  In his discussion he discussed the Mormon doctrine that men may become gods themselves and says that some claim it is blasphemy. I show from the Bible that it is indeed blasphemous. He also states that Mormons worship the same Jesus. I then show from their CURRENT LEADER, Gordon Hinckley, that they DO NOT WORSHIP the same Jesus. HINCKLEY said that, and I QUOTED HIM. I was ENTIRELY ON TOPIC discussing the points that the Mormon apologist brought up. I did so WITHOUT ANY PERSONAL ATTACK TO THIS MORMON APOLOGIST WHATSOEVER. It seems to be apparent that the only thing you will allow is for a Mormon to state their position, and allow no contrary discussion. If you did this in any other forum, say discussing the pros and cons of COLTS vs other mfgs.....  And you only allow nice, flowery comments about Colts, BUT NOT ANY FACTUAL CRTICISM, you would not last long as a mod, or this site would not last long. When someone criticizes Bushmaster for not testing every barrel and every bolt the same way Colt does - that cannot be construed as a personal attack against those who own Bushies.  And by the same token, when someone is critical of the high price Colt charges, or for Colt's politics....THAT is not a personal attack against Colt owners, either. You need to wake up, man. You need to allow a contrary point of view in these threads, or you need to resign. If you can show me where I attacked anyone personally,  please be my guest. Of course you will not be able to do that, because I have attacked   N-O     O-N-E. You don't have to agree with my mod skills. You do have to follow the rules I set forth. How come the other members are able to do this, but you can't?

I AGREE with criley.  If this topic wasn't meant to be a "discussion" it should have been locked at the first post.  I also have insulted no one.  I HAVE engaged in a discussion which I will end here since obviously if I continue to discuss Mormonism negatively, my account will be locked.  Welcome to Amerika...

Quoted: ... Wasn't it just last week that I was accused of being a pawn for the Catholic owners of the site? ...

I just wish we'd have some Krishnas show up so we could get flowers from you in the airport terminals.

Quoted: Quoted: ... Wasn't it just last week that I was accused of being a pawn for the Catholic owners of the site? ... I just wish we'd have some Krishnas show up so we could get flowers from you in the airport terminals.

Hey, we have a beautiful Krishna temple in Spanish fork!  I've often wanted to go visit and check it out.



Edited to add:  Sorry for the hijack.  I'll go back to the topic now.

I actually bought a copy of the Bhagavad Gita from them on a visit to Washington DC.

They gave me a free carnation with my purchase.  

Quoted: Quoted: I AGREE with criley.  If this topic wasn't meant to be a "discussion" it should have been locked at the first post.  I also have insulted no one.  I HAVE engaged in a discussion which I will end here since obviously if I continue to discuss Mormonism negatively, my account will be locked.  Welcome to Amerika... You are welcome to discuss Mormonism all you want. If you feel it necessary to discuss Mormonism in a negative way (because you feel that you know what Mormonism is, and the followers of it are to be attacked), then your account will be locked. I would do the same thing to anyone that came in and attacked your particular faith and its members as a cult. Try reading the advice that aronweragain gave on the last page.

Think about what you just said.  If I don't agree with the Mormon religion, it is "negative", correct?  So why even have a discussion?  I am a born-again Christian and I feel as though my faith has been attacked by YOU since I'm not ALLOWED to discuss it here.  Like I said, no need to lock my account, I'm outta here...

Quoted: Out of curiosity, how do you, CPUFed, know the Bible to be the word of God?

For starters?

The New Testament exists in over 25,000 manuscripts, 5,000 plus in Greek and another 20,000 other manuscripts in other languages. (Coptic, etc...) These manuscripts agree in content and attributed authorship. Further, we have the writings of the immediate post-apostolic fathers such as Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria and others who frequently quote from the writings we know as the New Testament. Clement of Alexandria, for instance, has over 2,400 seperate New Testament quotations in his writings from all but two of the writings we now posess in the NT. Other church fathers (Polycarp, Justin, etc...) quoted liberally as well, allowing us strictly from the writings of the post-apostolic church leaders to reconstruct the entirety of the New Testament. These manuscripts, by the way, are all available for scrutiny today, and new ones are consistently being discovered which agree in content and authorship.

The known history of the period provides a timeline which aligns with the timeline of the NT precisely.

Based on that evidence alone, we have enough information to determine what the very first Christians believed and practiced.

The trouble with Mormon philosophy is that it disagrees with the fundamental systematic theology of the Bible about the nature of God and the nature of man that was held by the Apostles and the early church, as none of their teachings or writings leave any indication that God was once like us (the Bible calls Him Alpha and Omega, beginning and end...) or that we will one day be like God in the sense that we will have creations of our own. Christianity teaches that we will be "like" God in the sense that we will have His charachter and perfection by the power of His grace, but not in the sense that we will be gods ourselves.

Those who are redeemed by Christ are indeed sons of God, but we are not equal in status with The Son of God. Christ IS God, The Word made flesh. We are not equal to Him in any way. We are given The Spirit of ADOPTION whereby we cry Abba. We are NOT equal to Christ in status. Christ is in heaven by right, we will appear there by grace.

Christ citing the passage in Psalms saying "ye are gods" was a defense against the Pharisees who would accuse Him because they did not acknowledge that Jesus was The Son of God. Jesus was not asserting that God was once a man and that men will one day be Gods. Jesus' divinity is a systematic theme in scripture, whereas the idea of man being divine is not.

Christians who are faithful will indeed be like Him when they are perfected in Glory, but being "like" Jesus does not translate to our being equal in status to Him at any point. Christians will have the charachter of Christ, but will not be like Him in every aspect. I nor any other man will ever be the ONLY Begotten of The Father. Jesus is God's ONLY Begotten son. You and I are NOT begotten of The Father. We are CREATED by the Father.

The Bible does not make the case that human beings are divine. It says quite plainly that humanity is a creation of God who rebelled against His authority. God, in His great love and mercy, sent Christ in the fullness of time to redeem the sins of those who would obey His voice and He will one day gather those who are His unto Himself, and so shall they ever be with The Lord.

The Bible does not make the case that God was once man, or that men will one day become like God. The Bible portrays God as the Lone Sovereign of All Creation, The Source of all existence. He has no creator. He has no equal. Even Jesus will be declared as Lord to the glory of God The Father. Jesus is God in every respect. We, even in the most glorified state in heaven, will not be.

The Bible is clear: We are to test the spirits to see if they are from God. God does not contradict Himself, and will not contradict His Word.

The Bible leaves no room for another volume that is Divinely Inspired. Knowing that the enemy transforms himself into an angel of light, the spirits must be tested by scripture that has been preserved for us. Whatever contradicts the doctrines and teachings of the Apostles is supposed to be rejected by Christians.

Quoted: Quoted: Out of curiosity, how do you, CPUFed, know the Bible to be the word of God? For starters? The New Testament exists in over 25,000 manuscripts, 5,000 plus in Greek and another 20,000 other manuscripts in other languages. (Coptic, etc...) These manuscripts agree in content and attributed authorship. Further, we have the writings of the immediate post-apostolic fathers such as Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria and others who frequently quote from the writings we know as the New Testament. Clement of Alexandria, for instance, has over 2,400 seperate New Testament quotations in his writings from all but two of the writings we now posess in the NT. Other church fathers (Polycarp, Justin, etc...) quoted liberally as well, allowing us strictly from the writings of the post-apostolic church leaders to reconstruct the entirety of the New Testament. These manuscripts, by the way, are all available for scrutiny today, and new ones are consistently being discovered which agree in content and authorship. The known history of the period provides a timeline which aligns with the timeline of the NT precisely. Based on that evidence alone, we have enough information to determine what the very first Christians believed and practiced. The trouble with Mormon philosophy is that it disagrees with the fundamental systematic theology of the Bible about the nature of God and the nature of man that was held by the Apostles and the early church, as none of their teachings or writings leave any indication that God was once like us (the Bible calls Him Alpha and Omega, beginning and end...) or that we will one day be like God in the sense that we will have creations of our own. Christianity teaches that we will be "like" God in the sense that we will have His charachter and perfection by the power of His grace, but not in the sense that we will be gods ourselves. Those who are redeemed by Christ are indeed sons of God, but we are not equal in status with The Son of God. Christ IS God, The Word made flesh. We are not equal to Him in any way. We are given The Spirit of ADOPTION whereby we cry Abba. We are NOT equal to Christ in status. Christ is in heaven by right, we will appear there by grace. Christ citing the passage in Psalms saying "ye are gods" was a defense against the Pharisees who would accuse Him because they did not acknowledge that Jesus was The Son of God. Jesus was not asserting that God was once a man and that men will one day be Gods. Jesus' divinity is a systematic theme in scripture, whereas the idea of man being divine is not. Christians who are faithful will indeed be like Him when they are perfected in Glory, but being "like" Jesus does not translate to our being equal in status to Him at any point. Christians will have the charachter of Christ, but will not be like Him in every aspect. I nor any other man will ever be the ONLY Begotten of The Father. Jesus is God's ONLY Begotten son. You and I are NOT begotten of The Father. We are CREATED by the Father. The Bible does not make the case that human beings are divine. It says quite plainly that humanity is a creation of God who rebelled against His authority. God, in His great love and mercy, sent Christ in the fullness of time to redeem the sins of those who would obey His voice and He will one day gather those who are His unto Himself, and so shall they ever be with The Lord. The Bible does not make the case that God was once man, or that men will one day become like God. The Bible portrays God as the Lone Sovereign of All Creation, The Source of all existence. He has no creator. He has no equal. Even Jesus will be declared as Lord to the glory of God The Father. Jesus is God in every respect. We, even in the most glorified state in heaven, will not be.

Thanks for the response.  We also believe that Jesus is God in every respect.

As for what you say about us, you must not agree, then, with the previously cited Bible quotes about us being the literal children of God, heirs, etc.  Or perhaps your personal interpretation of those scriptures is simply different.

I recognize that not all of the beliefs within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is going to be found specifically in the Bible.  That is ok for us because we believe in continued revelation and an open canon of scripture.

Quoted: Quoted: Out of curiosity, how do you, CPUFed, know the Bible to be the word of God? For starters? The New Testament exists in over 25,000 manuscripts, 5,000 plus in Greek and another 20,000 other manuscripts in other languages. (Coptic, etc...) These manuscripts agree in content and attributed authorship. Further, we have the writings of the immediate post-apostolic fathers such as Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria and others who frequently quote from the writings we know as the New Testament. Clement of Alexandria, for instance, has over 2,400 seperate New Testament quotations in his writings from all but two of the writings we now posess in the NT. Other church fathers (Polycarp, Justin, etc...) quoted liberally as well, allowing us strictly from the writings of the post-apostolic church leaders to reconstruct the entirety of the New Testament. These manuscripts, by the way, are all available for scrutiny today, and new ones are consistently being discovered which agree in content and authorship. The known history of the period provides a timeline which aligns with the timeline of the NT precisely. Based on that evidence alone, we have enough information to determine what the very first Christians believed and practiced. The trouble with Mormon philosophy is that it disagrees with the fundamental systematic theology of the Bible about the nature of God and the nature of man that was held by the Apostles and the early church, as none of their teachings or writings leave any indication that God was once like us (the Bible calls Him Alpha and Omega, beginning and end...) or that we will one day be like God in the sense that we will have creations of our own. Christianity teaches that we will be "like" God in the sense that we will have His charachter and perfection by the power of His grace, but not in the sense that we will be gods ourselves. Those who are redeemed by Christ are indeed sons of God, but we are not equal in status with The Son of God. Christ IS God, The Word made flesh. We are not equal to Him in any way. We are given The Spirit of ADOPTION whereby we cry Abba. We are NOT equal to Christ in status. Christ is in heaven by right, we will appear there by grace. Christ citing the passage in Psalms saying "ye are gods" was a defense against the Pharisees who would accuse Him because they did not acknowledge that Jesus was The Son of God. Jesus was not asserting that God was once a man and that men will one day be Gods. Jesus' divinity is a systematic theme in scripture, whereas the idea of man being divine is not. Christians who are faithful will indeed be like Him when they are perfected in Glory, but being "like" Jesus does not translate to our being equal in status to Him at any point. Christians will have the charachter of Christ, but will not be like Him in every aspect. I nor any other man will ever be the ONLY Begotten of The Father. Jesus is God's ONLY Begotten son. You and I are NOT begotten of The Father. We are CREATED by the Father. The Bible does not make the case that human beings are divine. It says quite plainly that humanity is a creation of God who rebelled against His authority. God, in His great love and mercy, sent Christ in the fullness of time to redeem the sins of those who would obey His voice and He will one day gather those who are His unto Himself, and so shall they ever be with The Lord. The Bible does not make the case that God was once man, or that men will one day become like God. The Bible portrays God as the Lone Sovereign of All Creation, The Source of all existence. He has no creator. He has no equal. Even Jesus will be declared as Lord to the glory of God The Father. Jesus is God in every respect. We, even in the most glorified state in heaven, will not be. The Bible is clear: We are to test the spirits to see if they are from God. God does not contradict Himself, and will not contradict His Word. The Bible leaves no room for another volume that is Divinely Inspired.

Amen.

J_W777,

Why can't God leave room for continued scripture and revelation?  Doesn't he love us as much now as in times of old?

Quoted: You don't have to agree with my mod skills. You do have to follow the rules I set forth. How come the other members are able to do this, but you can't?

Still waiting patiently for you to establish your case for me attacking anyone personally, as you claimed.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I AGREE with criley.  If this topic wasn't meant to be a "discussion" it should have been locked at the first post.  I also have insulted no one.  I HAVE engaged in a discussion which I will end here since obviously if I continue to discuss Mormonism negatively, my account will be locked.  Welcome to Amerika... You are welcome to discuss Mormonism all you want. If you feel it necessary to discuss Mormonism in a negative way (because you feel that you know what Mormonism is, and the followers of it are to be attacked), then your account will be locked. I would do the same thing to anyone that came in and attacked your particular faith and its members as a cult. Try reading the advice that aronweragain gave on the last page. Think about what you just said.  If I don't agree with the Mormon religion, it is "negative", correct?  So why even have a discussion?  I am a born-again Christian and I feel as though my faith has been attacked by YOU since I'm not ALLOWED to discuss it here.  Like I said, no need to lock my account, I'm outta here... You seem smart enough to know the difference between "negative" meaning opposite, and "negative" meaning unfavorable. Since when have I said a born-again Christian isn't allowed to share your faith. If attacking other faiths is a requirement for being a born-again Christian, then I guess you will be limited in expressing your faith here. As I have already stated, arowneragain seems to have grasped the rules for this forum. If he can abide by them, then I think everyone else should be able too.

So according to your rules, when one Mormon responds in a thread and says that the poster was wrong about what he said concerning a particular Mormon doctrine, THAT is okay.

But then someone else posts a quote from a Mormon leader that shows that the original author was correct, in spite of what the Mormon apologist said.....  and THAT is wrong.

And if a Mormon apologist states supposed "misconceptions" about what Mormons believe, and someone posts a quote from the current Mormon leader to show that the "misconception" is not a misconception at all.....THAT is wrong, too.

If these are your rules, then the religion forum is an absolute waste of bandwidth.

We never had these problems when the topics were discussed in GD.  Oh, we had the apologists screaming "FOUL!"  but the mods allowed open, fair discussion without such heavy-handed intervention.

I have been here longer than you.

I have entered into many, many, MANY of these types of discussions back when they were in GD.

I NEVER had any mod call me a troll, or threaten to lock my account.

NOT ONE TIME.

Shane finish the verse "You are gods, (note small g) sons of the Most High, all of you; nevertheless, you shall die like men, and fall like any prince.

Quoted: I can tell you this, Joseph Smith did use a Urim and Thumim in the translation of the Book of Mormon.

[Homer] Mmmm... Uma Thurman. [/Homer]


Do Mormons believe God was once a human man, like we are?

Do Mormons believe that babies come from outer space?

Do Mormons believe we'll go live on other planets after we die?

Quoted: Shane finish the verse "You are gods, (note small g) sons of the Most High, all of you; nevertheless, you shall die like men, and fall like any prince.

True, but it doesn't change the context of our relationship with God.

Quoted: Wasn't it just last week that I was accused of being a pawn for the Catholic owners of the site?

The reason for such accusations is your refusal to allow open, honest discussion of the religions themselves.

According to your rules,  the religion forum is a one-way portal for religious propaganda.  

No honest criticism allowed by the moderator leads to such conclusions.

You are not a pawn of any one religion, you are pawn of all of them.

I think alot of inter-religious Q&As boil down to either misconceptions as to the definition of words (especially key, technical words), or cultural means of expressing something that's not always translateable, or finally merely a question of differences in the criteria of credibility we might each have.

For example, for many "if it's in the Bible then it's true". Period. full stop. Simple faith, and I'm sure most go to Heaven on this.

But then we ask "But what if it's in the Bible but difficult to comprehend, such as God putting whole peoples under the 'Ban'?" Since scripture itself doesn't exhaustively explain itself, further enlightenment is required. One option a few take is to jettison the Bible entirely. Others delve more deeply into study of it to tease out the explanation of why God would command his chosen people to exterminate whole tribes (men, women, children, livestock, etc) while claiming their land.

We know what the Bible says...but what does it mean?

A few go a bit further than trying to answer the vague passages or apparent contradictions and ask more fundamental questions about the authority of scripture itself: why do I believe this book is indeed "revelation from God" and not another book, like, say the Koran, or the Uphanishads or some New Age prophet's tract?

In this line of questioning we find serious people asking whether the New Testament is in fact inspired or if it is, whether other books not in the canon could be inspired as well (like the Book of Mormon).

Well, what criteria does a human being have to deciding whether or not the Bible is indeed inspired? You can't use the book itself because they ALL claim inspiration - the Koran, the New Age prophet, etc. what "extra-biblical" source tells us to believe the Bible is true?

For most of us it's a human we trust who tells us we can trust this story. But where did daddy or mommy come to know this is trustworthy? From holy men or women - people whose lives were remarkably good and hence trustworthy believing that this book was inspired. Eventually the progression has to stop somewhere at some generation who had to chose the veracity of a prophet or evangelist.

What was THEIR criteria? Miracles, internal consistency, reasonableness (or at least not being impossible) and finally the effect belief in this book's message had on disciples' lives: did they become happy and productive members of the family, tribe, nation?

I don't begrude the Mormons (sorry, the LDSs) for their zeal and beliefs per se. I've talked with their bishops and priests before on business etc. all very nice guys. I don't accept their story about the revelation of the angel Moroni to Joe Smith, but not because it's "impossible".

Just highly improbable, given what we do know to be true. But again THAT'S MY OPINION. No offense intended. People believe what they want to believe, mostly for the above criteria.

Some people were half or uncatechised Catholics who got a boat load of bad example at the parish, and only met real Christians of a different denomination. In which case, I'd rather they become "evangelicals" and discover Jesus and love him genuinely than lose their faith in God entirely thanks to the scandal of wolves in sheep's clothing. So long as they love Jesus I'm confident we'll pick them back up once we get our Church's internal squabbles settled sometime this coming decade.

Or they are people who grew up "protestant" and just took for granted the KJV, and panoply of doctrines and theories and interpretations from this, that, and another itinerant preacher. Or they're LDS-ers or JWs or practical atheists... all for "reasons".

I don't think many adults are members of a religion "just because" anymore.

This being the case.... if you have a local church that is full of happy, normal people who are your friends... and the leaders aren't nut cases....and the doctrine isn't nuts (or isn't entirely implausible) then it kind of boils down to miracles and personal holiness doesn't it?

Arguing....about the only thing we can do is to mutually stimulate each other's faith in the internal consistency of the church's doctrine and moral teaching, and make note of miracles or lack thereof in our respective churches. Perhaps remove misconceptions about what we do in fact believe, so as to nullify the "that's nuts who can accept it" mental block and make what is impossible to conceive into something at is at least possible if not plausible.

So with my LDS brethren, I'm not going to go ad hominem about cultural differences, geography, or doctrines about pre-existence of souls. I just want to know where the archeological evidence points to massive empires and battles being fought in upstate New York. Or what "ancient hieroglyphics" are and what "magic spectacles" have to do with it. I mean, it's a plausible story, but it hinges on historicity.

If we believed in a Jesus from a land called Atlantis that doesn't exist anymore and how his tribe were called "Jews" but they didn't exist anymore either, and both were persecuted by this empire called "Rome" but it didn't exist anymore and it's fabluous city had never been discovered since... then people might have grounds to doubt the veracity of the wonderful story and real existence of this guy named Jesus.

But fortunately we do know that Jerusalem exists, and so does the Middle East. Jews still exist and Rome - both the empire and city - are open for study and the peoples of that region can point to artifacts like roads, walls, coins, tombs, etc. proving what the historians and legends claim happened very well likely DID.

Archeology then helps us believe. It's part of our criteria of credibility. It's no longer an outlandish tale to think these guys called "Romans" conquered Israel and crucified people.

Now whether the Romans were pantheists or polytheists and the Jews monotheists is a question for another day. But we do in fact know they existed.

The same can't be said of the two "lost tribes" that duke it out in the New World and bury gold tablets waiting for the latter days to come around. Until we start turning up Israeli or Egyptian ruins around Elmyra or anywhere in America, I think IMHO, that the whole story of Mororni is a nice story and probably makes those who believe it real nice people who I wouldn't mind as neighbors or relatives. But it doesn't convince.  

Quoted: J_W777, Why can't God leave room for continued scripture and revelation?  Doesn't he love us as much now as in times of old?

God continually reveals Himself to men, which is how people are saved. The Holy Spirit is still in this earth, and still works in the hearts of men as He did on the day of Pentecost. His love and prevenient grace are as Eternal as He is, without measure and without end.

But that does not mean that His word is open for revision or addition. The whole of Christian faith rests on the testimony of Jesus Christ as related by His personally chosen disciples. Why He chose those particular men in that particular time is His own buisness.

The scripture warns that there is an enemy who transforms himself into an angel of light specifically to rob, kill, and destroy. The scriptures are plain that this enemy also knows scripture, and will twist it to accomplish his ends. Remember that he tempted Christ Himself by trying to twist scripture. Christ, however, was able to rightly interpret scripture (He was, after all, The Word made flesh) and contradicted Lucifer with the whole truth of God's word.

This is why The Bible is so critical to our faith. If you study early Christian history and the writings of the Apostles like Paul, you find that there were a lot of ideas found in the church that contradicted established scripture and the Gospel as it was delivered by the Apostles. The Apostolic writings made it clear that the Gospel was a settled matter, and that those attempting to add to it or take away from it were doing violence to God's Word. Thus Jude's exhortation to contend earnestly for the faith that was ONCE delivered to all the saints.

It is not a question of God's love or His willingness to speak to men. The question is whether or not the Apostles accurately testified of Christ and His way. If they did, then contradicting them is contradicting Him. If they did not, then we are "of all men most miserable".

Quoted: Quoted: Wasn't it just last week that I was accused of being a pawn for the Catholic owners of the site? The reason for such accusations is your refusal to allow open, honest discussion of the religions themselves. According to your rules,  the religion forum is a one-way portal for religious propaganda.   No honest criticism allowed by the moderator leads to such conclusions. You are not a pawn of any one religion, you are pawn of all of them.

criley, I have gotten into some pretty intense religious debates in this forum. Just last week we had a topic that started here that ended up going 13 pages about gays being a bigger threat than al quaeda.

YMMV

Every time I come to an LDS thread hoping to read soem civil discourse I find that it has been dogpiled by the same crowd, every single time.  Apparently some people on this board have made it their mission in life to fight any attempt to dispel myths regarding the LDS church.


It truly makes my head spin when I read the outright bigotted crap that spews from the keyboards of soem of the members here. If I typed the exact same thing in regards to catholocism I woudl be banned. Then again I would never do that, it woudl be rude to jump all over someone else's faith.

Quoted: ... <snip> This being the case.... if you have a local church that is full of happy, normal people who are your friends... and the leaders aren't nut cases....and the doctrine isn't nuts (or isn't entirely implausible) then it kind of boils down to miracles and personal holiness doesn't it? Arguing....about the only thing we can do is to mutually stimulate each other's faith in the internal consistency of the church's doctrine and moral teaching, and make note of miracles or lack thereof in our respective churches. Perhaps remove misconceptions about what we do in fact believe, so as to nullify the "that's nuts who can accept it" mental block and make what is impossible to conceive into something at is at least possible if not plausible. So with my LDS brethren, I'm not going to go ad hominem about cultural differences, geography, or doctrines about pre-existence of souls. I just want to know where the archeological evidence points to massive empires and battles being fought in upstate New York. Or what "ancient hieroglyphics" are and what "magic spectacles" have to do with it. I mean, it's a plausible story, but it hinges on historicity. If we believed in a Jesus from a land called Atlantis that doesn't exist anymore and how his tribe were called "Jews" but they didn't exist anymore either, and both were persecuted by this empire called "Rome" but it didn't exist anymore and it's fabluous city had never been discovered since... then people might have grounds to doubt the veracity of the wonderful story and real existence of this guy named Jesus. But fortunately we do know that Jerusalem exists, and so does the Middle East. Jews still exist and Rome - both the empire and city - are open for study and the peoples of that region can point to artifacts like roads, walls, coins, tombs, etc. proving what the historians and legends claim happened very well likely DID. Archeology then helps us believe. It's part of our criteria of credibility. It's no longer an outlandish tale to think these guys called "Romans" conquered Israel and crucified people. Now whether the Romans were pantheists or polytheists and the Jews monotheists is a question for another day. But we do in fact know they existed. The same can't be said of the two "lost tribes" that duke it out in the New World and bury gold tablets waiting for the latter days to come around. Until we start turning up Israeli or Egyptian ruins around Elmyra or anywhere in America, I think IMHO, that the whole story of Mororni is a nice story and probably makes those who believe it real nice people who I wouldn't mind as neighbors or relatives. But it doesn't convince.

JusAdBellum.... my respect for you continues to grow.

On a side note... I think it's one of the Messianic Jew factions which believe the same lost tribe/American Indian connection. They have even studied the similarities in the Hebrew language, etc... with some tribal dialects.

I can't remember where I read this, but I am sure a cursory Google search would turn it up.

Quoted: Quoted: J_W777, Why can't God leave room for continued scripture and revelation?  Doesn't he love us as much now as in times of old? God continually reveals Himself to men, which is how people are saved. The Holy Spirit is still in this earth, and still works in the hearts of men as He did on the day of Pentecost. His love and prevenient grace are as Eternal as He is, without measure and without end. But that does not mean that His word is open for revision or addition. The whole of Christian faith rests on the testimony of Jesus Christ as related by His personally chosen disciples. Why He chose those particular men in that particular time is His own buisness. The scripture warns that there is an enemy who transforms himself into an angel of light specifically to rob, kill, and destroy. The scriptures are plain that this enemy also knows scripture, and will twist it to accomplish his ends. Remember that he tempted Christ Himself by trying to twist scripture. Christ, however, was able to rightly interpret scripture (He was, after all, The Word made flesh) and contradicted Lucifer with the whole truth of God's word. This is why The Bible is so critical to our faith. If you study early Christian history and the writings of the Apostles like Paul, you find that there were a lot of ideas found in the church that contradicted established scripture and the Gospel as it was delivered by the Apostles. The Apostolic writings made it clear that the Gospel was a settled matter, and that those attempting to add to it or take away from it were doing violence to God's Word. Thus Jude's exhortation to contend earnestly for the faith that was ONCE delivered to all the saints. It is not a question of God's love or His willingness to speak to men. The question is whether or not the Apostles accurately testified of Christ and His way. If they did, then contradicting them is contradicting Him. If they did not, then we are "of all men most miserable".

An interesting response.  You mention the need for correction from God's appointed servants (your remarks about Paul) and yet deny that God would continue giving mankind scripture.

From the days of Adam to the Apostles, God instructed His people through his appointed servants.  His appointed servants wrote down these instructions and we have it as scripture.

Therefore, if God is in any way consistant, He will continue giving us scripture today through his appointed servants.  Remember, the Jewish leaders in the days of Christ rejected him and His teachings because they didn't understand their own scripture and refused to receive more.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Wasn't it just last week that I was accused of being a pawn for the Catholic owners of the site? The reason for such accusations is your refusal to allow open, honest discussion of the religions themselves. According to your rules,  the religion forum is a one-way portal for religious propaganda.   No honest criticism allowed by the moderator leads to such conclusions. You are not a pawn of any one religion, you are pawn of all of them. criley, I have gotten into some pretty intense religious debates in this forum. Just last week we had a topic that started here that ended up going 13 pages about gays being a bigger threat than al quaeda. YMMV

That may be true, but is not the matter at hand.  What is evidently forbidden around here is open, fair criticism of religious doctrine.

Followers of a particular religion are allowed to make statements, but no one is allowed to call them on their stated doctrines.

Any such discussion is labeled as trolling, hateful, or a personal attack.  At least that is how I was dealt with when discussing the stated DOCTRINES of Mormons in this thread, and another.  Now I don't care if the follower of the religion responds to my general statements in such a PERSONAL manner, but when the mods respond that way, it just isn't right.



I merely pointed out why the doctrines were false, interestingly enough using Mormon leaders own statements.

Quoted: Every time I come to an LDS thread hoping to read soem civil discourse I find that it has been dogpiled by the same crowd, every single time.  Apparently some people on this board have made it their mission in life to fight any attempt to dispel myths regarding the LDS church. It truly makes my head spin when I read the outright bigotted crap that spews from the keyboards of soem of the members here. If I typed the exact same thing in regards to catholocism I woudl be banned. Then again I would never do that, it woudl be rude to jump all over someone else's faith.

That is pretty easy to say.  You did not mention the person to which you were referring.

If what you said had anything to do with what I have said, please cut and paste examples of 'biggoted crap" please.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Wasn't it just last week that I was accused of being a pawn for the Catholic owners of the site? The reason for such accusations is your refusal to allow open, honest discussion of the religions themselves. According to your rules,  the religion forum is a one-way portal for religious propaganda.   No honest criticism allowed by the moderator leads to such conclusions. You are not a pawn of any one religion, you are pawn of all of them. criley, I have gotten into some pretty intense religious debates in this forum. Just last week we had a topic that started here that ended up going 13 pages about gays being a bigger threat than al quaeda. YMMV That may be true, but is not the matter at hand.  What is evidently forbidden around here is open, fair criticism of religious doctrine. Followers of a particular religion are allowed to make statements, but no one is allowed to call them on their stated doctrines. Any such discussion is labeled as trolling, hateful, or a personal attack.  At least that is how I was dealt with when discussing the stated DOCTRINES of Mormons in this thread, and another.  Now I don't care if the follower of the religion responds to my general statements in such a PERSONAL manner, but when the mods respond that way, it just isn't right. I merely pointed out why the doctrines were false, interestingly enough using Mormon leaders own statements.

Well, in my experience, I've been heavily criticized for discussing my own, evangelical Protestant Christian faith.



It doesn't stop me from doing it though.

FWIW... I am still waiting on an answer to my very first post in this topic regarding the nebulous geography and lack of archeological evidences to support the claims made in the Book of Mormon.

That being said, I don't think it's my place to judge what constitutes any faithful Mormon's relationship with God. They have accepted Christ, and they are ultimately responsible for teaching and following any doctrine which may be false as balanced with the scriptures.

Then again, there's a whole lot of believers of many other Christian denominations out there which will suffer the same fate. Pentecostals who believe that you must speak in tongues to be saved... Catholics who believe that you must pray to Mary as an intercessor... Baptists who think you have to immerse in water while the Lutherans only sprinke it from a shell...

I think EricTheHun would probably make some reference to the Fiddler on The Roof and tradition.

Quoted: That being said, I don't think it's my place to judge what constitutes any faithful Mormon's relationship with God.

You are right.  We should not do that.  However, the word of God IS clear on the matter.  IT does the judging.

2 Cor 11:
1 ¶ Would to God ye could bear with me a little in [my] folly: and indeed bear with me.
2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present [you as] a chaste virgin to Christ.
3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or [if] ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with [him].

The word of God makes the fact crystal clear that:

There are counterfeit Jesuses.

There are counterfeit spirits.

There are counterfeit gospels.

Gal 1:

6 ¶ I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
10 ¶ For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

This moderator wants men to be pleased.

You cannot please God and men.  You cannot please men and be the servant of Christ.

Quoted: An interesting response.  You mention the need for correction from God's appointed servants (your remarks about Paul) and yet deny that God would continue giving mankind scripture.

God does not need to continually give scripture. Is the book of Mormon open to revision? Who continues to write scripture today?

And what if what is written contradicts what has already been established?

It gets mighty sticky when we start going down that road.

From the days of Adam to the Apostles, God instructed His people through his appointed servants.

And He still does. Scripture says that God gave some to be pastors, teachers, evangelists...etc.

His appointed servants wrote down these instructions and we have it as scripture.

We do not have all apostolic writings. It is certain that there are many writings that were not preserved as scripture probably because of the mediums used during the day, and also because of Diocletian's maniacal attempt to destroy all extant Christian writings. Nevertheless, we DO have a solid basis of writings that gives us an accurate portrayal of Christ and of Christian doctrine.

Therefore, if God is in any way consistant, He will continue giving us scripture today through his appointed servants.

That is where the logic falters. God does things until completion. The canon of scripture is complete. The writings of the Apostles leave no room for new ideas or takes on God's nature, the nature of the afterlife, or on Christ. What they wrote they wrote to once and for all establish the authoritative Truth of The Gospel. They leave no room in their writings for anyone to posess the same authority that they posessed when it comes to matters of doctrine.

Remember, the Jewish leaders in the days of Christ rejected him and His teachings because they didn't understand their own scripture and refused to receive more.

They knew a Messiah was prophecied. They saw the miracles Jesus performed. But they would believe neither His witness nor His works, attributing His miracles to Satan when He performed them in front of their eyes.

There is no prophecy of a new prophet showing up after Revelations with a fundamentally new idea of the nature of God which the Bible tells us to accept as true. Indeed, Paul said that anyone who would contradict the Gospel he delivered, "let him be accursed". The Apostolic writings of the New Testament claim an authoritative and accurate witness of Christ, and leave no room for any other ideas. Whatever contradicts scripture is treated by scripture as false.

Quoted: Pentecostals who believe that you must speak in tongues to be saved...

Just for the purposes of information, Classical Pentecostal doctrine has never taught speaking in tongues as necessary for salvation. Salvation is taught as a work of Grace, and being filled with The Holy Spirit is taught as a seperate work of grace.

I have heard some who claim to be "pentecostal" say that one must be filled with The Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues to enter heaven, but their claim is incorrect, and the doctrinal teachings of their churches usually acknowledge them to be wrong. Some denominations, it should be said, DO hold as a matter of doctrine that one will not enter heaven unless a person is filled with The Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues.

There are only a few who hold that position, however....

Quoted: Quoted: Wasn't it just last week that I was accused of being a pawn for the Catholic owners of the site? The reason for such accusations is your refusal to allow open, honest discussion of the religions themselves. According to your rules,  the religion forum is a one-way portal for religious propaganda.   No honest criticism allowed by the moderator leads to such conclusions. You are not a pawn of any one religion, you are pawn of all of them.

which is as it shoud be

Quoted: Quoted: An interesting response.  You mention the need for correction from God's appointed servants (your remarks about Paul) and yet deny that God would continue giving mankind scripture.

Rom 3:

1 ¶ What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit [is there] of circumcision?
2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

Man gave scripture through his chosen people, the Jews.  He did not give scripture to Gentiles.  The Jews are the oracles of God.

Was Joseph Smith a Jew?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: An interesting response.  You mention the need for correction from God's appointed servants (your remarks about Paul) and yet deny that God would continue giving mankind scripture. Rom 3: 1 ¶ What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit [is there] of circumcision? 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. Man gave scripture through his chosen people, the Jews.  He did not give scripture to Gentiles.  The Jews are the oracles of God. Was Joseph Smith a Jew?

Luke was not Jewish according to our best scholarship.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Wasn't it just last week that I was accused of being a pawn for the Catholic owners of the site? The reason for such accusations is your refusal to allow open, honest discussion of the religions themselves. According to your rules,  the religion forum is a one-way portal for religious propaganda.   No honest criticism allowed by the moderator leads to such conclusions. You are not a pawn of any one religion, you are pawn of all of them. which is as it shoud be

Wrong.  He should be a pawn of NONE of them and allow honest conversation, and disregard apologists who scream "Troll!" the first time they hear something they don't like.

The apologists evidently cannot contend with facts, but they can claim victimhood.

Quoted: Joseph was in the second floor of the jail, with visiting friends and without a locked door. After members of his own militia retired to their homes for the night, a mob formed outside, shouting insults. As some of the mob came up the narrow stairwell, Joseph discharged his pistol into their midst, killing two men and wounding a third. He and his brother, Hyrum, were killed in the exchange of gunfire.

Hope you don't mind me correcting the history on how Joseph Smith and his brother died.   I'm not going to address however the other points as they have an agenda and I know that they're not your words, so that wasn't directed towards you.

Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, John Taylor, and Willard Richards were all in prison at Carthage Jail (Photo A).     On Thursday, June 27th, 1844. This blazing gun battle to which that site referred to started when at the front of the jail, "there was a little rustling at the outer door of the jail, and a cry of surrender, and also a discharge of three or four firearms followed instantly. The doctor glanced an eye by the curtain of the window, and saw about a hundred armed men around the door. It is said that the guard elevated their firelocks, and boisterously threatening the mob discharged their fire-arms over their heads. The mob encircled the building, and some of them rushed by the guard up the flight of stairs (Photo B & C), burst open the door, and began the work of death, while others fired in through the open windows.

"In the meantime Joseph, Hyrum, and Elder Taylor had their coats off. Joseph sprang to his coat for his six-shooter, Hyrum for his single barrel, Taylor for Markham's large hickory cane, and Dr. Richards for Taylor's cane. All sprang against the door, the balls whistled up the stairway, and in an instant one came through the door.

"Joseph Smith, John Taylor and Dr. Richards sprang to the left of the door, and tried to knock aside the guns of the ruffians.

"Hyrum was retreating back in front of the door and snapped his pistol, when a ball [came through the door and] struck him in the left side of his nose (Photo D) , and he fell on his back on the floor saying, "I am a dead man!" As he fell on the floor another ball from the outside entered his left side, and passed through his body with such force that it completely broke to pieces the watch he wore in his vest pocket, and at the same instant another ball from the door grazed his breast, and entered his head by the throat; subsequently a fourth ball entered his left leg.

"A shower of balls was pouring through all parts of the room, many of which lodged in the ceiling just above the head of Hyrum.

"Joseph reached round the door casing, and discharged his six shooter into the passage, some barrels missing fire. Continual discharges of musketry came into the room. Elder Taylor continued parrying the guns until they had got them about half their length into the room, when he found that resistance was vain, and he attempted to jump out of the window, where a ball fired from within struck him on his left thigh, hitting the bone, and passing through to within half an inch of the other side. He fell on the window sill, when a ball fired from the outside struck his watch in his vest pocket, and threw him back into the room.

"After he fell into the room he was hit by two more balls, one of them injuring his left wrist considerably, and the other entering at the side of the bone just below the left knee. He rolled under the bed, which was at the right of the window in the south-east corner of the room.

"While he lay under the bed he was fired at several times from the stairway; one ball struck him on the left hip, which tore the flesh in a shocking manner, and large quantities of blood were scattered upon the wall and floor.

"When Hyrum fell, Joseph exclaimed, "Oh dear, brother Hyrum!" and opening the door a few inches he discharged his six shooter in the stairway (as stated before), two or three barrels of which missed fire.

"Joseph, seeing there was no safety in the room, and no doubt thinking that it would save the lives of his brethren in the room if he could get out, turned calmly from the door, dropped his pistol on the floor, and sprang into the window (Photo E) when two balls pierced him from the door, and one entered his right breast from without, and he fell outward into the hands of his murderers, exclaiming. "O Lord, my God!"

"Dr. Richards' escape was miraculous; he being a very large man, and in the midst of a shower of balls, yet he stood unscathed, with the exception of a ball which grazed the tip end of the lower part of his left ear. His escape fulfilled literally a prophecy which Joseph made over a year previously, that the time would come that the balls would fly around him like hail, and he should see his friends fall on the right and on the left, but that there should not be a hole in his garment.
=====================

A


B


C


D


E

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: An interesting response.  You mention the need for correction from God's appointed servants (your remarks about Paul) and yet deny that God would continue giving mankind scripture. Rom 3: 1 ¶ What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit [is there] of circumcision? 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. Man gave scripture through his chosen people, the Jews.  He did not give scripture to Gentiles.  The Jews are the oracles of God. Was Joseph Smith a Jew? Luke was not Jewish according to our best scholarship.

Oh.  So man's  best scholarship trumps God's word.

No thanks.

Quoted: Quoted: You are not a pawn of any one religion, you are pawn of all of them. I think it was just a month ago, that I was accused of being a pawn for the athiests and other non-beleivers.

Atheism IS a religion.

Quoted: Ok, this thread has/is jumping around on several different topics. How about we allow this thread to get back on topic.

Sorry that this thread has gotten to where it has went VA-gunnut.

Maybe another topic could be, "Why does the controversy around Mormonism bring rise to anger in non-Mormon Christians quicker than any other denominational divide?"

Quoted: Oh.  So man's  best scholarship trumps God's word. No thanks.

In Colossians 4 Paul does not list Luke as being part of the "circumcision", but rather lists him with the gentiles. Scholarship is based on this and other clues in the scripture that point to his being a gentile within scripture, not outside of scripture.

Quoted: You are correct that you haven't attacked one member personally. I apogize for not making my earlier point clearer. What I posted did point at you, when I should of made it an open warning to everyone reading the thread. What you SAID was that I was attacking others PERSONALLY.  That was a very clear statement.  I am glad you now rescind such accusations and state emphatically that I did no such thing.  Thank you.. You're another member that doesn't strike me as being stupid. I'm quite sure you can tell the difference between attacking a religion and civil discourse about a religion or religions. The majority of members have been able to discuss this topic and others, without a problem from me. I think you should be able to do the same. You seem to be failing to understand human nature.  Many if not most ardent followers of some belief ... you name it.... consider ANY criticism of said belief to be a personal attack.  That is why the Mormon reacted as he did when I SIMPLY QUOTED BRIGHAM YOUNG and compared YOUNG'S statement to the belief that the Mormon held.  HIS view contradicted YOUNG'S.  Now maybe you place more weight on the opinion of a keyboard commando than you do the words of Brigham Young when it comes to Mormon doctrine.  I do not.  He was upset because his opinion and his conclusion was in direct opposition to the stated belief of one of the founders of the religion  He had no real options - he either lets it pass or he calls me some name.  Being the ardent believer that he is, he could not let it pass.  And thus I am a "troll." I don't care how long you've been on the site. You're still required to follow the rules of this forum. I also don't care how many religous discussions you took part in while in the GD. This isn't the GD, it is the RF. I've found a lot of the members that used to take part in the threads in GD, won't take part here. I'm starting to realize that a lot of the members that don't come in here, don't do so because they can't have a civil discussion about religion. They prefer the supposed discussions (which were really just members attacking one another) that they could have in GD. Well, are you now accusing me again of making personal attacks?  According to your first paragraph, I have done no such thing.  And since I have made no such attacks, just what do you base your criticisms of my posts upon?  You simply don't like them?  They are not your cup of tea?  I didn't use the exact words you would have used? What? You said you are not a Mormon.  You are not the ardent believer of Mormonism.  However you do appear to be an ardent believer in a standard that is unreasonable.  You hold this forum to a standard that makes it useless.  The reason so many people do not come in here and have discussions is NOT what you said it is.  It is because you STIFLE the discussions because of YOUR ardent belief in an unrealistic ideal.   You allow the ardent believer to claim his belief is right, but you will not allow the opposing view, which is by definition that it is WRONG. I think it was just a month ago, that I was accused of being a pawn for the athiests and other non-beleivers. Atheism IS a religion.

Quoted: Maybe another topic could be, "Why does the controversy around Mormonism bring rise to anger in non-Mormon Christians quicker than any other denominational divide?"

There are a fair number of Christians who do not believe Mormons qualify as Christians.

The Catholic contraversies seem to bring about the same ammount of ire or more as well....

Quoted: Ok, this thread has/is jumping around on several different topics. How about we allow this thread to get back on topic. Criley, if you or any other member wishes to start a thread discussing how this forum is run, please do so and we can continue the discussion there.

Will do.

My previous post was made before I read this.

ETA: Nevermind asking via IM