What does mormonism offer that Christianity can't beat?
chri...@velocitus.net
The love of God.
Forgiveness of all of our sins.
Adopted sonship.
The right to call God, "Abba," or "Daddy."
The love of the brethren.
Eternal life with God.
The Fruit of the Spirit.
The Holy Spirit living within us.
ETC ETC ETC ETC.
Mormonism cannot beat these things. Mormonism does not HAVE these
things (worshipping a FALSE GOD doesn't get them for you).
Christian
Peggy Rogers
Oh, I know it's silly to answer trolls, but for me the main thing Mormonism
offers over traditional Christianity is this: It doesn't oblige me to
believe that most of the human beings who have lived on the earth will burn
in hell forever, with no chance to experience the love of God and the
forgiveness of their sins and the Fruit of the Spirit, mainly because they
happened to be born in a time, or in a place, or in circumstances which have
made it impossible for them to become the happy and beloved Christians that
you are so pleased to be one of.
Peggy
Guy R. Briggs
>
> We Christians have:
>
> The love of God.
> Forgiveness of all of our sins.
> Adopted sonship.
> The right to call God, "Abba," or "Daddy."
> The love of the brethren.
> Eternal life with God.
> The Fruit of the Spirit.
> The Holy Spirit living within us.
> ETC ETC ETC ETC.
>
than God and his mysterious ways.
>
> Mormonism cannot beat these things. Mormonism does not
> HAVE these things (worshipping a FALSE GOD doesn't get them
> for you).
>
"When he was a student, Elder [James E.] Talmage was
approached by a man offering to sell him an excellent
oil lamp. Elder Talmage already had an oil lamp he
felt was satisfactory, but he allowed the lamp seller
to come up to his room to demonstrate.
"'We entered my room, and I put a match to my well-
trimmed lamp. My visitor was high in his praise. It
was the best lamp of its kind, he said, and he had
never seen a lamp in better trim. He turned the wick
up and down, and pronounced the judgement perfect.
"'Now, he said, with your permission I'll light my
lamp, taking it from his satchel. ... Its light made
bright the remotest corner of my room. Its brilliant
blaze made the flame in my lamp look weak and pale.
Until that moment of convincing demonstration I had
never know the dim obscurity in which I had lived
and labored, studied and struggled.'
"Elder Talmage bought the new lamp, and he later
suggested what we can learn from the lamp seller as
we teach the gospel: 'The man who would sell a lamp
did not disparage mine. He placed his greater light
alongside my feebler flame, and I hasted to obtain
it.'
"'The missionary servants of the Church of Jesus
Christ today are sent forth, not to assail or
ridicule the beliefs of men, but to set before the
world a superior light, by which the smoky dimness
of the flickering flames of man-made creeds shall be
apparent. The work of the Church is constructive, not
destructive.'"
--Gospel Doctrine Teacher's Manual, p.132
>
> Christian
>
Me, too.
bestRegards, Guy.
GRaleigh345
wrote:
>> Mormonism cannot beat these things. Mormonism does not HAVE these
>> things (worshipping a FALSE GOD doesn't get them for you).
>>
>> Christian
>
>Oh, I know it's silly to answer trolls, but for me the main thing Mormonism
>offers over traditional Christianity is this: It doesn't oblige me to
>believe that most of the human beings who have lived on the earth will burn
>in hell forever... <snip>
Yes, it is silly in this case. Dennis repeats the same trolls over and
over. If you'll do a google search, you'll find that he disappears for a while,
then 6-7 months later with the same glove, slapping people in the face with it.
I would like to say that during that time he'd laundered it, but that is not
the case.
The replies to Dennis' trolls are many and varied, but the troll is always
the same thing. Answering it is like replying to graffitti on the bathroom
wall.
Raleigh
O Lord, we delight not in the destruction of our fellow men; their souls are
precious before thee; but thy word must be fulfilled. Help thy servants to say,
with thy grace assisting them: Thy will be done, O Lord, and not ours.
GRaleigh345
based on this particular troll.
The original thread was called:
Re: What do lds offer that I don't have, or would want?
From: dcke...@velocitus.net (dckelvie)
And it was started by none other than Dennis Kelvie, who is now using the alias
Christian.
For those of you who have any serious interest in this, why not just do a
Google search and read the thread as it went in the beginning.
The original thread is dated from about September 2002 to October 2002. So,
twelve months later, the same person, throws out the same thread, and cranks it
up the same way.
If you want to know what I said about it then, please read the original thread.
I don't intend to reinvent the wheel.
Jeff Shirton
"Peggy Rogers" <proger...@xmission.com> wrote in message
news:bjgopj$ki9$1...@terabinaries.xmission.com...
> > Mormonism cannot beat these things. Mormonism does not HAVE
> > these things (worshipping a FALSE GOD doesn't get them for you).
>
> Oh, I know it's silly to answer trolls,
<sigh>
I guess when you can't defend your own position, your only resort
left is to mud-sling by calling your opponents, "trolls". I had
thought better of you, Peggy. I guess I need to modify my perception
of you.
> but for me the main thing Mormonism offers over traditional
> Christianity is this: It doesn't oblige me to believe that most
> of the human beings who have lived on the earth will burn
"Most"?!
Where does the Bible, or traditional Christianity, teach "most"?
I've only ever heard this "most" claim by anti-Christians trying
to engage in mud-slinging, and trying to make their opponents
look as bad as possible (something that LDS claim they *never*
do, yet we see it all the time, even originating back to Smith's
derogatory "abomination!" statement).
> in hell forever, with no chance to experience the love of
> God and the forgiveness of their sins and the Fruit of the Spirit,
You don't understand the gospel, Peggy.
You say "no chance".
That's not true at all.
Everyone *did* have a chance.
Do you know what they did with that "chance", Peggy?
They *sinned*. The rebelled against God.
Christ is a *second* chance, a chance that mankind is *not* owed
in any way, shape or form, and God is not obliged to give us.
Yet he *does* give some a second change, thanks be to His
glory and grace. Praise God!
> mainly because they happened to be born in a time, or in a place,
> or in circumstances which have made it impossible for them
> to become the happy and beloved Christians
That's simply anti-Biblical rhetoric, Peggy.
Please read Rom. 1-2 sometime. The truth of God is visible
to *all* mankind, regardless of whether they live in a "Christian"
family, a "Christian" neighbourhood", or a "Christian" country.
That is why Paul says that "they are without excuse".
You can't blame God for this, Peggy. Blame goes where it is
deserved, straight in to the hearts of men.
> that you are so pleased to be one of.
And that's nothing more than blatant ad hominem, Peggy.
Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed today, or something?
> Peggy
--
Jeff Shirton jshirton at cogeco dot
ca
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
"[T]he gospel is not that man can become God,
but that God became a man." -- James White
Challenge me (Theophilus) for a game of chess at Chessworld.net!
Jeff Shirton
news:bjgopj$ki9$1...@terabinaries.xmission.com...
> Oh, I know it's silly to answer trolls, but for me the main thing
Mormonism
> offers over traditional Christianity is this: It doesn't oblige me to
> believe that most of the human beings who have lived on the earth will
burn
> in hell forever,
So basically, what you're saying is that your evaluation of truth isn't
based on reality or Scripture, but rather on what you like, what
you want, what you wish, what you desire, "what seemeth right to
a (wo)man" (Prov. 14:12).
If we don't want hell to exist, hell doesn't have to exist.
If we don't want to believe that murder is a sin, then murder isn't a sin.
"Reality" is whatever we want it to be, no absolutes, no standards.
Is that it, Peggy?
Give my regards to the Emporer, and his "new clothes", okay? <g>
gary0
> <ad hominem snipped>
>
> Where does the Bible, or traditional Christianity, teach "most"
Howzabout
>" wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth
>" to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat"
and
>": "strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which
>" leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."
gary0
"The Bible told me so"
Stormin Mormon
living prophet, the authority of the priesthood (which is necessary to enter
the highest degree of glory) and we have the necessary ordainances.
We also have the temples, and the specialized ordainances there. We also
have personal and church wide revelation.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
www.mormons.org
.
.
"Peggy Rogers" <proger...@xmission.com> wrote in message
news:bjgopj$ki9$1...@terabinaries.xmission.com...
Scott Marquardt
??
Orthodoxy poses that God judges fairly. You're saying that orthodoxy's God
judges unfairly. Clearly someone's wrong.
Most variants of Mormon belief (Mormons can believe whatever they want,
which could be construed as an advantage if truth is relatively
unimportant) posit an endless cosmos where infinite numbers of gods never
get the upper hand on evil, and are compelled by a divine tradition to
instantiate endless worlds full of holocausts.
People face choices, to be sure.
- Scott
John Lemings
> Well, Mormons have a correct understanding of the scriptures.
If the LDS have a correct understanding of the scriptures, would you
mind giving an exegesis of the following passages?
Acts 17:31
Hebrews 1:1-2
Romans 5:1-11
Ephesians 2:8-10
Or any of the other passages you have ignored and failed to address
would be fine as well.
> We have a living prophet,
A prophet is not required for the church in these last days for Jesus
Christ is the final authority.
God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto
the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by
his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom he also made
the worlds.
(Hebrews 1:1-2)
How do you reconcile the above passage with the "need" for a prophet to
the lead the church?
If there must be a prophet to lead the church, who was the prophet when
Jesus ascended to heaven?
> the authority of the priesthood
The requirements to hold the Aaronic Priesthood were: you must be a
Jew, you must have been from the tribe of Levi, and you must offer
sacrifices in the temple for the sins of the people (see the books of
Leviticus and Deuteronomy). Do you any of the LDS priesthood holders
fill *all* of those requirements? You can't just fill one or two, but
every single one.
The requirements to hold the Melchizedek Priesthood were: you must be
the eternal son of God, you must have laid down your life as a sacrifce
for the sins of the world, you must have been raised from the dead three
days later, you must have ascended to right hand of the God the Father,
you must make intercession for the saints daily, and you must have been
tempted in all ways but never have sinned (Hebrews 4:15; 7-9). Do any
of the LDS priesthood holders fill *all* all of those requirements? No,
not one LDS priesthood holder does. Only Jesus Christ is qualified to
hold the Melchizedek priesthood and it his forever and he shares it with
noone (Hebrews 7:24). To claim to hold the same office as that of the
Son of God is blasphemy.
> (which is necessary to enter the highest degree of glory)
Again, we go right back to the Biblical passages you continue to ignore:
Acts 17:31
Romans 5:1-11
Ephesians 2:8-10
> We also have the temples, and the specialized ordainances there.
Do you perform animal sacrifices in the temple? That is a serious
question for that is what took place in the temple during the Old
Testament period up until A.D. 70 at its final destruction at the hands
of the Roman general Titus.
Besides,There is/was no need for the temple in the church or the life of
the believer.
Jesus when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
And behold, the vail of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the
bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent.
(Matthew 27:50-51)
This passage is so important in understanding the nature of Christ's
death on the cross. The tearing of the curtain signified Christ's
making it possible for believers to go directly into God's presence.
There was no longer
The Apostle Paul expounds on this in greater detail:
Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God
dwelleth in you?
(1 Corinthians 3:16)
What? Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which
is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
(1 Corinthians 6:19)
The purpose of the temple was to be a bridge between God and man. A
place where sacrifice was to be made on behalf of the sins of the
people. However, because Jesus has made the ultimate sacrifice on the
cross by giving his own life, we no longer have need for a temple and we
no longer have need for someone to offer sacrifice for us, Jesus has
paid it all! Praise God! Because of that, Paul declares by inspiration
of the Holy Spirit that the Holy Spirit now dwells in the body and life
fo the beleiver, thus making all Christians who have faith in Christ
through his grace alone, are now the temple(s) of the Holy Spirit.
Scott Marquardt
>Stormin Mormon wrote:
>
>> Well, Mormons have a correct understanding of the scriptures.
>
>If the LDS have a correct understanding of the scriptures, would you
>mind giving an exegesis of the following passages?
>
>Acts 17:31
>Hebrews 1:1-2
>Romans 5:1-11
>Ephesians 2:8-10
Oh, and please -- 1 Cor 8:6 & context.
I'm dying to have that conversation with an LdS who'll stick it out to the
bitter end. ;-)
- Scott
Scott Marquardt
Let's not forget that while the writer to the Hebrews said that with the
work finished, Christ sat down, Mormonism insists that no, the
hypersacerdotal temple work has only begun.
Jesus sat down -- Mormons stand up!
"It is finished!"
"No, no -- we gotta do stuff!"
;-)
- Scott
John Lemings
>>If the LDS have a correct understanding of the scriptures, would you
>>mind giving an exegesis of the following passages?
>>
>>Acts 17:31
>>Hebrews 1:1-2
>>Romans 5:1-11
>>Ephesians 2:8-10
>
>
>
> Oh, and please -- 1 Cor 8:6 & context.
Great passage!
For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth as
indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us, there is but one
God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one
Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.
(1 Corinthians 8:5-6 NASB)
For the LDS here who prefer the king's English:
For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth,
(as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God,
the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus
Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
(1 Corinthians 8:5-6 KJV)
> I'm dying to have that conversation with an LdS who'll stick it out to the
> bitter end. ;-)
Indeed! I wonder if Christopher Young is up to the challenge? What say
you, Stormin Mormon? If the LDS church has the corner on how to
interpret and apply scripture, how about giving the us "Gentiles" the
proper understanding of 1 Cor. 8:5-6? :)
> - Scott
John Lemings
garydw
"Stormin Mormon" <cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bjjbv...@enews1.newsguy.com...
> Well, Mormons have a correct understanding of the scriptures. We have a
> living prophet, the authority of the priesthood (which is necessary to
enter
> the highest degree of glory) and we have the necessary ordainances.
>
> We also have the temples, and the specialized ordainances there. We also
> have personal and church wide revelation.
>
I have a question about this so called Authority:
The LDS church teaches that the Authority was restored through Joseph Smith,
correct?
The LDS church teaches that the Three Nephites still walk the earth,
correct?
If that is so, then that means that the Authority was never taken from the
Earth, becasue the three Nephites still had it, so how do you restore
something that is not gone?
Thanks
garydw
> living prophet, the authority of the priesthood (which is necessary to
enter
> the highest degree of glory) and we have the necessary ordainances.
>
> We also have the temples, and the specialized ordainances there. We also
> have personal and church wide revelation.
>
> --
>
> Christopher A. Young
> Learn more about Jesus
> www.lds.org
> www.mormons.org
> .
the truth of Mormon history.
Temple's = Places taken from the Freemason's, and not based in any teachings
of Jesus Christ.
Ordinances = Which ones did JESUS CHRIT teach?
Revelation = Like the one where Blacks where given the Priesthood, just
before the church was enter court on a discrimination law suit. Or the one
that commanded Joseph Smith to have sex with 14year old girls?
GRaleigh345
wrote:
>
>The requirements to hold the Melchizedek Priesthood were: you must be
>the eternal son of God, you must have laid down your life as a sacrifce
>for the sins of the world, you must have been raised from the dead three
>days later, you must have ascended to right hand of the God the Father,
>you must make intercession for the saints daily, and you must have been
>tempted in all ways but never have sinned (Hebrews 4:15; 7-9). Do any
>of the LDS priesthood holders fill *all* all of those requirements? No,
Can you cite any evidence that Melchizedek fulfilled any of these
requirements in the Genesis narrative? Was Mechizedek an eternal son of God?
Did Melchizedek lay down his life as a sacrifice for the sins of the world? Was
he raised from the dead on the third day? Did he ascend to the right hand of
God the Father? Did he make intercession for the saints daily? Was he tempted
in all ways, but still sinless? I do not think your argument is effective for
the target audience.
The biggest indictment against the Melchizek priesthood, John, is found in
Genesis 14:32 of the Inspired Version. "And men having this faith, coming up
unto this order of God, were translated and taken up into heaven."
The graves of Melchizedek priesthood holders in cemeteries across Utah are
a testimony to the fact that the Melchizedek priesthood in the LDS and RLDS
Churches is not a fulfillment of the scriptures. Not one of them was
translated to heaven--they died. It is not even necessary to disprove the
existence of the Melchizedek priesthood in modern times. Whether it exists or
not, the scriptures as translated by Joseph Smith, Jr. clearly state that if
such a priesthood does exist, no one has it in its proper functioning form. A
dead or defunct priesthood is no priesthood at all.
Regards,
€R.L. Measures
<burli...@ontario.ca> wrote:
> Hello Peggy,
>
> "Peggy Rogers" <proger...@xmission.com> wrote in message
> news:bjgopj$ki9$1...@terabinaries.xmission.com...
>
> > > Mormonism cannot beat these things. Mormonism does not HAVE
> > > these things (worshipping a FALSE GOD doesn't get them for you).
> >
> > Oh, I know it's silly to answer trolls,
>
> <sigh>....
> You don't understand the gospel, Peggy.
*** chortle
--
Rich, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
+ in adr = spamtrap
Andrew R
"garydw" <no.g...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:kNScnVWdl51...@speakeasy.net...
>
> "Stormin Mormon" <cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bjjbv...@enews1.newsguy.com...
> > Well, Mormons have a correct understanding of the scriptures. We have a
> > living prophet, the authority of the priesthood (which is necessary to
> enter
> > the highest degree of glory) and we have the necessary ordainances.
> >
> > We also have the temples, and the specialized ordainances there. We also
> > have personal and church wide revelation.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Christopher A. Young
> > Learn more about Jesus
> > www.lds.org
> > www.mormons.org
> > .
> Living Prophet = Public Relations figure, who is very good at covering up
> the truth of Mormon history.
>
In part, yes. Moses was a PR man, in his day.
> Temple's = Places taken from the Freemason's, and not based in any
teachings
> of Jesus Christ.
>
> Ordinances = Which ones did JESUS CHRIT teach?
Baptism.
>
> Revelation = Like the one where Blacks where given the Priesthood, just
> before the church was enter court on a discrimination law suit. Or the
one
> that commanded Joseph Smith to have sex with 14year old girls?
>
Andrew R.
Uncle Davey
Uzytkownik <chri...@velocitus.net> napisal w wiadomosci
news:08inlvcgnm0gdvcmu...@4ax.com...
They do have the comforts that the trappings of a religion that believes
itself under siege can give, and they have responsibility in the form of
eldership given to boys who have barely passed puberty, which is very nice
for them at that age, although totally unbiblical.
But this things will be of little comfort when they die. Only the atoning
blood of Christ applied to the penitent heart by faith in the Gospel will be
of any use then.
The nonsense from their Book and their pernicious doctrines will ensure that
the souls that believe it are then whisked away to a lost eternity and
endless agony unthinkable.
Uncle Davey
John Lemings
>>The requirements to hold the Melchizedek Priesthood were: you must be
>>the eternal son of God, you must have laid down your life as a sacrifce
>>for the sins of the world, you must have been raised from the dead three
>>days later, you must have ascended to right hand of the God the Father,
>>you must make intercession for the saints daily, and you must have been
>>tempted in all ways but never have sinned (Hebrews 4:15; 7-9). Do any
>>of the LDS priesthood holders fill *all* all of those requirements? No,
>
>
> Can you cite any evidence that Melchizedek fulfilled any of these
> requirements in the Genesis narrative? Was Mechizedek an eternal son of God?
> Did Melchizedek lay down his life as a sacrifice for the sins of the world? Was
> he raised from the dead on the third day? Did he ascend to the right hand of
> God the Father? Did he make intercession for the saints daily? Was he tempted
> in all ways, but still sinless? I do not think your argument is effective for
> the target audience.
Melchizedek was a *type* of Christ in the Old Testament. He was a
priest before the Levitical priesthood had even been established.
After his return from the defeat of Chedorlaomer and the kings who were
with him, the king of Sodom went out to meet him at the Valley of Shaveh
(that is the King's Valley). And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out
bread and wine (He was priest of God Most High.) And he blessed him and
said, "Blessed be Abram by God Most High, posesseor of heaven and earth;
and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your
hand!" And Abram gave him a tenth of everything.
(Genesis 14:17-20 ESV)
Melchizedek never appears again in the Old Testament, but only in
reference to Genesis 14:17-20 (Psalm 110:4). Melchizedek was only a
slight foreshadowing of the priesthood of Christ. There is also the
theory that Melchizedek was a theophony (an Old Testament appearance of
the pre-incarnate Christ) and that both men are the same person. I lean
towards this understanding, but give room for the view that he was just
a man like any other. However, it is important to note that the Bible
makes no other reference to any other person holding this priesthood
other than Jesus Christ. Of course many LDS can claim the "plain and
precious parts" defense, but that is usually the case when faced with
opposition from the Bible.
Since Jesus was not of the tribe of Levi (he is from the tribe from the
tribe of Judah), that disqualfied him from holding the Aaronic
Priesthood. Yet, we know that he is described as being the supreme high
priest (Hebrews 4:15). In order for Jesus to be a priest, God declares
him to be after the order of Melchizedek, a man who was declared a
priest by God. Melchizedek obviously could not fulfill the office of
this priesthood fully, for only Jesus Christ can (Hebrews 7-9). The key
passage that locks down the Melchizedek Priesthood belonging to Christ,
besides his qualifications, is the following:
But he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever.
(Hebrews 7:24 ESV)
The above passage can literally be translated "because he holds a
priesthood that is not passed on from one to another."
When the qualifications for the office of the Melchizedek Priesthood are
looked at in Hebrews 7-9, it is difficult for any LDS man to say that he
indeed holds the same Priesthood as that of the King of kings and Lord
of lords.
> The biggest indictment against the Melchizek priesthood, John, is found in
>
> Genesis 14:32 of the Inspired Version. "And men having this faith, coming up
> unto this order of God, were translated and taken up into heaven."
>
> The graves of Melchizedek priesthood holders in cemeteries across Utah are
> a testimony to the fact that the Melchizedek priesthood in the LDS and RLDS
> Churches is not a fulfillment of the scriptures. Not one of them was
> translated to heaven--they died. It is not even necessary to disprove the
> existence of the Melchizedek priesthood in modern times. Whether it exists or
> not, the scriptures as translated by Joseph Smith, Jr. clearly state that if
> such a priesthood does exist, no one has it in its proper functioning form. A
> dead or defunct priesthood is no priesthood at all.
Interesting note. Thank you.
> Regards,
> Raleigh
John Lemings
Jeff Shirton
> > Where does the Bible, or traditional Christianity, teach "most"
> > [of the human beings who have lived on the earth will burn]?
>
> Howzabout
>
> >" wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth
> >" to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat"
Okay, where do you see "most" in that verse, Gary?
(And are you implying that LDS reject Matt. 7:13,
and therefore *don't* believe the Bible?)
> >": "strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which
> >" leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."
Okay, where do you see "most" in that verse, Gary?
(And are you implying that LDS reject Matt. 7:14,
and therefore *don't* believe the Bible?)
> gary0
Bret Ripley
[snip]
> Melchizedek never appears again in the Old Testament, but only in
> reference to Genesis 14:17-20 (Psalm 110:4). Melchizedek was only a
> slight foreshadowing of the priesthood of Christ. There is also the
> theory that Melchizedek was a theophony
[snip]
I am by no means an expert on the subject, but texts discovered at Nag
Hammadi and Qumran indicate that there were some quite developed
Melchizedek traditions (at least in certain circles). For example
(IIRC), one of the texts found among the Dead Sea Scrolls portrays
Melchizedek as a sort of apocalyptic character, that will return to
judge mankind and establish a holy kingdom (or something like that).
This is not to say that this sort of thing played a significant role in
what came to be regarded as "mainline" Judaism or Christianity --
however, it is evident that the author of Hebrews was at least aware of
some sort of extra-canonical Melchizedek tradition.
Bret
chri...@velocitus.net
you posted in alt.religion.mormon :
><chri...@velocitus.net> wrote:
>
>> We Christians have:
>>
>> The love of God.
>> Forgiveness of all of our sins.
>> Adopted sonship.
>> The right to call God, "Abba," or "Daddy."
>> The love of the brethren.
>> Eternal life with God.
>> The Fruit of the Spirit.
>> The Holy Spirit living within us.
>> ETC ETC ETC ETC.
>>
>> Mormonism cannot beat these things. Mormonism does not HAVE these
>> things (worshipping a FALSE GOD doesn't get them for you).
>>
>> Christian
>
>Oh, I know it's silly to answer trolls,
It might be, but trolls are necessary to help protect the "lurkers"
who are looking into false religions, to guide them away from the lies
and towards the Truth.
>but for me the main thing Mormonism
>offers over traditional Christianity is this: It doesn't oblige me to
>believe that most of the human beings who have lived on the earth will burn
>in hell forever, with no chance to experience the love of God and the
>forgiveness of their sins and the Fruit of the Spirit, mainly because they
>happened to be born in a time, or in a place, or in circumstances which have
>made it impossible for them to become the happy and beloved Christians that
>you are so pleased to be one of.
>
What a LOOOOOONG sentence! :-) I have to catch my breath after
reading that one!
You could become a Hare Krishna. and believe in a god who will
re-encarnate you at a higher level if you wish. The result would be
the same. You would find out that you would BE in that hot place, in
that bad situation, just as you will if you follow J. Smith & group.
You see it doesn't matter what I or anyone else "abliges" you to
believe. What really matters in the end is what GOD said.
HE said that if you are a sinner and do NOT enter through Jesus (the
REAL one, not the made-up one of J. Smith), then you WILL go to Hell.
I'm sorry, but that is just the way it is.
If you would rather live a made-up lie, pretending that the emperor is
not naked, you may.
Christian
chri...@velocitus.net
you posted in alt.religion.mormon :
>Well, Mormons have a correct understanding of the scriptures.
Only of your MORMON "scriptures." Not of the Bible, which is from
God. Your leaders seem to have NO concept of the Bible.
>We have a living prophet,
Of the FALSE variety. One who was a lecher, married several women
(decided polygamy was good AFTER he began sleeping with his second
wife), and contradicted what God has clearly stated in His Word, the
Bible.
>the authority of the priesthood (which is necessary to enter
>the highest degree of glory) and
But NOT the priesthood of the Bible which is given to ALL Christians,
including women and girls.
Yours doesn't even RESEMBLE the Biblical priesthood other than in name
alone.
>we have the necessary ordainances.
Let's see now. Necessary. Like baptism for the dead, which
Christians have NEVER practiced. Likewise marriage for eternity?
Like those?
>
>We also have the temples,
BIBLICAL CHRISTIANS *** ARE *** temples.
Christians have NEVER built buildings called temples.
Joe Smith made that crud up.
>and the specialized ordainances there.
Like fondling women's breasts through curtains as part of the
"sealing" process?
>We also
>have personal and church wide revelation.
Revelation from WHO? Not from God. God does not contradict Himself
as your "revelation" does.
Christian
chri...@velocitus.net
you posted in alt.religion.mormon :
>>John Lemings jlm...@yahoo.com
>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>The requirements to hold the Melchizedek Priesthood were: you must be
>>the eternal son of God, you must have laid down your life as a sacrifce
>>for the sins of the world, you must have been raised from the dead three
>>days later, you must have ascended to right hand of the God the Father,
>>you must make intercession for the saints daily, and you must have been
>>tempted in all ways but never have sinned (Hebrews 4:15; 7-9). Do any
>>of the LDS priesthood holders fill *all* all of those requirements? No,
>
> Can you cite any evidence that Melchizedek fulfilled any of these
>requirements in the Genesis narrative? Was Mechizedek an eternal son of God?
>Did Melchizedek lay down his life as a sacrifice for the sins of the world? Was
>he raised from the dead on the third day? Did he ascend to the right hand of
>God the Father? Did he make intercession for the saints daily? Was he tempted
>in all ways, but still sinless? I do not think your argument is effective for
>the target audience.
>
> The biggest indictment against the Melchizek priesthood, John, is found in
>
>Genesis 14:32 of the Inspired Version. "And men having this faith, coming up
>unto this order of God, were translated and taken up into heaven."
I guess that is the equivalent of Matthew 29:41 that says "And a
prophet named Joseph Smith will someday appear and he will be a bloody
HERETIC!"
Or Romans 8:55 that says, "And Jesus appeared on a mountaintop in
Pocatello, Idaho and revealed to 13 fine Mormon people that the RLDS
and LDS churches were entirely corrupt and that He (Jesus) was
starting another NEW church!" (See Archie Dean Wood, School of the
Prophets, Pocatello, Idaho)
Christian
McSorley
"John Lemings" <jlm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dke7b.47562$Qy4.6696@fed1read05...
> Scott Marquardt wrote:
>
> >>If the LDS have a correct understanding of the scriptures, would you
> >>mind giving an exegesis of the following passages?
> >>
> >>Acts 17:31
"judge the world in righteousness"
> >>Hebrews 1:1-2
is missing "and God will NEVER speak to us through prophets again". So why
do "Mormons" have to keep answering to it?
> >>Romans 5:1-11
What is the misunderstanding?
> >>Ephesians 2:8-10
Rev 20:12
Acts 17:31
> >
> >
> >
> > Oh, and please -- 1 Cor 8:6 & context.
>
> Great passage!
For which side?
>
> For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth as
> indeed there are many gods and many lords, YET FOR US, there is but one
> God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; AND one
> Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.
> (1 Corinthians 8:5-6 NASB)
>
> For the LDS here who prefer the king's English:
>
> For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth,
> (as there be gods many, and lords many,) BUT TO US there is but one God,
> the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; AND one Lord Jesus
> Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
> (1 Corinthians 8:5-6 KJV)
>
(McSorley's emphisis add)
What does 1 Cor 8:5-6 really say? I have two questions for you..
1) why does it say "but to us" or "yet to us"? You guys act like the
scriptures says "IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE, there is but one God." but it
doesn't, it only says "to us".
2) why does it say "one God... AND... one Lord"? Shouldn't it say "or" or
maybe "one God... Who is the Lord". Then you would *really* have something.
> > I'm dying to have that conversation with an LdS who'll stick it out to
the
> > bitter end. ;-)
Why?
McSorley
>
<snip Stormins challenge>
chri...@velocitus.net
you posted in alt.religion.mormon :
>chri...@velocitus.net wrote:
>>
>> We Christians have:
>>
>> The love of God.
>> Forgiveness of all of our sins.
>> Adopted sonship.
>> The right to call God, "Abba," or "Daddy."
>> The love of the brethren.
>> Eternal life with God.
>> The Fruit of the Spirit.
>> The Holy Spirit living within us.
>> ETC ETC ETC ETC.
>>
> As do we. Plus, we can answer more questions with something better
>than God and his mysterious ways.
LOL! You REALLY think you mormons can do better than GOD?
Hahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
I'm sorry, but I just couldn't help myself.
>
>>
>> Mormonism cannot beat these things. Mormonism does not
>> HAVE these things (worshipping a FALSE GOD doesn't get them
>> for you).
>>
<I snipped the talmage wick story. If I wanted fairytales I could go
to a buhddist site, or a mooney site. They have nice stories too.
And they have just about as much to do with the REAL God as Talmage
did>
>> Christian
>>
> Me, too.
Not if you are a true-blue mormon, you're not.
John Lemings
> I guess that is the equivalent of Matthew 29:41 that says "And a
> prophet named Joseph Smith will someday appear and he will be a bloody
> HERETIC!"
>
> Or Romans 8:55 that says, "And Jesus appeared on a mountaintop in
> Pocatello, Idaho and revealed to 13 fine Mormon people that the RLDS
> and LDS churches were entirely corrupt and that He (Jesus) was
> starting another NEW church!" (See Archie Dean Wood, School of the
> Prophets, Pocatello, Idaho)
Christian, I have to tell you that your evangelism tactics are horrible.
It pains me to tell you that you have done more to damage the cause
of Christ on this newsgroup than you have to support it.
It is clear from your conversations with GRaleigh that you cannot carry
on a civil conversation. Your heart may be in the right place, but your
words are certainly poisonous. I have been able to carry on several
civil discussions with Mormons on this newsgroup, GRaleigh being at the
forefront. Him and I certainly disagree on many things, but I certainly
believe that th cordial and respectful approach I have taken with him
has gone a long way in him seeing my perspective. How do I know this?
Because Raleigh has returned my posts with respect and dignity over and
over again.
May I suggest you take some time and assess why you come here and the
message you have bring? In all honesty, I have to tell you, if you were
the only source for Christian information I had, I would have nothing to
do with it.
> Christian
John Lemings
John Lemings
>>>>Acts 17:31
>
>
> "judge the world in righteousness"
My mistake. Should be Acts 16:31, not 17:31.
>>>>Hebrews 1:1-2
>
>
> is missing "and God will NEVER speak to us through prophets again". So why
> do "Mormons" have to keep answering to it?
It says that the final prophetic message came through Jesus Christ. The
prophets of old spoke of the coming Messiah. Since the Messiah has
come, what do prophets have left to prophecy about?
>>>>Romans 5:1-11
>
>
> What is the misunderstanding?
LDS belief that salvation comes by works.
>>>>Ephesians 2:8-10
Same as Romans 5:1-11
> What does 1 Cor 8:5-6 really say?
Do you think it says something else?
> I have two questions for you..
>
> 1) why does it say "but to us" or "yet to us"? You guys act like the
> scriptures says "IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE, there is but one God." but it
> doesn't, it only says "to us".
Answered easily enough. The Corinthian church (and the entire early
church for that matter) was surrounded by the pantheon of the Greek and
Roman gods. They were also surrounded by the gods of the various
mystery religions that floated around the middle east. So, when Paul
says that there are "so-called gods", he means just that. Jupiter,
Mars, Artemis, Isis, Osiris, Zeus, Hermes, etc. are all "so-called
gods". In other words, they arent' gods at all. With so many gods
available for worship, many people worshipped several of them at one
time. This is very similiar to the Hindu faith where there are
literally over one million gods to choose from. Hindus are free to
worship just one, two, ten, seven, or all of them if they so choose. So
when Paul declares "yet for us there is one God" he is not endorsing
those gods or even intimating the existence of other gods, to do so
would be an absolute violation of the first commandment and is the exact
opposite of the Shema (Deut. 6:4; 10:17). That is why he uses the
phrase "so-called gods." For Christians, there is only God. We do not
pick and choose from a pantheon of gods or do Christians recognize the
possibility of other gods existing apart from the one true and living God.
> 2) why does it say "one God... AND... one Lord"? Shouldn't it say "or" or
> maybe "one God... Who is the Lord". Then you would *really* have something.
The Father is the source of all (Gen. 1:1) and the one for whom the
Corinthians (and all Christians) should live (1 Cor. 10:31). The Lord
Jesus Christ was the agent of creation (Col. 1:16) and the one through
whom the Corinthians (and all Christians) lived (1 Cor. 12:27; Eph.
1:23). Both are certainly differentiated here, but that does not and
should not equte to a refutation of the Trinity. Both the Father and
the Son though seperate persons, are indeed the one true God (along of
course with the Holy Spirit).
McSorley
> McSorley wrote:
>
> >>>>Acts 17:31
> >
> >
> > "judge the world in righteousness"
>
> My mistake. Should be Acts 16:31, not 17:31.
well its an interesting mistake, I believe saved and judged are the two
things we(Mormons vs Christians) argue about but really agree on for the
most part.
>
> >>>>Hebrews 1:1-2
> >
> >
> > is missing "and God will NEVER speak to us through prophets again". So
why
> > do "Mormons" have to keep answering to it?
>
> It says that the final prophetic message came through Jesus Christ. The
> prophets of old spoke of the coming Messiah. Since the Messiah has
> come, what do prophets have left to prophecy about?
>
> >>>>Romans 5:1-11
> >
> >
> > What is the misunderstanding?
>
> LDS belief that salvation comes by works.
No, really they don't. At least I don't.
Salvation comes through the atonement of Jesus and he will judge us by our
works.
Mormon are not Christians, I agree, but I don't think that where you say "or
do Christians recognize the possibility of other gods existing apart from
the one true and living God" is literally in the scriptures, only in
interpretation. I think its the same as it is for me especially when I was
a child. To me, there is only one earthly Father, while there are other
fathers out there, that doesn't matter and they don't need to even be
mentioned, my father was the only one.
>
> > 2) why does it say "one God... AND... one Lord"? Shouldn't it say "or"
or
> > maybe "one God... Who is the Lord". Then you would *really* have
something.
>
> The Father is the source of all (Gen. 1:1) and the one for whom the
> Corinthians (and all Christians) should live (1 Cor. 10:31). The Lord
> Jesus Christ was the agent of creation (Col. 1:16) and the one through
> whom the Corinthians (and all Christians) lived (1 Cor. 12:27; Eph.
> 1:23). Both are certainly differentiated here, but that does not and
> should not equte to a refutation of the Trinity. Both the Father and
> the Son though seperate persons, are indeed the one true God (along of
> course with the Holy Spirit).
>
I just don't think that you have the words there that would make it
definitively point to the Trinity. I can see how you could think that, but
I think its open for both points of view.
McSorley
Scott Marquardt
>
>"John Lemings" <jlm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:dke7b.47562$Qy4.6696@fed1read05...
>> Scott Marquardt wrote:
>>
>> >>If the LDS have a correct understanding of the scriptures, would you
>> >>mind giving an exegesis of the following passages?
>> >>
>> >>Acts 17:31
>
>"judge the world in righteousness"
>
>> >>Hebrews 1:1-2
>
>is missing "and God will NEVER speak to us through prophets again". So why
>do "Mormons" have to keep answering to it?
A nit -- you should have kept the attributions for the writer you're
responding to.
>1) why does it say "but to us" or "yet to us"? You guys act like the
>scriptures says "IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE, there is but one God." but it
>doesn't, it only says "to us".
Yes, and who are the "us?"
As for your concern with the "you guys" bit, that's not even close to being
what's important in this passage.
>2) why does it say "one God... AND... one Lord"? Shouldn't it say "or" or
>maybe "one God... Who is the Lord". Then you would *really* have something.
??
\>> > I'm dying to have that conversation with an LdS who'll stick it out
to
>the
>> > bitter end. ;-)
>
>Why?
I value disequilibration and learning for myself, so I like to see it for
others as well -- especially on a matter where exegetical gaffes have
become commonplace among LdS.
- Scott
Scott Marquardt
>Salvation comes through the atonement of Jesus and he will judge us by our
>works.
By "salvation" (are we speaking in Mormon terms?) do you mean attainment of
the CK, or escape from eternal separation from God in outer darkness? The
latter would include all Mormon kingdoms.
In the MSOT as I understand it, there's no salvation to the CK without the
performance of ordinances. These aren't "good works" such as James might
urge, these are sacerdotal rituals -- analogous to "works of the law."
As I sometimes put it in allusion to a passage in Hebrews, Jesus sat down
-- Mormons stand up!
;-)
>Mormon are not Christians, I agree, but I don't think that where you say "or
>do Christians recognize the possibility of other gods existing apart from
>the one true and living God" is literally in the scriptures, only in
>interpretation. I think its the same as it is for me especially when I was
>a child. To me, there is only one earthly Father, while there are other
>fathers out there, that doesn't matter and they don't need to even be
>mentioned, my father was the only one.
That's the LdS spin on this passage, but it's the precise spin that
absolutely, undeniably cannot be put on the passage.
- Scott
Guy R. Briggs
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
<snip>
>> As do we. Plus, we can answer more questions with something
>> better than God and his mysterious ways.
>
> LOL! You REALLY think you mormons can do better than GOD?
>
No, you have misunderstood. Mainstream Christians answer a lot of
questions with the phrase "God works in mysterious ways" - which is
just another way of saying "Mainstream Christian don't have a clue
about that."
We LdS have far fewer questions we can't answer. IOW, we have better
answers.
<snip laughter>
>>> Mormonism cannot beat these things. Mormonism does not
>>> HAVE these things (worshipping a FALSE GOD doesn't get
>>> them for you).
>>
>> I snipped the talmage wick story.
>
Easier than dealing with it, I suppose.
<snip>
>>> Christian
>>
>> Me, too.
>
> Not if you are a true-blue mormon, you're not.
>
Depends on how one defines "Christian". If the definition includes
belief in the creeds from about 325AD onward, then you're right. We
ain't Christian. If, however, you define Christian as "believes in
Christ" then we most certainly are Christians.
bestRegards, Guy.
GoddessXena
[snip]
>>Revelation = Like the one where Blacks where given the Priesthood, just
>>before the church was enter court on a discrimination law suit. Or the
>>one that commanded Joseph Smith to have sex with 14year old girls?
>
>
> This is true of prophets in general.
>
> Mohammed took an 8 year old.
> God had holy ghost sex with a 14 year Marry.
>
> Would you want to have sex with a woman after God had did her? How would
> you compare?
>
> Wasn't Joseph Smith trying to be like God?
He he he! You gave me my daily grin with this!
--
No Gods, No Masters
--
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic
and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
- Theodore Roosevelt
---
http://www.adwhore.com/adwhore/mcdonalds.html
http://www.unknownnews.net
GoddessXena
wildly at each other,
trying to prove everybody wrong.
I mean really, what's the point? What is gained, even by the
non-believers, other than the propagation of scriptural propaganda?
Arguing about religion is like running in the Special Olympics. No
matter if you win or lose you're still retarded.
--
I Believe In Life Before Death
--
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic
and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
- Theodore Roosevelt
---
http://www.adwhore.com/adwhore/mcdonalds.html
http://www.unknownnews.net
"John Lemings" <jlm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Guy R. Briggs
<snip>
> But he holds his priesthood permanently, because he
> continues forever. (Hebrews 7:24 ESV)
>
> The above passage can literally be translated "because he
> holds a priesthood that is not passed on from one to
> another."
>
I think you would have to go all the way back to Thayer's 1889
lexicon to get academic support for the idea that "aparabaton" means
"intransmissable". The lexicon of Arndt-Gingrich (in agreement with
Moulton-Milligan) gives more than a dozen secular uses of the period to
show that the term in question (aparabatos) "rather has the sense
permanent, unchangeable." (Source: BYU Studies, V.6, No.1, p.60)
bestRegards, Guy.
Scott Marquardt
> No, you have misunderstood. Mainstream Christians answer a lot of
>questions with the phrase "God works in mysterious ways" - which is
>just another way of saying "Mainstream Christian don't have a clue
>about that."
An odd thing to charge, since so many questions at SRM have betrayed
similar agnosticism among LdS over the years -- in part in explanation of
their divergent beliefs on so many matters. In other words, if LdS are so
often going to claim that certainty eludes them as a class because they're
free to be at variance with each other on so many things, it would be weird
for LdS to criticize others for observing of their own faith what must be
true even on their own (LdS) account.
Black pots and kettles?
> We LdS have far fewer questions we can't answer. IOW, we have better
>answers.
LOL
Come now. That's demonstrably a hoot (if I may speak technically). Nothing
could be a more remote possibility. Perhaps Smith supposed he was sowing to
a zephyr of clarity, but he's reaped a whirlwind of confusion. Contemporary
Mormonism's answer is to flee from calling anything official and to let LdS
believe whatever they want.
You gain universal consent by shrinking the set of Mormon beliefs far, far
narrower than, for example, what Smith, Young et al so often claimed was
God's own truth.
- Scott
Scott Marquardt
>Geesh! I've never understood the mad dash to quote scriptural passages
>wildly at each other,
>trying to prove everybody wrong.
>
>I mean really, what's the point? What is gained, even by the
>non-believers, other than the propagation of scriptural propaganda?
>
>Arguing about religion is like running in the Special Olympics. No
>matter if you win or lose you're still retarded.
So if arguing about religion is ridiculous, what would you call making
assertions and asking rhetorical questions about the argument of religion?
- Scott
GoddessXena
To quote you:
??
That's why I was asking. Can you answer my question? What is the point?
--
"There Is No Sin Greater Than Ignorance." - Rudyard Kipling
garydw
"Andrew R" <adr....@sarcastic.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bjkm2e$k4m4r$1...@ID-105978.news.uni-berlin.de...
church.
GRaleigh345
>From: chri...@velocitus.net
>Date: 9/9/03 4:30 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <0dhslvkqsbidti20c...@4ax.com>
Or a mental health warrant placing Dennis Kelvie under observation for 30
days.
Scott Marquardt
>Scott Marquardt wrote:
>> GoddessXena wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Geesh! I've never understood the mad dash to quote scriptural passages
>>>wildly at each other,
>>>trying to prove everybody wrong.
>>>
>>>I mean really, what's the point? What is gained, even by the
>>>non-believers, other than the propagation of scriptural propaganda?
>>>
>>>Arguing about religion is like running in the Special Olympics. No
>>>matter if you win or lose you're still retarded.
>>
>>
>> So if arguing about religion is ridiculous, what would you call making
>> assertions and asking rhetorical questions about the argument of religion?
>>
>> - Scott
>
>To quote you:
>
>??
>
>That's why I was asking. Can you answer my question? What is the point?
Geesh it's so weird to have to be a punch-line explaining pedant about
this.
My rhetorical question was pointing out that you're going one weirder than
those you're critiquing. You're wasting time critiquing people for wasting
time.
Which means, of course, that I'm wasting my time critiquing someone who's
wasting his time critiquing those who waste their time critiquing folks.
The difference is that I'm doing it to point out by example how ridiculous
it is to do it, whereas you apparently deem your critique an exception of
itself -- that is, your waste of time is not vulnerable to the principle of
critique to which you subscribe.
I think it's called being hoisted on your own petard.
- Scott
Mike W
> news:3F5E8061...@yahoo.com...
> Geesh! I've never understood the mad dash to quote scriptural
> passages wildly at each other, trying to prove everybody wrong.
>
> I mean really, what's the point? What is gained, even by the
> non-believers, other than the propagation of scriptural propaganda?
>
> Arguing about religion is like running in the Special Olympics. No
> matter if you win or lose you're still retarded.
LOL. It's been two years of ARM and that's got to be the funniest line to
date! :-)
Still... I should catch myself and wait for your take on FTL travel. Given
that's probably going to mean more than a few math lessons for both you and
especially me, how about this...
http://www.philosopherkings.com/ ?
Mike
Scott Marquardt
>chri...@velocitus.net wrote:
>> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>> As do we. Plus, we can answer more questions with something
>>> better than God and his mysterious ways.
>>
>> LOL! You REALLY think you mormons can do better than GOD?
>>
> No, you have misunderstood. Mainstream Christians answer a lot of
>questions with the phrase "God works in mysterious ways" - which is
>just another way of saying "Mainstream Christian don't have a clue
>about that."
I thought I'd append an entire post from Craig Olson, who posted this over
at SRM around noon today. Interesting to see the number of times Craig
simply admits, with no sense of failure, that Mormons don't know this or
that.
Craig seems to believe that not knowing things isn't a problem for Mormons.
Why should it be for anyone else?
:David / Amicus wrote:
:>
:> Since spirits are just that spirits they are incapable of experiencing
:> what we would call physical sensations - right?
:
:
:We don't know. I suspect their is more to being a spirit than meets
:the eye.
:
:> A spirit can't feel hunger or thirst.
:
:We don't know. I suspect that a spirit that has once possessed a
:physical body retains the memory of satisfying their hunger and
:thirst and may long for that feeling of satisfaction.
:>
:> So the pleasure / joy or suffering / sadness they experience can only be
:> of an emotional or intellectual nature?
:
:We don't know. I suspect that a spirit can experience intense feelings
:of joy or sorrow.
:
:> Like they don't long for material things but rather for wisdom and
:> knowledge?
:
:We don't know. I suspect that this would depend upon the spirit and
:the things they developed a longing for. I personally imagine some post-mortal
:spirits having a deep and abiding longing for the remote control.
:
:> Maybe they do long for a mateial body tho' because they know that is the
:> only means possible for exaltation?
:
:We don't know. I suspect some pre-mortal spirits may look forward to having
:a physical body for just that reason. I suspect that is not the only reason
:that some look forward to their mortal experience, and I suspect that some
:who have already possessed a physical form look back with a yearning for the
:physical that is not necessarily related to eternal glory.
:
:> Spirits do have form and occupy space and time?
:
:We don't know. I suspect that our concept of form is not too far removed from
:the concept of form in the spiritual realm, but I could be wrong. I suspect
:that our concept of occupying space and our concept of time have little to
:do with the nature of spirits.
:
:> I wonder what kind of battles the Great War in Heaven were fought?
:
:We don't know. I suspect the big ones involved Paintball.
:
:> What methods do spirits use against one another?
:
:We don't know. I suspect some of them involved name-calling and the obviously
:pre-mortal taunt of Na-na-na-na-Nah-na [Obviously pre-mortal because all children
:come prepared with this one from birth].
:
:> Maybe they were intellectual assaults?
:
:We don't know. I suspect they were spiritual.
:
:> Did the spirits in the pre-exitence have gender? Or does gender only
:> come into being when one enters into mortality?
:
:We have a statement from the First Presidency that indicates that the nature of our
:reproductive roles predates mortality.
:
:> Spirits are organized from "intelegences" aren't they?
:
:We don't know, really. We know that intelligence is eternal and cannot be created or made.
:
:> If spirits have gender do intelligences have gender also?
:
:We don't know.
:>
:> What are intelegences composed of? Are they a composite let's say made out of "truth"
:> and "light"?
:
:We don't know. Perhaps, light and truth, in that order.
:
:> A spirit in the pre-exitence can not be an angel - right?
:
:We don't know. There appear to be some rules and roles regarding spirits and angels,
:but I would not suspect I know them.
:
:> Angels are reserved for those who are either resurrected or are in paradise?
:
:We don't know. I suspect it may be possible for any spirit to be sent as a messenger
:from God.
:
:I don't know if any of these suspicions have helped.
:
:Craig
GRaleigh345
wrote:
>
>Hahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
>
>I'm sorry, but I just couldn't help myself.
Everyone on the NG understands that, Dennis. We forgive you.
If you don't get help from Charter--get help somewhere.
GoddessXena
Blah, blah, blah. You STILL haven't answered my question. *What* do
you get out of religious banter? *How* does quoting scripture benefit
you and others? *Why* are you here?
Apparently, *you* prefer to run in your own special olympics race.
What a retard.
--
All Religions Are Fairy Tales
Scott Marquardt
>Scott Marquardt wrote:
>> GoddessXena wrote:
>>>Scott Marquardt wrote:
>>>>GoddessXena wrote:
>Blah, blah, blah. You STILL haven't answered my question. *What* do
>you get out of religious banter? *How* does quoting scripture benefit
>you and others? *Why* are you here?
>
>Apparently, *you* prefer to run in your own special olympics race.
>
>What a retard.
LOL
OK, you're a good sport, I'll bite.
What do I get out of it?
Out of much of it, nothing at all. Sometimes I respond to a piece of wit in
kind. Sometimes I respond to a piece of stupidity with wit. Sometimes I
respond to a piece of wit with stupidity too, doubtless.
Most posts go unread. Seeing who's participating in a thread as I scan down
my threaded message list already gives me some idea what to expect.
Other posts command merely casual interest, and posting to them is just a
whim.
So it varies -- a lot like any range of conversation you'd have with folk's
off-line. Same difference.
Some posts -- entire threads -- are interesting. Sometimes it's the topic
itself. Sometimes it's the participants who are interesting as people.
Heck, almost everyone I know outside my job would also think talking about
Active Directory, Exchange public folders, firewalls, DNS, subnetting, SUS
services, backups, ASP.NET development in VS.NET in C#, Crystal Reports,
various Trend antivirus solutions, bayesian spam filtering, scripting, port
translation, terminal services, Citrix clients, VCASEL, N2H2 filtering,
upgrading to W2K3, DFS replication, network operations center network
segmentation, routing, power backups, monitoring and alerting, fax servers,
SQL, stored procedures, distribution lists, security groups, WAN topology,
QoS, Help desk, planning, design, testing, research, approving, purchasing,
managing, colaborating, recommending, and on and on -- are boring.
But it's what people in my vocation talk about.
Some people are bored by what others aren't bored by. That's normal.
- Scott
John Lemings
>>My mistake. Should be Acts 16:31, not 17:31.
>
>
> well its an interesting mistake, I believe saved and judged are the two
> things we(Mormons vs Christians) argue about but really agree on for the
> most part.
Yes, salvation is one of the key ares of disagreement. Judgement?
Perhaps, thought it has never come up in discussion with an LDS before,
at least not until now.
>>LDS belief that salvation comes by works.
>
>
> No, really they don't. At least I don't.
>
> Salvation comes through the atonement of Jesus and he will judge us by our
> works.
What is your definition of salvation? Does salvation mean resurrection
only? I believe that is the heart of the issue. If you say that your
eternal soul is saved only by faith in Jesus Christ through grace and of
no work of your own (Eph. 2:8-9), then you certainly are on the right
track. If you beleive that salvation only means resurrection from the
dead and then works will determine where you go in one of the three
kingdoms, then I must say you are off target.
> Mormon are not Christians, I agree, but I don't think that where you say "or
> do Christians recognize the possibility of other gods existing apart from
> the one true and living God" is literally in the scriptures, only in
> interpretation. I think its the same as it is for me especially when I was
> a child. To me, there is only one earthly Father, while there are other
> fathers out there, that doesn't matter and they don't need to even be
> mentioned, my father was the only one.
That is the LDS spin on this passage. Unfortunately the spin is not
compatible with the passage. Especially in light of 1 Cor. 8:1-4 where
Paul talks about the useless idols of Corinth in relation to the one
true and *only* living God.
> I just don't think that you have the words there that would make it
> definitively point to the Trinity. I can see how you could think that, but
> I think its open for both points of view.
I of course disagree. 1 Cor. 8:5-6 does not allow for both the
Christian understanding and the Mormon understanding. One must be right
and the other must be wrong. Paul is explicitly clear that there is no
other God, but God himself. Other gods are merely "so-called gods", in
other words, they are not gods at all but dumb idols of stone and wood.
Paul gives no room for even the remotest possibility that there are
gods that exist apart from the one true and only living God. The
prophet Isaiah certainly agreed (under inspiration of the Holy Spirit)
with Paul hundreds of years earlier.
Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen:
that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me
there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I even I, am
the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour.
(Isaiah 43:10-11)
Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of
hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
(Isaiah 44:6)
Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and
have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me?
yea, there is no God: I know not any.
(Isaiah 44:8)
They that no know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that
there is none beside me. I am the Lord, and there is none else.
(Isaiah 45:6)
Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God,
and there is none else.
(Isaiah 45:22)
Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is non else:
I am God, and there is none like me.
(Isaiah 46:9)
Six times in three chapters God tells Isaiah and the people of Israel
and the entire world that there is no other God but God himself. The
Bible is so consitent on this point. To even remotely believe, hint,
insinuate, mention, or condone that there can possibily exist any other
god apart from the one, true, and living God of all things is high
blasphemy.
So you see, McSorely, we both can't be right. One understanding must be
right, the other must be wrong. I firmly believe that the Bible is 100%
consistent throughout that there is one God and only one God. There is
no room for other gods or gods with whom we have nothing to do. The
only gods we have nothing to do with as Christians are the man made
idols of wood and stone (Deut. 28:64; Isa. 44:10-20; Ezek. 20:32).
> McSorley
John Lemings
Guy R. Briggs
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>>
>> No, you have misunderstood. Mainstream Christians answer a
>> lot of questions with the phrase "God works in mysterious
>> ways" - which is just another way of saying "Mainstream
>> Christian don't have a clue about that."
>
> An odd thing to charge, since so many questions at SRM have
> betrayed similar agnosticism among LdS over the years -- in
> part in explanation of their divergent beliefs on so many
> matters.
>
than have other mainstream Christian denominations. In matters of how
many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or whether the Pearly Gates
swing in or out, or whether premortal spirits prefer Corn Flakes to
Cocoa Puffs, I suppose we have as many unanswered questions as anyone
else.
And we /are/ free to speculate.
>
> In other words, if LdS are so often going to claim that
> certainty eludes them as a class because they're free to be
> at variance with each other on so many things, it would be
> weird for LdS to criticize others for observing of their own
> faith what must be true even on their own (LdS) account.
>
Again, it depends on the question. My EQP, a convert of about 5
years, grew up in the Bible belt. One nagging question that nobody
there could answer for him (a question, BTW, kept him from organized
religion for many years) was what he calls the "Polynesian Islander
Question" - what about the unevangelized Polynesian Islander who never
has the chance to accept Christ? Why is he condemned to hell for
eternity for a circumstance totally beyond his control?
LdS have a very good answer to that question - a better answer than
"God works in mysterious ways" - and I doubt you'll find much
disagreement among us.
>
> Black pots and kettles?
>
Sometimes.
bestRegards, Guy.
garydw
How could the Priesthood be restored, if it was actualy never lost from the
earth?
LDS teach that the Priesthood was restored through Joseph Smith, yet you
also teach that the three Nephites still walk the earth.
IF that is true then the Priesthood was never lost, so how do you restore
something that was never lost?
garydw
Peggy Rogers
I'm sure this won't satisfy you, gary, but it's an explanation that is
consistent with the LDS understanding of The Way Things Work:
In the LDS church, the priesthood actually has two parts -- there is the
priesthood itself, and then there are the "keys," which are given to
different different priesthood holders, depending on their callings and
responsibilities. The person who is "the prophet" of the LDS church is
understood to hold all of these "keys" which are available on the earth
during his time. These would include things like the authority to organize
units of the church, to ordain priesthood holders, to perform baptisms, and
so on. These keys can be delegated by the prophet to other priesthood
holders, but it needs to be done in an orderly way. For example, any priest,
even a sixteen-year-old boy, can be given the keys to perform a baptism, but
he can't just decide on his own that he's going to baptize his best friend
down in the creek. The authorization for that has to come from his bishop or
mission president or somebody. If he just does it on his own, even if he
uses the correct procedure and the prescribed words, it won't count as far
as the church is concerned.
Therefore, it would make sense to Latter-day Saints that, even though the
Three Nephites held the priesthood, they did not have the keys to do the
things you suggest. They were not "the prophet" in that sense. They could
teach about the Savior, and serve other people, but they were not authorized
to organize the church, to ordain other men to the priesthood, or even to
perform baptisms. Their functions were circumscribed by the special nature
of their calling.
Peggy
Dingleberry
"Jeff Shirton" <burli...@ontario.ca> wrote in message
news:7x57b.603$Gr.1...@read1.cgocable.net...
> Hello Peggy,
>
> You don't understand the gospel, Peggy.
> You say "no chance".
> That's not true at all.
> Everyone *did* have a chance.
> Do you know what they did with that "chance", Peggy?
> They *sinned*. The rebelled against God.
>
> Christ is a *second* chance,
If a person lived in a time or place where the gospel was not preached,
please explain how that person had a chance to accept the gospel. Since all
mankind sin as a result of the fall, all must have a chance to hear the
gospel in either this lifetime or the hereafter. Otherwise, God would be
arbitrary and a respecter of persons. But we know that Peter taught that
God is no respecter of persons but allows all the same chance for salvation.
Guy R. Briggs
his replacement must be chosen "by revelation and by the laying on of
hands." IOW, God designates a replacement, the replacement is ordained
by the surviving apostles. The best example of this is in Matthew,
where one of the first orders of business was choosing a replacement
for Judas Iscariot.
Second, at the presiding level of the Church are two quorums - the
Quorum of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the 12 Apostles. D&C
107 spells out the procedure for succession if the majority of members
of either quorum are unable to continue for some reason (for example,
when Joseph and Hyrum were assassinated) - the quorum is disbanded.
Even though Sidney Rigdon survived, he did not automatically move into
the top slot, because the QotFP had disbanded and authority passed to
the Qot12.
So even though we have 3 Nephites walking the earth - and while
you're technically correct that priesthood did not COMPLETELY pass
from the earth - there still needed to be a restoration because there
was no functioning quorum (FP OR 12) and because (apparently) God was
not designating successors.
bestRegards, Guy.
John Lemings
> Two points: First, when an apostle passes away, LdS believe that
> his replacement must be chosen "by revelation and by the laying on of
> hands." IOW, God designates a replacement, the replacement is ordained
> by the surviving apostles. The best example of this is in Matthew,
> where one of the first orders of business was choosing a replacement
> for Judas Iscariot.
That event took place in Acts 1:12-26, not in the Gospel of Matthew.
Jeff Shirton
news:93F2D8Anetzac...@24.48.107.53...
> > net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
> >>
> >> No, you have misunderstood. Mainstream Christians answer a
> >> lot of questions with the phrase "God works in mysterious
> >> ways" - which is just another way of saying "Mainstream
> >> Christian don't have a clue about that."
Well, I'd rather hear an honest, "we don't know", than
an assertion of an alleged answer which turns out to be false.
Or to put it another way, regarding Biblical answers, I much
prefer quality over quantity.
And there is Biblical *precedent* for the "we don't know" answer:
1Co 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly;
but then face to face:
now I know in part; but then shall I know
even as also I am known.
Isa 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
> Let me rephrase. We have better answers /to the important
> questions/ than have other mainstream Christian denominations.
Well, "better" and "important" are judgment calls, and not everyone
is going to agree which is "better", and which is more "important".
> Again, it depends on the question. My EQP, a convert of about 5
> years, grew up in the Bible belt. One nagging question that nobody
> there could answer for him (a question, BTW, kept him from organized
> religion for many years) was what he calls the "Polynesian Islander
> Question" - what about the unevangelized Polynesian Islander who never
> has the chance to accept Christ? Why is he condemned to hell for
> eternity for a circumstance totally beyond his control?
The answer is very *simple*, Guy. The man was *not* condemned
to hell "for a circumstance totally beyond his control". If he was
condemned to hell, it was for circumstances completely *within*
his control, namely his willingness to sin. One isn't sent to hell
for "not hearing Jesus", one is sent to hell for *sinning*.
One does not need to hear the specific syllables, "Jee-sus", in order
to know the true God, and see their own sin. Romans 1-2 is very
clear on that point.
So you see, Guy, mainstream Christianity *does* have answers
to questions like these. You may disagree with the answers,
you may reject the answers, but you can't say that there *are*
no such answers.
You speak as if God "owes" everyone salvation. He does not.
You seem to forget that all of mankind are sinners, and all
of mankind have earned their just desserts with their own sins
against God.
Rom 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?
Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it,
Why hast thou made me thus?
Rom 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same
lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another
unto dishonour?
Rom 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make
his power known, endured with much longsuffering
the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
Rom 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory
on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto
glory,
Rom 9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only,
but also of the Gentiles?
Mormonism *doesn't* have "good answers", Guy.
It can't answer Rom. 9:11-24.
It can't answer Isa. 43-46.
It can't answer Rom. 11:6, Gal. 2:16,21, 5:4.
It can't answer Ps. 14:2-3, 53:2-3, Rom. 3:10-12.
It can't answer Heb. 7-10.
> bestRegards, Guy.
--
Jeff Shirton jshirton at cogeco dot
ca
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
"[T]he gospel is not that man can become God,
but that God became a man." -- James White
Challenge me (Theophilus) for a game of chess at Chessworld.net!
Guy R. Briggs
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
<snip>
>> The best example of this is in Matthew, where one of the
>> first orders of business was choosing a replacement for
>> Judas Iscariot.
>
> That event took place in Acts 1:12-26, not in the Gospel
> of Matthew.
>
You are correct, of course. What was I thinking? Thinking Matthias
- the replacement apostle - and wrote Matthew instead of Acts.
bestRegards, Guy.
garydw
"Peggy Rogers" <proger...@xmission.com> wrote in message
news:bjngl1$2va$1...@terabinaries.xmission.com...
Interesting answer, but fails to cover one thing. Jesus Christ gave the
authority during his ministry on earth, and he did not take it away. So who
did?
gary0
> gary0 ...
> > Jeff Shirton ...
> > > Where does the Bible, or traditional Christianity,
> > > teach "most" [of the human beings who have lived
> > > on the earth will burn]?
> >
> > Howzabout
> >
> > >" wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth
> > >" to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat"
>
> Okay, where do you see "most" in that verse, Gary?
In that verse, I see "many," not "most;" "most" comes out of finding
"many" in one verse and "few" in another.
> > >" strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which
> > >" leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."
>
> Okay, where do you see "most" in that verse, Gary?
In that verse, I see "few," not "most;" "most" comes out of finding
"many" in one verse and "few" in another.
From the two verses, one sees:
Humanity is divided into two parts.
One part takes the path that leads to life; there are "few" in this
group.
One part takes the path that leads to destruction; there are "many" in
this group.
Since "many" is much larger than "few," of the total (all of humanity;
i.e., both groups combined), "most" take the path that leads to
destruction.
QED
gary0
gary0
> gary0 ...
> > Jeff Shirton ...
> > > Where does the Bible, or traditional Christianity,
> > > teach "most" [of the human beings who have lived
> > > on the earth will burn]?
> >
> > Howzabout
> >
> > >" wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth"
> > >" to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat"
>
> and therefore *don't* believe the Bible?
Nope. LDS accept Matt. 7:13; it's Calvinism that rejects it.
Scripture sez, *most* go in at the way that leadeth to destruction;
Calvinism sez *all* do, all being hopelessly depraved and incapable of
choosing life.
> > >" strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which"
> > >" leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."
>
> ... Are you implying that LDS reject Matt. 7:14,
> and therefore *don't* believe the Bible?)
Nope. LDS accept Matt. 7:14; it's Calvinism that rejects it.
Scripture sez, *some* go in at the way that leadeth unto life;
Calvinism sez *none* do, all being hopelessly depraved and incapable
of choosing life.
gary0
gary0
[all snipped]
Silly troll.
Your question makes no sense!
It's the equivalent of, "what does Philadelphia offer that Pennsylvania can't beat?"
gary0
Scott Marquardt
Please defend that paragraph.
- Scott
Scott Marquardt
>RwEaMs...@hotmail.com (Scott Marquardt) wrote:
>> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>>>
>>> No, you have misunderstood. Mainstream Christians answer a
>>> lot of questions with the phrase "God works in mysterious
>>> ways" - which is just another way of saying "Mainstream
>>> Christian don't have a clue about that."
>>
>> An odd thing to charge, since so many questions at SRM have
>> betrayed similar agnosticism among LdS over the years -- in
>> part in explanation of their divergent beliefs on so many
>> matters.
>>
> Let me rephrase. We have better answers /to the important questions/
>than have other mainstream Christian denominations. In matters of how
>many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or whether the Pearly Gates
>swing in or out, or whether premortal spirits prefer Corn Flakes to
>Cocoa Puffs, I suppose we have as many unanswered questions as anyone
>else.
A red herring and you know it. Straw man too. You know very well that LdS
are all over the map on far more theologically fundamental issues.
I guess I'll have to spring the trap.
What *must* you believe, at a minimum, to be an LdS enroute to the CK?
We can assume, then, that one may believe anything else at all.
>
> And we /are/ free to speculate.
>
It's kind of human, I'd think.
>>
>> In other words, if LdS are so often going to claim that
>> certainty eludes them as a class because they're free to be
>> at variance with each other on so many things, it would be
>> weird for LdS to criticize others for observing of their own
>> faith what must be true even on their own (LdS) account.
>>
> Again, it depends on the question. My EQP, a convert of about 5
>years, grew up in the Bible belt. One nagging question that nobody
>there could answer for him (a question, BTW, kept him from organized
>religion for many years) was what he calls the "Polynesian Islander
>Question" - what about the unevangelized Polynesian Islander who never
>has the chance to accept Christ? Why is he condemned to hell for
>eternity for a circumstance totally beyond his control?
Since it's a basic, fundamental question answered in Paul's first chapters
of Romans, this tired, cliche objection is not credibly taken as sincere.
One would expect an argument with Paul, not an incredulous asking anyone
who comes along as if no answer had ever been put in scripture.
Wonders never cease.
> LdS have a very good answer to that question - a better answer than
>"God works in mysterious ways" - and I doubt you'll find much
>disagreement among us.
But no answer is "better" if it's not true. If we judged all religions by
what we thought were the "better" answers they gave, we could easily
embrace any number of untrue things. Or for that matter, if we actively
avoided "better" answers, we'd end up on the same heap.
I guess you'd have to defend a concrete meaning for "better;" there's
little sense us arguing the matter when we don't know what you mean.
- Scott
chri...@velocitus.net
you posted in alt.religion.mormon :
>
>>> As do we. Plus, we can answer more questions with something
>>> better than God and his mysterious ways.
>>
>> LOL! You REALLY think you mormons can do better than GOD?
>>
>questions with the phrase "God works in mysterious ways" - which is
>just another way of saying "Mainstream Christian don't have a clue
>about that."
We sometimes use that phrase. Usually as a comment about how He has
done something wonderful in our lives that we really don't deserve.
We don't use it though, to "explain" theological issues, or in leiu of
truth.
>
> We LdS have far fewer questions we can't answer. IOW, we have better
>answers.
Actually you don't. First you have to read your contradictory
"scriptures." Then you have to listen to your leaders' "explanations"
of what those contradictory "scriptures" mean. Then you have to not
only figure out what the scriptures themselves meant, but what your
leaders' explanations meant.
We on the other hand, have the Bible, the Word of God, and the Holy
Spirit to guide our understandings.
Less complicated to figure out. BTW we also have Godly pastors who
are pretty studied too, but we check their answers pretty closely.
Like the Bereans in the Bible checked out the Apostles.
>
><snip laughter>
>
>>>> Mormonism cannot beat these things. Mormonism does not
>>>> HAVE these things (worshipping a FALSE GOD doesn't get
>>>> them for you).
>>>
>>> I snipped the talmage wick story.
>>
> Easier than dealing with it, I suppose.
Nothing to deal with. A nice little story with a moral to it. I can
get those from library books.
I am interested in things that come from God, not just witty little
stories.
>
><snip>
>
>>>> Christian
>>>
>>> Me, too.
>>
>> Not if you are a true-blue mormon, you're not.
>>
> Depends on how one defines "Christian". If the definition includes
>belief in the creeds from about 325AD onward, then you're right. We
>ain't Christian. If, however, you define Christian as "believes in
>Christ" then we most certainly are Christians.
>
I will be a little more narrow than that in my definition.
I believe a Christian is one who follows the REAL Jesus Christ, the
Jesus of the Bible, and not a made-up Jesus, made up by J. Smith.
Creeds? They are flimsy man-made devices made in attempts to express
what God is. Your Articles of Faith are creeds, by definition. They
are statements that "this is what [you] believe." Credo.
But I will stick to what God has actually given us, in the Bible.
J. Smith's made-up stuff about his own version of "Jesus" doesn't
fly.
Christian
chri...@velocitus.net
you posted in alt.religion.mormon :
No Gary,
Mormonism claims to have "restored" things we Christians are supposed
to have "lost." They have added "crud" like "marriage for eternity,"
"baptism for the dead," "you can become god of your own world," and
other such "stuff" to their religion and have claimed that this is
some of the things we "lost."
My question to them is what do they REALLY have to offer that
Christianity (a DIFFERENT TYPE OF PEOPLE) cannot beat?
Christian
GRaleigh345
>Message-id: <c641mv813c48bpd25...@4ax.com>
Gary, I'd wouldn't be phazed by Dennis' ramblings. He believes that the
RLDS Church believes in the Pearl of Great Price, that it believes in Celestial
Marriage, and in Baptism for the Dead. With research like that, I doubt he
knows much about the LDS church, either. In fact, I know more than he does
about his own church, after visiting their official website.
Jeff Shirton
news:705993fb.03091...@posting.google.com...
> > ... Are you implying that LDS reject Matt. 7:13,
> > and therefore *don't* believe the Bible?
>
> Nope. LDS accept Matt. 7:13;
Then why do you criticize about the idea of "most" and
"few", when you argued so well that Matt. 7:13 says just that?
> it's Calvinism that rejects it.
Um, no, we don't.
> Scripture sez, *most* go in at the way that leadeth
> to destruction; Calvinism sez *all* do, all being
> hopelessly depraved and incapable of choosing life.
Well, you're equivocating here, in a couple of ways.
First of all, it's the *BIBLE* that says we're all hopelessly
depraved (Isa. 64:8, Ps. 14:2-3, 53:2-3, etc.) and incapable
of choosing life (Ps. 14:2-3, John 6:44,65, etc.).
Second, it's a *long* path, and Calvinists believe that God's
elect do not continue on the path, but are taken *off* the
path by God's grace. So we fully accept Matt. 7:13, as
well as accepting *all* of the Bible.
> gary0
Jeff Shirton
> >If a person lived in a time or place where the gospel was not
> >preached, please explain how that person had a chance to
> >accept the gospel.
Why? Paul already explained it 1900 years ago.
It sounds like you need to read the book of Romans, as the
part you're asking about is found in the first couple of chapters.
I'll summarize for you:
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven
against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men,
who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19 BECAUSE THAT WHICH MAY BE KNOWN OF GOD
IS MANIFEST IN THEM; for God hath shewed it unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the
world are clearly seen, being understood by the things
that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead;
SO THAT THEY ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE;
And again:
Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall
also perish without law: and as many as have
sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God,
but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law,
DO BY NATURE the things contained in the law,
these, having not the law, ARE A LAW UNTO THEMSELVES:
Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts,
their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts
the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
> >Since all mankind sin as a result of the fall, all must have a chance
> >to hear the gospel in either this lifetime or the hereafter.
Read Romans 1-2.
> > Otherwise, God would be arbitrary and a respecter of persons.
> > But we know that Peter taught that God is no respecter
> > of persons but allows all the same chance for salvation.
This idea of "no respecter of persons" is a very misunderstood
concept by LDS and others. What is means to be a "respecter
of persons" is that one allows themselves to be influenced by
another based on what they do, or who they are.
I'm a teacher, and so the hypothetical situation presents itself.
If I were to change a student's mark because they volunteered
to clean my blackboard erasers all semester, I would be a
"respecter of persons". If I passed someone who clearly had
a failing grade, simply because their uncle was the School Board
superintendent, I would be a "respecter of persons". If I altered
marks because I either had a "favourite" ethnic group, or I "disliked"
a particular ethnic group, I would be a respecter of persons".
Being a "respecter" of persons" means allowing *them* to influence
your decisions. In the context of the Bible, it is used of ethnic
groups, and it is in the context of God not simply favouring the
Jewish people (for that would make God a respecter of persons),
but *all* people groups, which is the reason for the inclusion of
Gentiles into the gospel.
Now, as the gospel stands, *all* mankind are an abomination before
God, wretched sinners, the *best* of whose "righteouss" acts are as
filthy menstrual rags (Isa. 64:6). So God is not a "respecter of persons"
when He chooses the elect but leaves the reprobate, for we are all
alike, equally abominable, and there is nothing about *us* which
affects His choice of the elect.
> Please defend that paragraph.
>
> - Scott
Yes, I would like to see him defend that paragraph as well.
GoddessXena
Thank you for your response!
--
Bipartisanship: I'll hug your elephant if you'll kiss my ass
Jeff Shirton
news:705993fb.03091...@posting.google.com...
> > Christian ...
> [all snipped]
>
> Your question makes no sense!
>
> It's the equivalent of, "what does Philadelphia offer that
> Pennsylvania can't beat?"
No, gary... You're simply begging the question, by *assuming*
that Mormonism is a subset of Christianity.
We can just as easily say, "It's the equivalent of, 'what does Tallahassee
offer that Pennsylvania can't beat? Whaddya mean?! Tallahassee *is*
in Pennsylvania!!! You troll!!!!!!"
One can demonstrate that Philly is in PA simply by looking at
a map, and can equally demonstrate that Tallahassee isn't in PA,
by looking at the same map (or a map of Florida).
If you're going to simply make empty claims (over and over)
that "Mormons *are* Christians, and anyone who says different
is a troll", then you may as well join Stormin's little club.
> gary0
McSorley
"Scott Marquardt" <du...@dude.com> wrote in message
news:c2vslv8q17lti99kn...@4ax.com...
> McSorley wrote:
>
> >Salvation comes through the atonement of Jesus and he will judge us by
our
> >works.
>
of
> the CK, or escape from eternal separation from God in outer darkness? The
> latter would include all Mormon kingdoms.
the latter.
>
> In the MSOT as I understand it, there's no salvation to the CK without the
> performance of ordinances. These aren't "good works" such as James might
> urge, these are sacerdotal rituals -- analogous to "works of the law."
>
> As I sometimes put it in allusion to a passage in Hebrews, Jesus sat down
> -- Mormons stand up!
>
> ;-)
>
> >Mormon are not Christians, I agree, but I don't think that where you say
"or
> >do Christians recognize the possibility of other gods existing apart from
> >the one true and living God" is literally in the scriptures, only in
> >interpretation. I think its the same as it is for me especially when I
was
> >a child. To me, there is only one earthly Father, while there are other
> >fathers out there, that doesn't matter and they don't need to even be
> >mentioned, my father was the only one.
>
> That's the LdS spin on this passage, but it's the precise spin that
> absolutely, undeniably cannot be put on the passage.
Why?
McSorley
McSorley
"John Lemings" <jlm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:PGz7b.47725$Qy4.27997@fed1read05...
> McSorley wrote:
>
> >>My mistake. Should be Acts 16:31, not 17:31.
> >
> >
> > well its an interesting mistake, I believe saved and judged are the two
> > things we(Mormons vs Christians) argue about but really agree on for the
> > most part.
>
> Yes, salvation is one of the key ares of disagreement. Judgement?
> Perhaps, thought it has never come up in discussion with an LDS before,
> at least not until now.
thats surprising. What do you believe Judgement is?
>
> >>LDS belief that salvation comes by works.
> >
> >
> > No, really they don't. At least I don't.
> >
> > Salvation comes through the atonement of Jesus and he will judge us by
our
> > works.
>
> What is your definition of salvation? Does salvation mean resurrection
> only?
It means that you *can* be forgiven for you sins.
> I believe that is the heart of the issue. If you say that your
> eternal soul is saved only by faith in Jesus Christ through grace and of
> no work of your own (Eph. 2:8-9), then you certainly are on the right
> track. If you beleive that salvation only means resurrection from the
> dead and then works will determine where you go in one of the three
> kingdoms, then I must say you are off target.
what does "Judged according to their works" mean to you then?
>
> > Mormon are not Christians, I agree, but I don't think that where you say
"or
> > do Christians recognize the possibility of other gods existing apart
from
> > the one true and living God" is literally in the scriptures, only in
> > interpretation. I think its the same as it is for me especially when I
was
> > a child. To me, there is only one earthly Father, while there are other
> > fathers out there, that doesn't matter and they don't need to even be
> > mentioned, my father was the only one.
>
> That is the LDS spin on this passage. Unfortunately the spin is not
> compatible with the passage. Especially in light of 1 Cor. 8:1-4 where
> Paul talks about the useless idols of Corinth in relation to the one
> true and *only* living God.
I believe its because of their tendancy to worship useless idols that the
message is "worship the one true and *only* living God."
There is no other God. That is the message. I believe that it is what
those people needed to believe. But there are scriptures(1) that imply that
we will become like God, and people have taken it upon themselves to take
that to the next level and turn it into cycle just list the one here on
earth. I think we don't need to know that and are better off just believing
in, worshiping, serving and following that one God, and not playing "what
can I figure out before its time".
1. Acts 17: 29 we are the offspring of God.
http://scriptures.lds.org/tgm/mnptntlb
I bet you know the rest.
>
> So you see, McSorely, we both can't be right.
I don't think we both are, just that we can both make solid arguements for
each side from that same source. Ultimately we will always have to choose
what we want to believe.
>One understanding must be
> right, the other must be wrong. I firmly believe that the Bible is 100%
> consistent throughout that there is one God and only one God. There is
> no room for other gods or gods with whom we have nothing to do. The
> only gods we have nothing to do with as Christians are the man made
> idols of wood and stone (Deut. 28:64; Isa. 44:10-20; Ezek. 20:32).]
If I had to explain to those people that there is only one God to worship, I
wouldn't mention that I believe that God has a family too.
McSorley
GRP
> No Gary,
>
> Mormonism claims to have "restored" things we Christians are supposed
> to have "lost." They have added "crud" like "marriage for eternity,"
> "baptism for the dead," "you can become god of your own world," and
> other such "stuff" to their religion and have claimed that this is
> some of the things we "lost."
>
> My question to them is what do they REALLY have to offer that
> Christianity (a DIFFERENT TYPE OF PEOPLE) cannot beat?
>
> Christian
Ok I'll bite... I'm not asking you to beleive in these things, but I
would like to point out that they are not "crud."
Marriage for eternity is "Crud":
This is a very beautiful doctrine. Is marriage between a man and
woman sactioned by God? So you are here on earth in your 80s and your
wife has just died, your wife with which you raised children, endured
hardship, shared joy, and built your life with. Now its gone "Till
death do you part." Even if you don't beleive you can be togheter
after this life, it could hardly be called "crud"
Baptism for the dead is "Crud":
This is a wonderful doctrine that shows the grace of God. In your
beleif what happens to those that didn't have a chance to hear of
Jesus Christ? Are the all lost? If salvation requires faith, but
they had nothing to have faith in, does that mean they don't have
salvation? Baptism for the dead is a doctrine of Grace and not "crud"
in my opinon.
Becoming a god of your own world is "Crud":
What are we going to do after we die? Play a harp on a cloud wearing
wings? Why were we sent to this world where we can learn geology,
astronomy, biology, chemistry, etc... ? The idea gives me a desire to
learn and progress. Would me becoming a god take anything away from
God? Do children taken anything from their parents when the do good?
Are we not heirs of God, joint heirs with Christ? (Romans 8:17,
Galatians 4:7) I don't think that being an heir of God is "crud"
I hope that you can see that these things would be desireable, even if
you don't beleive it.
GRP
McSorley
"GRP" <grpg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7d2b575c.03091...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > No Gary,
> >
> > Mormonism claims to have "restored" things we Christians are supposed
> > to have "lost." They have added "crud" like "marriage for eternity,"
> > "baptism for the dead," "you can become god of your own world," and
> > other such "stuff" to their religion and have claimed that this is
> > some of the things we "lost."
> >
> > My question to them is what do they REALLY have to offer that
> > Christianity (a DIFFERENT TYPE OF PEOPLE) cannot beat?
> >
> > Christian
>
> Ok I'll bite... I'm not asking you to beleive in these things, but I
> would like to point out that they are not "crud."
>
To you they may not be. To me its just an example of Matt 7:6.
Its not likely that you are going to reach someone who would trample over
such ideas with no respect to the people who believe them. Its weird to me.
I can imagine having the audacity to go to some religious newsgroup and call
their beliefs "crud". What would that profit? Would it make one feel good?
McSorley
Agonistes
[snip]
> Now, as the gospel stands, *all* mankind are an abomination before
> God, wretched sinners, the *best* of whose "righteouss" acts are as
> filthy menstrual rags (Isa. 64:6). So God is not a "respecter of persons"
> when He chooses the elect but leaves the reprobate, for we are all
> alike, equally abominable
Except, of course, no "equally abominable" man could have fudged anything
you might find in Jeff's Bible.
Scott Marquardt
>Now, as the gospel stands, *all* mankind are an abomination before
>God, wretched sinners, the *best* of whose "righteouss" acts are as
>filthy menstrual rags (Isa. 64:6). So God is not a "respecter of persons"
>when He chooses the elect but leaves the reprobate, for we are all
>alike, equally abominable, and there is nothing about *us* which
>affects His choice of the elect.
Pretty well put, I'd say.
The offense seems to come in when people suppose that "there's something
about the chosen ones" that's salutary, that commends them to God's
attention. But Paul rules that out so clearly. It's entirely God's
choosing, for God's reasons.
Man, if the point you're making in that post could just be absorbed around
here...
- Scott
Scott Marquardt
>"Scott Marquardt" <du...@dude.com> wrote in message
>> That's the LdS spin on this passage, but it's the precise spin that
>> absolutely, undeniably cannot be put on the passage.
>
>Why?
Read it without thinking about Mormon use of the passage.
Notice that no LdS here are defending it?
Interesting.
;-)
- Scott
gary0
> gary0 ...
> > > Christian ... [all snipped]
> > Your question makes no sense! It's the equivalent of,
> > "what does Philadelphia offer that Pennsylvania can't beat?"
>
> No, gary... You're simply begging the question, by *assuming*
> that Mormonism is a subset of Christianity.
It's not "begging the question" to use standard English. Any standard
English dictionary, coupled with the name and teachings of the LDS
Church, will amply demonstrate that Mormonism is a subset of
Christianity.
From
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=christian
>: Christian (noun)
>: 1) One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ
>: or follows the religion based on the life and
>: teachings of Jesus.
>:
>: 2) One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.
LDS qualify.
It is, however, deceitful to re-define words at your pleasure.
If you use private, bigoted word definitions, don't be surprised if
you are misunderstood. You will also -- deliberately -- sow
misunderstanding, unless you are "up front" about your re-definition;
naive readers will assume you are using standard definitions unless
you tell them otherwise.
Do you *really,* *honestly* believe that LDS don't profess belief in
Jesus as Christ? That's what readers will assume, given your
assertions.
Do you *really,* *honestly* believe that LDS don't follow the religion
based on the life and teachings of Jesus? That's what readers will
assume, given your assertions.
> We can just as easily say, "It's the equivalent of, 'what does Tallahassee
> offer that Pennsylvania can't beat? Whaddya mean?! Tallahassee *is*
> in Pennsylvania!!! You troll!!!!!!"
Only if you ignore standard, accepted English definitions of
"Christian."
> One can demonstrate that Philly is in PA simply
> by looking at a map, ...
And one can demonstrate that LDS are Christian simply by looking in
any good dictionary.
> If you're going to simply make empty claims (over and over)
> that "Mormons *are* Christians, and anyone who says different
> is a troll", then you may as well join Stormin's little club.
If you're going to simply make empty claims (over and over) that
"Mormons *aren't* Christians," despite the *demonstrated* *fact* that,
by standard definitions of the word "Christian," they *are*, then you
may as well give up hope of communicating with those who use standard
English.
Challenge for Jeff:
Find a standard, widely-used English dictionary that *doesn't* contain
a definition of "Christian" that the LDS Church satisfies.
If you *can't,* honesty and intellectual rigor should prompt you to
stop using the semantic tricks of a deceitful bigot.
gary0
"When I use a word, it means exactly what I want it to mean; neither
more nor less." - Humpty Dumpty
Scott Marquardt
>Jeff Shirton ...
>> gary0 ...
>> > > troll ...
>> > > Christian ... [all snipped]
>> > Your question makes no sense! It's the equivalent of,
>> > "what does Philadelphia offer that Pennsylvania can't beat?"
>>
>> No, gary... You're simply begging the question, by *assuming*
>> that Mormonism is a subset of Christianity.
>
>It's not "begging the question" to use standard English. Any standard
>English dictionary, coupled with the name and teachings of the LDS
>Church, will amply demonstrate that Mormonism is a subset of
>Christianity.
>
>From
>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=christian
So Mormonism wants to be known as a subset of a cohort comprised of more
than 99% apostates (I'm being accurate, BTW), on the Mormon view?
Why would you want a reputation as being "as Christian as those hundreds of
millions of apostates who are part of 'the whore of all the earth'?"
- Scott
gary0
> gary0 ...
>
> > > and therefore *don't* believe the Bible?
> >
>
> Then why do you criticize about the idea of "most" and
> "few", when you argued so well that Matt. 7:13 says just that?
Boy, you're good!
*You* critized the idea of "most!"
Jeff Shirton ...
> "Most"?! Where does the Bible, or traditional Christianity,
> teach "most" [of the human beings who have lived on the
> earth will burn]? I've only ever heard this "most" claim by
> anti-Christians trying to engage in mud-slinging, and
> trying to make their opponents look as bad as possible ...
*You* asked for Biblical support of "most;" I provided it. Now, you're
claiming the positions are *exactly* *reversed!* Truly Orwellian!
> ... it's the *BIBLE* that says we're all hopelessly
> depraved (Isa. 64:8, Ps. 14:2-3, 53:2-3, etc.) and incapable
> of choosing life (Ps. 14:2-3, John 6:44,65, etc.).
It's the *BIBLE* that says some enter in at the path that leads to
life, are righteous, do good, and are perfect.
gary0
Scott Marquardt
>On Thursday 11 September 2003 20:18, Scott Marquardt <du...@dude.com> typed:
>It seems so useless of a doctrine with no motivating aspects.
So does gravity.
But I'm not so sure it's not motivating. *If* one believes God is good,
*then* it's good to know he chooses freely, and isn't conditioned in those
choices by the acts of ignoble savages like us.
*If* you don't believe God is good (or indeed, exists at all), *then* your
mileage will vary dramatically.
My emphasis is to underscore the logic. Given some premises, certain
attitudes follow.
In the following, it appears that your mileage is varying dramatically.
Therefore, by reduction, we conclude that your premise varies as well.
>If the God of
>Scott and Jeff has decided to create you as a failure destined for eternal
>suffering, then sing some praises. If the God of Scott and Jeff has
>decided to create you however imperfect and then save you as an elect, then
>sing some praises. In fact, regardless of if you are one of the damned or
>elect, you can tell the god of Scott and Jeff to go fuck himself as that
>will have no effect on the decision that has already been made.
>
>So, God of Scott and Jeff, go fuck yourself. Now, did my work just have an
>effect on my salvation?
I should think such an epithet, sincerely delivered, would be evidence of
far more substantive rejection of God.
However, I note that many biblical writers express the same attitude at
times. There are times when belief in God and reality in one's face compell
a lot of heavenward anger. I think that's normal -- and I think God thinks
it's normal too.
Christians believe that God's anger about sin is far worse than yours, or
mine. That he doesn't snap his fingers to end it angers us, too.
Nevertheless, the Christian assertion of God's anger about the human
condition is central; Jesus took that "wrath" on himself. Obviously if you
don't believe that, it's all nonsense. But that Christians believe God's
anger about our messy world is even more profound than humankind's, is not
debatable.
- Scott
Guy R. Briggs
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
<deletia>
>>>> No, you have misunderstood. Mainstream Christians answer a
>>>> lot of questions with the phrase "God works in mysterious
>>>> ways" - which is just another way of saying "Mainstream
>>>> Christian don't have a clue about that."
>
> Well, I'd rather hear an honest, "we don't know", than an
> assertion of an alleged answer which turns out to be false.
>
As would we, Jeff. As would we. That's why I try my best to post
only things I believe are true.
<snip>
>> Let me rephrase. We have better answers /to the important
>> questions/ than have other mainstream Christian
>> denominations.
>
> Well, "better" and "important" are judgment calls, and not
> everyone is going to agree which is "better", and which is
> more "important".
>
Mankind has been asking the important questions for thousands of
years. Where did we come from? Why are we here? What awaits us after
this life, if anything? Mormonism has the best answers to these
questions.
>>
>> Again, it depends on the question. My EQP, a convert of
>> about 5 years, grew up in the Bible belt. One nagging
>> question that nobody there could answer for him (a
>> question, BTW, kept him from organized religion for many
>> years) was what he calls the "Polynesian Islander
>> Question" - what about the unevangelized Polynesian
>> Islander who never has the chance to accept Christ? Why
>> is he condemned to hell for eternity for a circumstance
>> totally beyond his control?
>
> The answer is very *simple*, Guy. The man was *not*
> condemned to hell "for a circumstance totally beyond his
> control". If he was condemned to hell, it was for
> circumstances completely *within* his control, namely his
> willingness to sin.
>
If unevangelized, how could he possibly know he WAS sinning, let
alone be "willing" to do so?
How can his circumstances be "*within* his control" when he was
created in his "totally depraved" condition to begin with?
How is his alleged "control" any more or less than the evangelized
individual of the so-called "elect" category - who has some sort of
magical spark planted in him that draws him "irresistably" toward
grace? Saved and non-saved, Jeff, they all fall short. The only
difference is that God (according to Calvin) decided that some are born
to be saved and some are born to burn forever. That is the only
difference in them.
<snip>
> Mormonism *doesn't* have "good answers", Guy.
> It can't answer Rom. 9:11-24.
>
It most certainly can, and better than mainstream Christianity
because we understand the concept of pre-existence.
"To bring to pass the salvation of the greatest
possible number of his spirit children the Lord, in
general, sends the most righteous and worthy saints
to earth through the lineage of Abraham and Jacob.
This course is a manifestation of his grace or in
other words his love, mercy, and condescension
toward his children.
"This election to a chosen lineage is based on
pre-existent worthiness and is thus made 'according
to the foreknowledge of God.' (1 Pet.1:2) Those so
grouped together during their mortal probation have
more abundant opportunities to make and keep
covenants of salvation, a right which they earned by
pre-existent devotion to the cause of righteousness."
-- McConkie, _Doctrinal New Testament
Commentary_, V.2, p.274
IOW, our opportunities - and responsibilities - in this life are
based, in large measure, on the progress we made before we came here.
The elect are sent through Israel. The non-elect are not.
Why is ours a better answer? Because it removes the arbitrary and
capricious nature ascribed to God by mainstream Christianity. See my
comment on Calvin, above.
>
> It can't answer Isa. 43-46.
>
What, have you gone J.W. on us? (Just kidding!) Again, we CAN
answer these passages. We use "one God" in the same sense as it was
used by Jesus Christ in Gethsamane. After thanking his father for the
disciples, we read:
"Holy Father, keep through thine own name those that
thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are."
IOW, we don't have to invent a non-Biblical word, trinity, to
describe the well-there-actually-are-three-Gods-but-there-is-really-
only-one concept of creedal Christianity. No mumbo-jumbo about ousia.
Think you're a monotheist? Ask a /true/ monotheist (a Moslem, for
example) if he thinks Christians are monotheistic or not. The answer
may surprise you.
So we believe in one God. We believe that before God there was no
God formed. Neither shall there be any God after God. God being a
priesthood quorum with at least three members: the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Ghost.
Why is this a better answer? For one, it eliminates the confusion of
trinitarian concepts. It solves the problem of Christ praying to
himself in Gethsemane and giving up his spirit to himself at Golgotha.
He's not a ventriloquist, standing in the Jordan with John the Baptist
and announcing from heaven how he is pleased with himself.
>
> It can't answer Rom. 11:6, Gal. 2:16,21, 5:4.
>
Again, we CAN answer these passages. It IS by grace we are saved. To
quote BYU Professor Stephen E. Robinson:
"... anyone who believes that it is possible to earn
salvation apart from the merits, mercy and grace of
Christ is not a true Christian nor, as the Book of
Mormon clearly indicates (2 Nep.2:80), a true
Latter-day Saint. Such a doctrine is foreign to the
religion I practice and teach, and I am not aware of
any element within the LdS Church that would propose
any other name or any other way into the kingdom of
God than through Christ Jesus."
-- How Wide the Divide?_ pp.143-144
We are not shy, however, about insisting that faith be more than
mere mental assent. That once we have accepted Christ as both Lord and
master, and given our hearts over to him, we should follow his laws and
ordinances. Like repentance and baptism, for example.
>
> It can't answer Ps. 14:2-3, 53:2-3, Rom. 3:10-12.
>
We fully acknowledge that none of us is perfect, that all of us have
gone astray. And while we might not go so far as to call this "total
depravity" (the "T" in the Calvinist "TULIP") I can't for the life of
me understand why you think we can't answer these verses. Do you have
any relevant quotes from LdS who think that we are perfect?
>
> It can't answer Heb. 7-10.
>
Excuse me for laughing, Jeff, but we're the only ones who CAN
explain the priesthood "after the order of Melchisedec" and how it
differs from priesthood "after the order of Aaron". And before you tell
me how it was only ever held by one person - Jesus - consider the word
"order". As in Benevolent Paternal Order of Elks (B.P.O.E.) or
"Fraternal Order of Eagles" (F.O.E.) "Order," in this usage, refers to
a group of people united in some common interest.
So y'see, Jeff, Mormonism CAN answer all of these passages, and very
well. You may disagree with the answers, you may reject the answers,
but you can't say that there *are* no such answers.
bestRegards, Guy
Scott Marquardt
> Mankind has been asking the important questions for thousands of
>years. Where did we come from? Why are we here? What awaits us after
>this life, if anything? Mormonism has the best answers to these
>questions.
Having the most felicitous answers isn't the same as having the best
answers. I think you're confusing having answers that are satisfying with
having answers that are true.
> How can his circumstances be "*within* his control" when he was
>created in his "totally depraved" condition to begin with?
Check out compatibilist versus noncompatibilist freedom.
I've been stuck using "noncompatibilist" in my language for years. I'm in
the minority, so the above link concedes the point to my betters. ;-)
At any rate, if you're going to talk with Jeff at all you're going to be
talking past each other forever unless you come to grips with this issue.
It's a huge one. This isn't some rare, specialized, esoteric philosophical
minutiae.
> Excuse me for laughing, Jeff, but we're the only ones who CAN
>explain the priesthood "after the order of Melchisedec" and how it
>differs from priesthood "after the order of Aaron". And before you tell
>me how it was only ever held by one person - Jesus - consider the word
>"order". As in Benevolent Paternal Order of Elks (B.P.O.E.) or
>"Fraternal Order of Eagles" (F.O.E.) "Order," in this usage, refers to
>a group of people united in some common interest.
Given the argument of the epistle to the Hebrews, the Mormon explanation
will never be respected as much more than a curiosity by biblical scholars.
- Scott
John Lemings
>>Yes, salvation is one of the key ares of disagreement. Judgement?
>>Perhaps, thought it has never come up in discussion with an LDS before,
>>at least not until now.
>
>
> thats surprising. What do you believe Judgement is?
I'm not attempting to play cat and mouse here with you or dodge the
question, but are you inquiring judgment for the believer, the
non-believer, or both?
>>What is your definition of salvation? Does salvation mean resurrection
>>only?
>
>
> It means that you *can* be forgiven for you sins.
How do you believe you are forgiven on your sins? Would you say that
grace allows us to work for our salvation as many LDS and quite a few
Catholics would believe? Or does grace allow us to exercise faith and
faith alone for salvation? How do you understand Ephesians 2:8-10 and
Romans 5:1-11?
>>I believe that is the heart of the issue. If you say that your
>>eternal soul is saved only by faith in Jesus Christ through grace and of
>>no work of your own (Eph. 2:8-9), then you certainly are on the right
>>track. If you beleive that salvation only means resurrection from the
>>dead and then works will determine where you go in one of the three
>>kingdoms, then I must say you are off target.
>
>
> what does "Judged according to their works" mean to you then?
The place to look, in my opinioin, would be with the Letter to the
Corinthians. As a side note, knowing that you are LDS, do you prefer me
to use the KJV when citing Biblical references? Are you open to other
translations? For now, I'll go ahead and use the KJV since that is your
church's official translation.
No other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus
Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver,
precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every mans's work shall be made
manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by
fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If
any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a
reward. If any man's work shall be burnt, he shall suffer loss: but he
himself shall be saved; yet as by fire.
(1 Corinthians 3:12-15)
I fimrly believe that this passage is discussing believer in Jesus
Christ who have trusted in him, by faith, through grace for salvation.
The passage is *not* discussin whether or not works are good enough to
enter heaven, they're not (Eph. 2:8-9), rather the works of a believer
will be judged. The gold, silver, and precious stones are the works
that are valuable and enduring. The wood, hay, and stubble are the
works that are worthless. The quality, not the quantity of our works is
the basis of the judgment. We know that salvation is a free gift, but
the rewards for good works, for those who are saved, are earned. The
quality of our service (1 Cor. 3:13) is the criterion. Sometimes
rewards are often spoken of as "crowns" (1 Cor. 9:25; 1 Thess. 2:19; 2
Tim. 4:8; James 1:12; 1 Peter 5:4; Rev. 2:10; 3:11; 4:4,10). Finally,
the phrase "he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved" is the
loss of reward, not loss of salvation. If it were a loss of salvation,
it would have been ridiculous for Paul to say "he himself shall be saved."
>>Six times in three chapters God tells Isaiah and the people of Israel
>>and the entire world that there is no other God but God himself. The
>>Bible is so consitent on this point. To even remotely believe, hint,
>>insinuate, mention, or condone that there can possibily exist any other
>>god apart from the one, true, and living God of all things is high
>>blasphemy.
>
>
> There is no other God. That is the message. I believe that it is what
> those people needed to believe. But there are scriptures(1) that imply that
> we will become like God, and people have taken it upon themselves to take
> that to the next level and turn it into cycle just list the one here on
> earth. I think we don't need to know that and are better off just believing
> in, worshiping, serving and following that one God, and not playing "what
> can I figure out before its time".
>
> 1. Acts 17: 29 we are the offspring of God.
>
> http://scriptures.lds.org/tgm/mnptntlb
>
> I bet you know the rest.
Yes, I do. I know the rest is that Mormons have made a fatal error in
their understanding of Acts 17:29. In no way does that passage indicate
at all that we can someday become gods and/or goddesses or that there is
some sort of pre-existence.
In the context of the passage, Paul was preaching to some men in Athens
who didn't even believe in the one true and *only* God. Paul drew upon
some of their very own writings in which glimpses of truth can be found,
Paul affirmed that we are all "the offspring of God" in the sense that
we were all created by him. Paul earlier had affirmed that God "hath
made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of th
earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of
their habitation (Acts 17:26). It is possible that Paul may have been
thinking of the following Old Testament passage "Have we not all one
father? Hath not one God created us?" (Mal. 2:10).
It is vitally important to understand that humankind did not preexist as
a spirit prior to physical birth on earth.
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into
his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
(Genesis 2:7)
Notice that no preexisting spirit entered a physical body of flesh.
Rather, God created the physical being, and then "breathed into his
nostrils the breath of life," and at that instant the man became a
living being. It appears that at the moment God created both man's
material and immaterial aspects. Since then, human beings - in both
their material and immaterial aspects - are born into the world through
the natural union of their parents (Gen. 5:3).
>>So you see, McSorely, we both can't be right.
>
>
> I don't think we both are, just that we can both make solid arguements for
> each side from that same source. Ultimately we will always have to choose
> what we want to believe.
Well, I agree that we have to choose what to believe. However, I am not
convinced that you have made a "solid argument" for your position.
>>One understanding must be
>>right, the other must be wrong. I firmly believe that the Bible is 100%
>>consistent throughout that there is one God and only one God. There is
>>no room for other gods or gods with whom we have nothing to do. The
>>only gods we have nothing to do with as Christians are the man made
>>idols of wood and stone (Deut. 28:64; Isa. 44:10-20; Ezek. 20:32).]
>
>
> If I had to explain to those people that there is only one God to worship, I
> wouldn't mention that I believe that God has a family too.
Then you stand opposed to the Bible. Logic would have to dictate that
if God has a family, then those in his family are deity as well. Isaiah
declares six times in three chapters that there is only God. God
himself declares that he is the only God of the universe and he knows of
no others who are like him. That tells me that God has no family, there
is no "Heavenly Mother", or little spirit babies propogated by God and
his goddess wife(s), or more importantly that human beings may one day
be gods and/or goddesses ourselves. To believe so is to stand in
complete contrast, disregard, and contempt of God's revealed truth in
the Bible.
> McSorley
John Lemings
Ed
> Hello "Stormin Mormon" <cayo...@hotmail.com>,
snipped
> Let's see now. Necessary. Like baptism for the dead, which
> Christians have NEVER practiced. Likewise marriage for eternity?
> Like those?
> >
>
Christian, I am surprised that the LDS folks didn't quote First
Corianthian 15:29 to you which says:
"Otherwise, what will those who do who are baptized for the dead? If
the dead are not raised at all, why the are they baptized for them?"
NASB
So, it seems that the Corianthian saints did practice baptism for the
dead.
Ed
Jeff Shirton
news:705993fb.03091...@posting.google.com...
> > > Your question makes no sense! It's the equivalent of,
> > > "what does Philadelphia offer that Pennsylvania can't beat?"
> >
> > No, gary... You're simply begging the question, by *assuming*
> > that Mormonism is a subset of Christianity.
>
> It's not "begging the question"
Certainly it is.
> to use standard English.
Then please show me a standard (secular) dictionary which
explicitly mentions "Mormonism" as a subset of Christianity.
> Any standard English dictionary, [...] will amply demonstrate
> that Mormonism is a subset of Christianity.
False.
We just went through this recently with Diana.
A secular dicitionary doesn't get into the specific
doctrines which determine Christianity.
> coupled with the name and teachings of the LDS Church,
This is the worst-straw-man I've ever heard, gary.
Just because you *call* yourself something, doesn't mean
that you are that thing. What's that expression, "A rose,
by any other name..."?
So you're saying that just because the LDS Church has
the name of "Christ" in it, that makes it Christian?!
You believe in "name it, claim it"? You're simply playing
word games. That's like saying if an atheist claims to be
Christian, he is, and if Hitler claimed to be Christian, he is,
and if a Wiccan claimed to be Christian, she is, and if a
murderer claimed to be Christian, then he is.
That makes the term, *meaningless*.
> will amply demonstrate that Mormonism is a subset of
> Christianity.
Not at all.
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=christian
>
> >: Christian (noun)
> >: 1) One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ
> >: or follows the religion based on the life and
> >: teachings of Jesus.
And (as I already pointed out), that simply begs the *question*
of what is "the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus".
But isn't it interesting, gary, that the same LDS who are so
adamant about demanding to be recognized as "Christians",
are the *SAME* ones who distance themselves from discussions
about the specifics of whawt "the religion based on the life and
teachings of Jesus" *is*?!
Jesus never taught polygamy;
Jesus never taught polytheism;
Jesus never taught that men "progessed" to be gods.
The LDS Church teaches directly *contrary* to "the religion based
on ... the teachings of Jesus", and so we see (by the definition of
Christianity that *you* provided*, Mormonism is *not* "Christian".
> >: 2) One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.
>
> LDS qualify.
>
> It is, however, deceitful to re-define words at your pleasure.
I'm not "redefining" *anything*.
*YOU* are the one who is engaging in obfuscation, and refused
to address the specific "teachings of Jesus" which determine whether
or not a religion is "Christian".
> If you use private, bigoted word definitions, don't be surprised if
> you are misunderstood.
<sigh> Blatant ad hominem on your part, because you refuse
to actually address what the *teachings* of Jesus actually are.
> Do you *really,* *honestly* believe that LDS don't follow
> the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus? That's
> what readers will assume, given your assertions.
Yep. 100% really, honestly believe that.
Because it's the truth.
> > One can demonstrate that Philly is in PA simply
> > by looking at a map, ...
>
> And one can demonstrate that LDS are Christian simply
> by looking in any good dictionary.
Silly me, I thought that Christianity was defined by the Bible,
rather than by using a dictionary and obfuscation.
> Challenge for Jeff:
>
> Find a standard, widely-used English dictionary that *doesn't*
> contain a definition of "Christian" that the LDS Church satisfies.
I'm perfectly happy using the one *you* gave us.
It demonstrates adequately that Mormons aren't Christians.
> If you *can't,* honesty and intellectual rigor should prompt you to
> stop using the semantic tricks of a deceitful bigot.
<sigh> More ad hominem.
When the name-calling begins, the argument has ended.
> gary0
--
Jeff Shirton jshirton at
cogeco dot ca
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
He didn't sound like a baseball player... He said things like,
"Nevertheless", and "if, in fact." - Dan Quisenberry on Ted Simmons
Jeff Shirton
news:vm26m9m...@corp.supernews.com...
> > Now, as the gospel stands, *all* mankind are an abomination before
> > God, wretched sinners, the *best* of whose "righteouss" acts are as
> > filthy menstrual rags (Isa. 64:6). So God is not a "respecter of
persons"
> > when He chooses the elect but leaves the reprobate, for we are all
> > alike, equally abominable
>
> Except, of course, no "equally abominable" man could have
> fudged anything you might find in Jeff's Bible.
That's correct:
2Pe 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto
ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth
in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star
arise in your hearts:
2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture
is of any private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man:
but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy
Ghost.
And again:
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof,
for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Jeff Shirton
news:2305705.N...@192.168.1.1...
> > The offense seems to come in when people suppose that "there's something
> > about the chosen ones" that's salutary, that commends them to God's
> > attention. But Paul rules that out so clearly. It's entirely God's
> > choosing, for God's reasons.
>
> It seems so useless of a doctrine with no motivating aspects.
But here's the problem, in that LDS and Christians have completely
*opposite* standards of evaluating truth.
The Christians' standard is the Bible, God's word to mankind.
The LDS standard seems to differ depending on who you speak to,
and varies among many including the following:
"What seems reasonable"
"What makes sense"
"What sounds logical"
"What makes me happy"
"What we can understand", and now
"What motivates us".
I have no idea why you or anyone would think that the determiner
of truth would be based on, "does it motivate us"?
But even so, I would *still* disagree with your claim that the
gospel has "no motivating aspects". I'm *very* motivated by
the gospel, and my motivation is to glorify *God*.
Your comment about "motivating aspects" seems to imply
a desire for quid pro quo, good, old-fashioned 20th century
American values. Unfortunately, God was never an American
and the gospel wasn't determined in the 20th century.
Paul goes into detail in Rom. 4 that salvation is *not* a "works"
based endeavour. It's not a "quid pro quo" relationship, it's not
a "work and God owes you salvation". Paul was quite clear with
his terminology. Eph. 2:8-9 and other passages are all saying the
same thing again, "not by works so that no one can boast". If
salvation were "motivator" for us to do works, to "earn" salvation,
then we would have something to "boast" about. It's a common
theme of Paul's that we have *nothing* to boast about where
salvation is concerned.
Jeff Shirton
news:93F3DC2A3netza...@24.48.107.54...
> > Well, "better" and "important" are judgment calls, and not
> > everyone is going to agree which is "better", and which is
> > more "important".
> >
> Mankind has been asking the important questions for thousands of
> years. Where did we come from? Why are we here? What awaits us after
> this life, if anything? Mormonism has the best answers to these
> questions.
Guy, not only is "best answers" a *judgment* call, and therefore
subjective, but as a Mormon yourself you are incredibly biased
towards that conclusion. So to matter-of-factly claim "Mormonism
has the best answers" as if that's the absolute truth is simply ludicrous.
I'm not LDS. Do you know why?
Because Mormonism does *not* "have the best answers". IMO.
Scott made an excellent point about "felicitous" answers vs. "best"
answers. Just because an answer "sounds" good, doesn't mean
that it is true.
1 Cor. 13:12, Isa. 55:8, and Prov. 14:12 come into play here.
> > The answer is very *simple*, Guy. The man was *not*
> > condemned to hell "for a circumstance totally beyond his
> > control". If he was condemned to hell, it was for
> > circumstances completely *within* his control, namely his
> > willingness to sin.
>
> If unevangelized, how could he possibly know he WAS
> sinning,
Have you never read these passages, Guy?:
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God IS REVEALED from heaven against
ALL UNGODLINESS AND UNRIGHTEOUSNESS OF MEN,
who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest
in them; for GOD HATH SHEWED it UNTO THEM.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the
world are CLEARLY SEEN, being understood by the
things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead;
SO THAT THEY ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE:
And again:
Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, WHICH HAVE NOT THE LAW,
do BY NATURE the things contained in the law, these,
having not the law, ARE A LAW UNTO THEMSELVES:
Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law WRITTEN IN THEIR HEARTS,
their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts
the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
> let alone be "willing" to do so?
I don't follow you.
Why wouldn't anyone be "willing" to sin?
Are you suggesting that God "forces" people to sin "against their will"?!
> How can his circumstances be "*within* his control" when he was
> created in his "totally depraved" condition to begin with?
Where is the conflict, Guy?
Being "totally depraved" doesn't mean that one is "forced to sin".
People sin *freely*. It's what they *want* to do. Every desire
of their heart is for sin.
> How is his alleged "control" any more or less than the evangelized
> individual of the so-called "elect" category - who has some sort of
> magical spark planted in him that draws him "irresistably" toward
> grace?
I don't think I understand your question, and I think that's because
you don't understand Biblical theology.
> Saved and non-saved, Jeff, they all fall short.
That is correct. Rom. 3:23.
Glad you agree.
> The only difference is that God (according to Calvin)
Straw-man... It's "(according to the *BIBLE*)".
I find it very dishonest of you to imply that the root of the
belief is Calvin, and not the Bible.
Ask *any* Calvinist, and they will *all* tell you that we
believe what we believe, because the *Bible* teaches it,
not because "Calvin" taught it. Calvin is only authoritative
to the extent that he teaches Biblical truth.
> decided that some are born to be saved and some are
> born to burn forever.
So are you claiming that Calvin wrote Rom. 9:11-24, Guy?
> That is the only difference in them.
Amen!
"There but for the grace of God go I."
The *only* difference between the elect and the reprobate
is "the grace of God".
I have nothing to "boast" about.
> > Mormonism *doesn't* have "good answers", Guy.
> > It can't answer Rom. 9:11-24.
> >
> It most certainly can, and better than mainstream Christianity
> because we understand the concept of pre-existence.
No, you (or your "prophets") *invent* the concept of pre-existence.
This is eisegesis in the highest order, Guy. You're basically asserting
that Jesus and Paul and others taught something that neigher their
audience nor any Biblical reader would understand for 1800 years.
You're assuming something that's completely *foreign* to any text
of the Bible.
Sure, Guy, if you're allowed to "make it up as you go along",
then you can explain *anything*. But by its very nature, I
would hardly call such an explanation "the best answer".
> "To bring to pass the salvation of the greatest
> possible number of his spirit children the Lord, in
> general, sends the most righteous and worthy saints
And this is *completely* contrary to the Bible, Guy.
(And please note that I am constantly citing the Bible as
my authority, not "Calvin", so please stop the dishonest
straw-man of bringing up "Calvin" as the scapegoat for
your rejection of Biblical truth.)
Psa 14:3 They are all gone aside, they are all together
become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Psa 53:3 Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether
become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Jesus didn't come to save the "righteous and worthy"
(Indeed, such aren't in *need* of any "salvation".)
God came to save *unworthy* sinners:
Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth
on him that JUSTIFIETH THE UNGODLY,
his faith is counted for righteousness.
Rom 5:6 For when we were yet without strength,
in due time CHRIST DIED FOR THE UNGODLY.
Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that,
WHILE WE WERE YET SINNERS, Christ died for us.
1Pe 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins,
THE JUST FOR THE UNJUST, that he might
bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh,
but quickened by the Spirit:
> "This election to a chosen lineage is based on
> pre-existent worthiness and is thus made 'according
> to the foreknowledge of God.' (1 Pet.1:2)
It's fascinating that LDS claim "foreknowledge" but reject
"predestination", many falsely claiming that they are one
and the same.
Of course, Guy, when you (or McConkie) claim that we
are "righteous" based on "works" in some imaginary
"pre-existence", you are basically denying the whole *point*
of Rom. 9:11-24. What purpose is there for Paul to point
out that Jacob's and Esau's election was determined "Before
they were born, before they had done anything, good or bad",
other than to show that salvation isn't based on any "works"
that mankind can possibly do, but that salvation in fact comes
from God?
If they are elect because they did the works, not in this life,
but in the alleged "pre-existence", then what's the big deal
*when* they were done?
> -- McConkie, _Doctrinal New Testament
> Commentary_, V.2, p.274
Yeah, well this was the same author who wrote "Mormon Doctrine",
many of the things in which LDS completely reject. So McConkie's
hardly an authoritative source, is he? (Oh, I get it, he's only an
authoritative source when he says something that supports Mormonism.
*I* understand now!)
> Why is ours a better answer? Because it removes the arbitrary
> and capricious nature ascribed to God by mainstream Christianity.
You are bearing false witness, Guy.
Mainstream Christianity doesn't ascribe to God an "arbitrary nature".
Please quote from authoritative sources if you claim otherwise.
(And I don't want your "il-logic", I wan't authoritative quotes.)
You are basically lying about that.
Why is yours a *worse* answer? Because it ignores God's
answer in Rom. 9:22-24 and Eph. 1:3-6.
Why is yours a *worse* answer? Because it denies God's
due glory for His complete control over salvation.
Why is your a *worse* answer? Because it arbitrarily
gives man undue credit for his own salvation. (Although
this is not surprising, it is man saying that his own salvation
is to his own credit... Talk about bias!)
> See my comment on Calvin, above.
All comments about "Calvin" are straw-men, Guy.
Anything Calvinists believe, we believe because it
is taught in the *BIBLE*.
> > It can't answer Isa. 43-46.
> >
> What, have you gone J.W. on us? (Just kidding!) Again, we CAN
> answer these passages. We use "one God" in the same sense as it was
> used by Jesus Christ in Gethsamane.
Right.
You *redefine* "God" in order to make it fit.
You *insert* a foreign context (Gethsamane) into a completely
unrelated context (Isa. 43-46), and you don't even address the
specific absolutes in the context of the Isaiah passage.
Like I said, you have no answer for Isa. 43-46, which is why
you have to continue to ignore the text, and do little more than
"hand wave" towards it, saying, "Yeah, we've addressed it, nudge
nudge, wink wink, just *trust* me..." The Gethsemane context
doesn't *fit* Isa. 43-46, Guy. Plain and simple.
> "Holy Father, keep through thine own name those that
> thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are."
I don't find that text in Isa. 43-46, Guy.
Isaiah 43-46 isn't speaking of "unity", it's speaking of *absolute*,
and that there is "no other", and (the omniscient) God "knows not any".
> IOW, we don't have to invent a non-Biblical word, trinity, to
*Straw-man* alert!
> describe the well-there-actually-are-three-Gods-but-there-is-
> really-only-one concept of creedal Christianity.
The Trinity doesn't teach "three-Gods".
The Trinity teaches *one* God.
The Trinity teaches three *persons*.
That you have to equivocate between "gods" and "persons"
demonstrates the paucity of your criticism.
> No mumbo-jumbo about ousia.
Anything that you disagree with is simply "mumbo-jumbo"?
Talk about ad hominem?
And "pre-existence" isn't "mumbo-jumbo"?
That's a double *standard*.
> Think you're a monotheist?
I *know* I am a monotheist, Guy.
> Ask a /true/ monotheist (a Moslem, for example)
This is a logical fallacy, Guy, as you are implying that
since Muslims are monotheists, then Christians aren't.
You're begging the question.
> if he thinks Christians are monotheistic or not.
> The answer may surprise you.
<Chuckle>
Another straw-man, "appeal to (wrong) authority".
My beliefs aren't based on the opinons of Muslims,
they aren't the standard for truth.
My beliefs are based on the *Bible*, which is the standard for truth.
> So we believe in one God. We believe that before God there was no
> God formed. Neither shall there be any God after God. God being a
> priesthood quorum with at least three members: the Father, the Son, and
> the Holy Ghost.
Right. "God being a priesthood quorum".
You have to *redefine* "God" in order to be able to assert the syllables,
and in the meantime, you give all non-LDS in your range of speaking
the completely *false* understanding of what you mean.
Please show me where the term "God" is defined as "a priesthood quorum"
in:
- Isaiah
- the Old Testament;
- the New Testament; or
- any recognized Hebrew or Greek lexicon.
> Why is this a better answer? For one, it eliminates the
> confusion of trinitarian concepts.
Anything "confusing" is false, Guy?
I guess we should "dumb down" Calculus, and get rid of it,
because it causes "confusion" to many.
No, Guy, "confusion" isn't a valid evaluator of truth. In
fact, the Bible tells us as much, when it tells us the following:
Isa 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
Pro 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man,
but the end thereof are the ways of death.
We simply don't *understand* the ways of God. His ways
are not our ways, and when we think things "seemeth right",
they lead to death (ie. they're wrong.)
Further, God has told us to *expect* people to be "confused",
or otherwise "not understand" the ways of God:
1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things
of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness
unto him: neither can he know them, because
they are spiritually discerned.
And finally, when man goes their own way and tries to determine
divine truth by "logical argument" (as LDS so often try to do), their
work is undermined by one simple fact:
1Co 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly;
but then face to face: now I know in part;
but then shall I know even as also I am known.
We simply don't have all the *facts* available to us to fully understand
God. And without the right premises to start with, we're not going to
be able to use "logical argument" to come to conclusions.
> It solves the problem of Christ praying to himself in Gethsemane
> and giving up his spirit to himself at Golgotha.
Um, this has never been a "problem" to need to be "solved", Guy.
Trinitarian Christians have never believed "Christ pray[ed] to himself",
nor did we ever believe that he "[gave] up his spirit to himself".
It's a shame that you have to try to criticize the Trinity in your
ignorance of it, when you clearly don't even understand what
it asserts.
> He's not a ventriloquist, standing in the Jordan with John the Baptist
> and announcing from heaven how he is pleased with himself.
Um, we Christians knew that 2000 years ago.
What took *you* so long to figure it out, Guy?
> > It can't answer Rom. 11:6, Gal. 2:16,21, 5:4.
> >
> Again, we CAN answer these passages.
No, you can't.
> It IS by grace we are saved.
The above passages assert that grace is not only necessary,
but *sufficient*. You deny the sufficiency of grace, and
believe that man has to "cooperate" and "obey ordinances",
and "be baptized", and do other things.
> To quote BYU Professor Stephen E. Robinson:
>
> "... anyone who believes that it is possible to earn
> salvation apart from the merits, mercy and grace of
> Christ is not a true Christian nor,
Straw-man, Guy.
The argument is not that LDS don't believe grace to
be necessary, but that you don't believe it to be *sufficient*.
You need to take an introductory Logic course.
The negation of "grace only" isn't "no grace at all",
but "not just grace", or "not grace alone".
Robinson's quote above proves my point precisely,
for his very first words refer to "earning" salvation,
and the very idea "earning" salvation denies grace.
But the problem with the LDS idea of (the highest)
salvation requiring some combination of "grace plus
works" is that the above passages (Rom. 11:6, Gal.
2:16,21, etc.) *deny* that they can be defined. To
have one is to deny the other. It's either one or the
other, you can't have both.
> -- How Wide the Divide?_ pp.143-144
>
> We are not shy, however, about insisting that faith be
> more than mere mental assent.
And we are completely agreed on that.
> That once we have accepted Christ as both Lord and
> master, and given our hearts over to him, we should follow
> his laws and ordinances. Like repentance and baptism, for example.
Of course we "should".
But once you turn "should" into "need" or "required", then you
are preaching salvation by works, and by your works you deny
God's grace.
> > It can't answer Ps. 14:2-3, 53:2-3, Rom. 3:10-12.
> >
> We fully acknowledge that none of us is perfect, that all
> of us have gone astray.
Again, you need to take a course in logic.
The negation of "complete sinners" is not "sinless", but
simply "not completely sinners".
The argument is not that you believe we are "perfect".
> And while we might not go so far as to call this "total
> depravity" (the "T" in the Calvinist "TULIP") I can't
> for the life of me understand why you think we can't
> answer these verses.
I'm sure you can't. 1 Cor. 2:14.
> Do you have any relevant quotes from LdS who think
> that we are perfect?
No, why would I even look for them?
That was never my claim, Guy.
> > It can't answer Heb. 7-10.
> >
> Excuse me for laughing, Jeff, but we're the only ones who CAN
> explain the priesthood "after the order of Melchisedec"
<Chuckle>
Whatever you say, Guy... Whatever you say.
But as usual, you refrain from actually *engaging* the text, and
simply hand-wave towards it with some hollow assurance that
you can explain it. I'll let others read the passage and decide
the matter for themselves.
> and how it differs from priesthood "after the order of Aaron".
> And before you tell me how it was only ever held by one
> person - Jesus - consider the word "order".
Okay, sure...
"Taxis" (where we get the term, "taxonomy"
Strong: From G5021; regular arrangement, that is, (in time)
fixed succession (of rank or character), official dignity: -
order.
Thayer: 1) an arranging, arrangement
2) order
2a) a fixed succession observing a fixed time
3) due or right order, orderly condition
4) the post, rank, or position which one holds in civic or
other affairs
4a) since this position generally depends on one's
talents,
experience, resource
4a1) character, fashion, quality, style
As we see from *both* sources, Guy, it refers to "rank".
The whole point is that the Melchizedek Priesthood (which
Christ alone holds, for it is non-transferable) is a *higher*
rank (or "higher order") than the Levitical Priesthood.
It "outranks the LP, it "supercedes" the LP, it *replaces*
the LP.
> As in Benevolent Paternal Order of Elks (B.P.O.E.) or
> "Fraternal Order of Eagles" (F.O.E.)
Um, please show me where the book of Hebrews, or the
Bible in general for that matter, mentions either BPOE
or FOE, that it would be relevant.
> "Order," in this usage, refers to
> a group of people united in some common interest.
Um, *no*.
That is nothing more than an *ASSUMPTION* that LDS make
to try to claim (without basis) that there is more than one M.P.
holder.
The term is used to distinguish from the lower "order", not
to imply that there is more than one M.P. holder.
> So y'see, Jeff, Mormonism CAN answer all of these passages,
Nope. See above.
> and very well.
Nope. See above.
> You may disagree with the answers, you may reject the answers,
> but you can't say that there *are* no such answers.
Well, in the sense that 'is too!" is an answer, then I guess you've
got me on a technicality.
> bestRegards, Guy
Jeff Shirton
news:705993fb.03091...@posting.google.com...
> > > ... LDS accept Matt. 7:13;
> >
> > Then why do you criticize about the idea of "most" and
> > "few", when you argued so well that Matt. 7:13 says just that?
>
> Boy, you're good!
>
> *You* critized the idea of "most!"
Um, no, I didn't.
*YOU* were the one who brought up the issue, not me.
(Do I need to go back and quote you the relevant texts?)
I simply enquired about your statement, and you responded
by showing Matt. 7:13, and am quite happy to leave it at that.
So either what you brought up isn't a valid criticism (since you
"proved" it yourself with Matt. 7:13), or else LDS reject the
Bible since they reject Matt. 7:13.
Why don't you tell me which of those it is? <g>
> > ... it's the *BIBLE* that says we're all hopelessly
> > depraved (Isa. 64:8, Ps. 14:2-3, 53:2-3, etc.) and incapable
> > of choosing life (Ps. 14:2-3, John 6:44,65, etc.).
>
> It's the *BIBLE* that says some enter in at the path that leads to
> life, are righteous, do good, and are perfect.
No, the Bible doesn't say that (and one ponders as to why Biblical
citations are conveniently absent from your post), quite the opposite, in
fact:
"Righteousness":
Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is NONE righteous, NO, NOT ONE:
(Quoting Ps. 14, 53, etc.)
"Do good":
Psa 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.
They are corrupt, they have done abominable works,
there is NONE THAT DOETH GOOD.
Psa 14:2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the
children of men, to see if there were ANY that
did understand, and seek God.
Psa 14:3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy:
there is NONE THAT DOETH GOOD, no, not one.
(see also Ps. 53:1-3)
As for "perfect", you make the mistake of anachronistically
imputing a *modern* definition to an *archaic* word. The
original Greek term translated as "perfect" in the KJV is
"teleios", which means "complete" or "mature", not "perfect"
per se:
Strong: From G5056; complete (in various applications of labor,
growth, mental and moral character, etc.); neuter
(as noun, with G3588) completeness:
Thayer: 1) brought to its end, finishe
2) wanting nothing necessary to completeness
chri...@velocitus.net
you posted in alt.religion.mormon :
I pointed out that Paul used the pronouns "they" and "them" referring
to those folks who DID NOT believe in the resurrection, NON-Christians
who were practicing baptism for the dead. NOT Christians Ed, but
NON-Christians. Examine the grammar. It does NOT say "we" in
relationship to baptism for the dead, and it would have to be "we" in
order to be referring to Christians.
Christian
chri...@velocitus.net
you posted in alt.religion.mormon :
>>Subject: Re: What does mormonism offer that Christianity can't beat?
>>From: chri...@velocitus.net
>>Date: 9/11/03 10:14 AM Central Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <c641mv813c48bpd25...@4ax.com>
>>
>> Hello ga...@my-deja.com (gary0),
>>you posted in alt.religion.mormon :
>>>> Christian ...
>>>[all snipped]
>>>
>>>Silly troll.
>>>
>>>Your question makes no sense!
>>>
>>>It's the equivalent of, "what does Philadelphia offer that Pennsylvania
>>can't beat?"
>>>
>>
>>No Gary,
>>
>>Mormonism claims to have "restored" things we Christians are supposed
>>to have "lost." They have added "crud" like "marriage for eternity,"
>>"baptism for the dead," "you can become god of your own world," and
>>other such "stuff" to their religion and have claimed that this is
>>some of the things we "lost."
>>
>>My question to them is what do they REALLY have to offer that
>>Christianity (a DIFFERENT TYPE OF PEOPLE) cannot beat?
>>
>
>RLDS Church believes in the Pearl of Great Price, that it believes in Celestial
>Marriage, and in Baptism for the Dead.
Don't lie, Raleigh. I ASKED ** IF ** you believed in the PGP. I did
not say you did. look at the post.
As to the RLDS, most people know very little about it, ESPECIALLY
after your recent split (which side took which beliefs, which took
others?). Your group is so small, most of us don't bother with it
much.
Christian
Guy R. Briggs
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>
>> Mankind has been asking the important questions for
>> thousands of years. Where did we come from? Why are we here?
>> What awaits us after this life, if anything? Mormonism has
>> the best answers to these questions.
>
> Having the most felicitous answers isn't the same as having
> the best answers. I think you're confusing having answers
> that are satisfying with having answers that are true.
>
satisfying. That's what makes them the best.
>>
>> How can his circumstances be "*within* his control" when he
>> was created in his "totally depraved" condition to begin
>> with?
>
> Check out compatibilist versus noncompatibilist freedom.
>
> http://snurl.com/2blx
>
> I've been stuck using "noncompatibilist" in my language for
> years. I'm in the minority, so the above link concedes the
> point to my betters. ;-)
>
> At any rate, if you're going to talk with Jeff at all you're
> going to be talking past each other forever unless you come to
> grips with this issue. It's a huge one. This isn't some rare,
> specialized, esoteric philosophical minutiae.
>
So I've got to take a course in philosophy to understand Calvinism?
As an LdS who is not unfamiliar with the term "philosophies of men,
mingled with scripture" this does not exactly set my mind at ease!
;)
>>
>> Excuse me for laughing, Jeff, but we're the only ones who
>> CAN explain the priesthood "after the order of Melchisedec"
>> and how it differs from priesthood "after the order of
>> Aaron". And before you tell me how it was only ever held by
>> one person - Jesus - consider the word "order". As in
>> Benevolent Paternal Order of Elks (B.P.O.E.) or "Fraternal
>> Order of Eagles" (F.O.E.) "Order," in this usage, refers to
>> a group of people united in some common interest.
>
> Given the argument of the epistle to the Hebrews, the Mormon
> explanation will never be respected as much more than a
> curiosity by biblical scholars.
>
That's true for a lot of our arguments. But, as you said earlier,
we're more concerned about the answers that are true, not necessarily
the ones that are most satisfying to Bible scholars of either Catholic
or Protestant stripe.
And we prize the answers that are both!
bestRegards, Guy.
GRaleigh345
>Message-id: <hbe4mv0mvl9qvf30p...@4ax.com>
Perhaps, so. But it was actually a rhetorical question, since you
immediately began ridiculing RLDS for "believing in it." Is that some coaching
you got from Mr. Lemings? I doubt it.
>
>As to the RLDS, most people know very little about it, ESPECIALLY
>after your recent split (which side took which beliefs, which took
>others?). Your group is so small, most of us don't bother with it
>much.
Except when you can't find LDS to make fun of for having LDS beliefs, you
just make fun of RLDS for having LDS beliefs. Sort of like making fun of
Methodists for praying to Mary, because Methodists believe in the Bible just
like Roman Catholics do.
When someone declares open season on everybody, as you tactly have, he is
not considered either discriminating or tactful.
Raleigh
O Lord, we delight not in the destruction of our fellow men; their souls are
precious before thee; but thy word must be fulfilled. Help thy servants to say,
with thy grace assisting them: Thy will be done, O Lord, and not ours.
Scott Marquardt
>"gary0" wrote:
>Strong: From G5056; complete (in various applications of labor,
> growth, mental and moral character, etc.); neuter
> (as noun, with G3588) completeness:
>
>Thayer: 1) brought to its end, finishe
> 2) wanting nothing necessary to completeness
May I suggest a resource for arbitrating such disputes? Easy to reference
and work with, something both sides around here could agree on, I think.
This one has both KJV (bad in my opinion but good for LdS so no problem)
and NAS (which is such a wooden translation that it's hard to imagine
anyone disputing it, which is its value), and greek with clickable widgets
for grammar and lexical help:
http://www.studylight.org/isb/
Better yet, create a text file with a .reg extension and paste this:
----not this line but everything below-----------------------
Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00
[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\SearchUrl\bible]
@="http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=%s§ion=0&it=kjv&ot=bhs&nt=na&Enter=Perform+Search"
" "="+"
"+"="%2B"
"%"="%25"
"&"="%26"
----not this line but everything above-----------------------
Doubleclick it to modify the registry (for XP, anyway).
Henceforth, just type "bible 1 cor 13" minus the quotes in the address bar,
and you have instant access to interlinear Greek/King James. Or "bible john
3:16" and so forth. Note that I set this one up for defaulting to the
Nestle-Aland 26th Greek, though it'd be as easy to set it for Textus
Receptus for those who're stupid enough to do so. ;-)
For Jeff's word, here's the simple link:
http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=5056
The utility "tweakui" makes the address bar search functionality example
above simple to implement; in the case of the above you'd substitute %s for
5056 and maybe specify "strongs," so you could just enter "strongs 1234"
anytime you wanted lexical help that way.
The site's pretty good. Lots of ways to make it darned efficient to use.
What I really like is how easy it is to click and see all occurences of the
work. "Definitions" are helpful, but seeing usage in action is even better.
Blah, blah, blah. For more information try here: http://ntgateway.com/
- Scott
John Lemings
>>Don't lie, Raleigh. I ASKED ** IF ** you believed in the PGP. I did
>>not say you did. look at the post.
>
>
> Perhaps, so. But it was actually a rhetorical question, since you
> immediately began ridiculing RLDS for "believing in it." Is that some coaching
> you got from Mr. Lemings? I doubt it.
It certainly is not. The fact that Dennis has yet to address my
criticism of his form of "witnessing" speaks volumes as to where his
heart is.
Scott Marquardt
>Scott Marquardt <du...@dude.com> wrote:
>> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>>
>>> Mankind has been asking the important questions for
>>> thousands of years. Where did we come from? Why are we here?
>>> What awaits us after this life, if anything? Mormonism has
>>> the best answers to these questions.
>>
>> Having the most felicitous answers isn't the same as having
>> the best answers. I think you're confusing having answers
>> that are satisfying with having answers that are true.
>>
> Not confusing them. I believe Mormonism's asnwers are both true AND
>satisfying. That's what makes them the best.
Are they satisfying because they're true, or are they satisfying on other
grounds?
Some LdS chide ex-Mormons for not finding sufficient satisfaction in the
church's standards, e.g. they couldn't live up to the moral requirements.
Clearly, then, merely being "satisfied" isn't too important. Those who
apostatize are no longer satisfied; who could fault them if satisfaction
were the crucial criteria that determines where one *should* be?
The issue has to be truth, which means that talk of satisfaction is just
the stuff of mindless beauty contests.
Was Jeremiah "satisfied" with his calling? Hardly. Did he obey God? Yes.
>>> How can his circumstances be "*within* his control" when he
>>> was created in his "totally depraved" condition to begin
>>> with?
>>
>> Check out compatibilist versus noncompatibilist freedom.
>>
>> http://snurl.com/2blx
>>
>> I've been stuck using "noncompatibilist" in my language for
>> years. I'm in the minority, so the above link concedes the
>> point to my betters. ;-)
>>
>> At any rate, if you're going to talk with Jeff at all you're
>> going to be talking past each other forever unless you come to
>> grips with this issue. It's a huge one. This isn't some rare,
>> specialized, esoteric philosophical minutiae.
>>
> So I've got to take a course in philosophy to understand Calvinism?
You have to understand that if you're going to make assertions that bear on
freedom and determinism, you need to understand what you're talking about.
If that means a course or two, or three, or four, in philosophy, then do
it. If understanding the issues is what concerns you, then do what it
takes to understand. Those theists who think theological or philosophical
education is not valuable, but consent that a mere English degree is
salutary, strike me as being singularly stupid. I hope you don't think that
way.
>As an LdS who is not unfamiliar with the term "philosophies of men,
>mingled with scripture" this does not exactly set my mind at ease!
>;)
It's a convenient excuse for staying stupid. It's a phrase that's simple to
ape in the ridiculous hope that lack of rigor will be admired as high
caliber piety.
Zero tolerance for it from me, I'm afraid. BYU offers degrees in
philosophy; if you're going to dis philosophy, reform your own church's
back yard by eliminating the department at the U. Come see me then.
- Scott
Agonistes
> "Agonistes" <pill...@cableone.com> wrote in message
> news:vm26m9m...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > > Now, as the gospel stands, *all* mankind are an abomination before
> > > God, wretched sinners, the *best* of whose "righteouss" acts are as
> > > filthy menstrual rags (Isa. 64:6). So God is not a "respecter of
> persons"
> > > when He chooses the elect but leaves the reprobate, for we are all
> > > alike, equally abominable
> >
> > Except, of course, no "equally abominable" man could have
> > fudged anything you might find in Jeff's Bible.
>
> That's correct
Extremely weak response.
Your argument for the infallibility of the Bible is that some isolated Bible
passages, all admittedly written by immoral liars, are construed by you to
say so. Hearsay evidence, worthless and problematic.
gary0
> Just because you *call* yourself something, doesn't mean
> that you are that thing. What's that expression, "A rose,
> by any other name..."?
From
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=christian
>: Chris·tian
>:
>: (adjective)
>: Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following
>: the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
>:
>: (noun)
>: One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows
>: the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
The part of each definition that comes before "or" disproves your
assertion.
It is in fact true that professing belief in Jesus as Christ makes one
a Christian in the community that uses standard English.
Both the LDS Church, and individual LDS, profess belief in Jesus as
Christ.
I notice that you snipped all reference to *this* definition.
gary0
GRaleigh345
wrote:
The fact that Dennis has yet to address my
>criticism of his form of "witnessing" speaks volumes as to where his
>heart is.
It is very sad that he mocks a group as being unworthy of his attention.
That is quite a paradox, since, in mocking it, he gives it his attention.
Regards,