The Truth about Mormons

[JakeStarkey]

You are almost there, Skeptic, they are all the same in that they are Christians. Thus, LDS and FLDS etc are all the same in that they are Mormons. Now the parsing comes in what kind of Christian or Mormon might be.

I suspect you are a member of the LDS of Mormonism, which is part of Christianity (and to those of you who say 'no' to Mormon as Christian, you are willful morons - the worst kind - who don't learn your own scriptures and teachings). The difference then comes in the parsing of Christianity.

It will be interesting to see what labels people are given by God at the last day and what labels they had given themselves which get stripped away.

You forget to question the authority of the labelers. Whoever they are. Who has the right to dish out a label I might ask you Jake?

You are talking who has the authority to label. In the matters of men, then man does. In the matters of God, then God does. I have waited a long time for you to come this far. Go ahead and finish it, Truthspeaker. I may disagree with you, but I will be respectful, which is far more than you and Avatar and others have gotten from others here.

 

[Truthspeaker]

You are almost there, Skeptic, they are all the same in that they are Christians. Thus, LDS and FLDS etc are all the same in that they are Mormons. Now the parsing comes in what kind of Christian or Mormon might be.

I suspect you are a member of the LDS of Mormonism, which is part of Christianity (and to those of you who say 'no' to Mormon as Christian, you are willful morons - the worst kind - who don't learn your own scriptures and teachings). The difference then comes in the parsing of Christianity.

It will be interesting to see what labels people are given by God at the last day and what labels they had given themselves which get stripped away.

You forget to question the authority of the labelers. Whoever they are. Who has the right to dish out a label I might ask you Jake?

You are talking who has the authority to label. In the matters of men, then man does. In the matters of God, then God does. I have waited a long time for you to come this far. Go ahead and finish it, Truthspeaker. I may disagree with you, but I will be respectful, which is far more than you and Avatar and others have gotten from others here.

You have been somewhat respectful on here and for that I appreciate you. What have you been waiting for from me? What do you mean by "Come this far?"

 

[JakeStarkey]

Far more than "somewhat respectful", Truthspeaker. I like Mormons generally and in some way the LDS church is great. There are things I don't like about it, but that puts it with all churches in my opinion, and that includes my own denomination.

The LDS have the right to define for themselves what Mormonism means and is. But in no way is any of that obligatory for the rest of the world, particularly for the professional and academic disciplines, to accept the LDS definition. The historians and sociologists, including most of those as LDS, adopt the more expansive definition of "Mormonism" to describe denominations and individuals who follow Joseph Smith and the Restoration.

 

[Skeptik]

You are almost there, Skeptic, they are all the same in that they are Christians. Thus, LDS and FLDS etc are all the same in that they are Mormons. Now the parsing comes in what kind of Christian or Mormon might be.

I suspect you are a member of the LDS of Mormonism, which is part of Christianity (and to those of you who say 'no' to Mormon as Christian, you are willful morons - the worst kind - who don't learn your own scriptures and teachings). The difference then comes in the parsing of Christianity.

I suppose if you think all Christians are the same, then you have a point.

And, in a way, they all have much in common, just different dogmas.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Those who follow the Christ are Christians, in my book (it's such a little book, and certainly not authoritative). Joseph Smith said he was a Christian, your church's name includes the name of the Lord, so that makes you Christians. Now when the enemies of your church try to say that Mormons are not Christians, who cares? Not a one of them speaks for the Lord.

 

[Skeptik]

Those who follow the Christ are Christians, in my book (it's such a little book, and certainly not authoritative). Joseph Smith said he was a Christian, your church's name includes the name of the Lord, so that makes you Christians. Now when the enemies of your church try to say that Mormons are not Christians, who cares? Not a one of them speaks for the Lord.

True enough.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And neither do the leaders of any church, in my humble opinion.

Here is a hymn that I like: [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weBT5FgApKY&feature=related[/ame]

 

[Christopher]

Those who follow the Christ are Christians, in my book (it's such a little book, and certainly not authoritative). Joseph Smith said he was a Christian, your church's name includes the name of the Lord, so that makes you Christians. Now when the enemies of your church try to say that Mormons are not Christians, who cares? Not a one of them speaks for the Lord.

Exactly.

 

[Eightball]

Totally Disagree:

The very definition of a Christian is a "Christ One" or "Follower of Christ".

Now one must define "who" Christ is.

Jesus said that to be one of His, one must be born again or born from above. I.E. one must receive His life(Holy Spirit/Spirit of Christ) in order to be born from above/again.

The Mormon church as well as other religions do not define the "Christian" according to those parameters.

Just go to any website and compare the "Jesus" of the bible, and the "jesus" of Mormonism, Watch Tower, Moonies, Islam, and on and on and you will find that this isn't the Jesus of the bible.

Now you can say that Jesus or Christianity is defined according to my religion and or my prophets, and the bible is just one possibility, but one must look hard and deep at all the prophecies of the bible that have come true, and not one has been untrue.

Also one must look at the accuracy of the bible in respect to the most ancient parchments of the Torah from the Dead Sea find, and realize that with the exception of the missing book of Esther, all the partial and complete partchements validate the accuracy of our nowadays translations of the O.T..

What seems to come into question with the bible is the LDS churchs' premise that the bible is not accurate as it has been re-translated so many times over the centuries that "human fallibility" has "skewed" the bible's in respect to original or very old copies of God's Word to humanity.

Therefore: Joseph Smith Jr. was picked by God to receive the new, corrected revelation for all mankind back in the early 1800's.

As I have posted so many times before, one of God's, or our Creator's atributes is "omnipotence". What does that mean? Well, it means a myriad of things...........but most importantly, it means a dynamic power, and control over creation that is infinitly great.......a power that leaves not one infinite speck that isn't under His supervision, and direction and or Holy will.

Now, how is it that God had to "re-do" his revelation of Christ, and Himself and His very "will" for mankind and creation........"IF" He is the "I AM".......Yahweh........Jehovah......Lord Almighty....Emanuel...

Is God fallible........and somehow overlooked His written revelation that He "inspired" man to write down? The very fact that His Word the bible was written down by men "inspired" by Him.........That means the Holy Spirit was urging/prompting/directing these men and women who wrote down what God wanted them to communicate from Him to mankind.
******
No: Calling oneself a Christian doesn't add up to a hill of beans unless that person has received the Holy Spirit.................and is born again............Yes one of those crazy old bible thump'n ones that says that the bible is his/her's most special compass for living out a Godly and Holy life in Christ.

Christ claimed Himself the "I AM"...........That is an eternal/infinite statement of identity or being. It is not a statement of once being nothing or a spirit baby and then a human being or a created being.

Christ was never "once a mere mortal/man and later was to become a glorified god". He was God incarnate at His virgin birth.........God didn't fertilize one of Mary's eggs.............He/Jesus was miraculously placed in that young virgins' womb. He/Jesus was still called Son of David as His earthly parents were of David's lineage, but Jesus was not born a sinner as He did not physically come via the loins and lineage of Adam and Eve. This is the only way that He/Jesus could be the perfect, unblemished sacrifice for our sins.

The Mormon Jesus is a mere Adamic human who received godhood from the Mormon God the Father. He wasn't sinless, but had to "earn" his stature or position via works not unlike how Mormons nowadays must earn their glorification post-death by how they "worked" to further their Mormon religion's doctrine of christ.

All throughout the N.T. it is stressed by various authors that Christ was the perfect sacrifice............the Passover Lamb..........the "acceptable" replacement for "us" and the full judgement of God.......Romans 3:23..........For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God"........There is not one human being on earth since Adam and Eve...........to present that has escaped being a decendent of Adam and Eve...........therefore we have all inherited at birth the curse of death and the sin nature of fallen man.

Christ is clearly described as the "new Adam"..........who's death brings life to the many who believe by faith in His substution death for us.

Jesus literally faced/endured eternal separation from God the Father, and all the sins of mankind............and was raised on the 3rd day, Victor over sin and death.

90 % of Americans call themselves Christian...........but if you dig deep into their explanation of what it means to be a Christian you will find that their "identity" or "meaning" in life is not based on being a sinful being saved by grace of God through His Son's death, and now are "new creatures/creations in Christ Jesus.....Seated in the heavenlies in Christ.........Crucified with Christ, and raised up with Christ(Galatians 2:20) to newness of life.

No, they are christians based on going/attending church, being baptized, being raised by Christian parents, being an American or whatever.

Few will define themselves by their actual identity or "life" abiding in Christ and having the indwelling Holy Spirit as the guarranteer/seal sent by Christ.

Mormons base their conversion on visions, dreams, and church/temple rituals. This totally contradicts what Christ said about being one of His in the N.T. books/epistles.

Faith is not a vision, nor a feeling...........but is believing, even when everything around you wants to contradict your stand to believe.

Yes, the Holy Spirit also conforts, counsels, and allows the "true" Christian to understand the scriptures. This is why people will say over and over how they would try and try to read the bible and it just didn't seem to help or mean much.............Just a nice story book, but once they truly receive salvation, the words in the bible start to have meaning that neve was understood before.

That is the work of the Holy Spirit. Jesus told His disciples that when He left them that He would send them the Comforter(Holy Spirit). He/Jesus said that He/Holy Spirit would bring counsel, peace, and open up His Word to them in ways of great understanding. This Holy Spirit would give them power to proclaim the Good News of Christ's death, burial, and ressurrection...........The New Life that would be freely given to those who believe..............

Jesus said that many will call out in the end times to Him and say Lord, Lord!, But He will say, "I DON'T KNOW YOU"............

There is definitely a true distinction between the Jesus's of many religions, and the Jesus of the bible.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nope, Eighball, you don't get to define who is a Christian. That's not part of your authority. I understand your concern, I understand your opinion, but it means nothing.

 

[Eightball]

Nope, rat, you don't get to define who is a Christian. That's not part of your authority. I understand your concern, I understand your opinion, but it means nothing.

Fellow Poster(You are not a rat as I apparently am.) :

I've chosen the bible as the final "authority"; not myself, Joseph Smith Jr., angels, visions, dreams, feelings, intuition, or alleged latter day prophets. That is clearly revealed in my previous post.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nope, rat, you don't get to define who is a Christian. That's not part of your authority. I understand your concern, I understand your opinion, but it means nothing.

Fellow Poster(You are not a rat as I apparently am.) :

I've chosen the bible as the final "authority"; not myself, Joseph Smith Jr., angels, visions, dreams, feelings, intuition, or alleged latter day prophets. That is clearly revealed in my previous post.

My fault, Eightball, and forgive me. I thought I was talking to the Rat in the Hat or the Rat who wears a Hat or whatever. I certainly did not intend to insult you. My apology.

Anyway, FellowPoster, I understand that you claim biblical authority. Many of my evangelical and pentecostal friends say the same thing. The LDS are right when they claim the follow the Bible "as far as it is translated correctly." Major, major issues exist with the Bible. However, the LDS are wrong in believing their made-up scriptures have any authority.

So, yes, with all, due respect, I reject your interpretation.

 

[Skeptik]

Nope, rat, you don't get to define who is a Christian. That's not part of your authority. I understand your concern, I understand your opinion, but it means nothing.

Fellow Poster(You are not a rat as I apparently am.) :

I've chosen the bible as the final "authority"; not myself, Joseph Smith Jr., angels, visions, dreams, feelings, intuition, or alleged latter day prophets. That is clearly revealed in my previous post.

Does that mean you accept the Bible as a text to be taken literally? Was the Garden of Eden real? Noah's flood? Turning water into wine? Are all of those accounts to be taken as literal truth to be taken as having been inspired?

And if so, then there must have been prophets, visions, inspiration, etc. thousands of years ago. Why wouldn't there be now?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Skeptic, your BoM is every bit as flawed with inconsistency and contradictions as the Bible. I would be careful of what you assert. I guarantee that Eightball is perfectly capable of laying your arguments in the boneyard.

 

[Skeptik]

Skeptic, your BoM is every bit as flawed with inconsistency and contradictions as the Bible. I would be careful of what you assert. I guarantee that Eightball is perfectly capable of laying your arguments in the boneyard.

If he starts pointing out inconsistencies in the BOM, probably so. If he starts telling us that the Bible is literally true, then no.

However, I have had debates with Biblical literalists before, and they never, but never admit that their position is untenable.

 

[Mrs Missus]

I'd love to buy some "magic underwear" for my husband for xmas, what is it exactly and where can I get some?

 

[Skeptik]

I'd love to buy some "magic underwear" for my husband for xmas, what is it exactly and where can I get some?

You could go here. How magic the effect on him might be depends a lot on you, however.

 

[Eightball]

MSNBC's Chris Matthews claimed a "tingling" sensation up his leg a couple years ago.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Skeptic, your BoM is every bit as flawed with inconsistency and contradictions as the Bible. I would be careful of what you assert. I guarantee that Eightball is perfectly capable of laying your arguments in the boneyard.

If he starts pointing out inconsistencies in the BOM, probably so. If he starts telling us that the Bible is literally true, then no.

However, I have had debates with Biblical literalists before, and they never, but never admit that their position is untenable.

I wish the literalists would realize that the Bible is best intepreted metaphorically (imho) and that faith is not objective. Sure, I believe a dead guy sat up in a tomb 2000 years ago, and somebody not of our culture might think I was telling a ghost story.

 

[Skeptik]

Skeptic, your BoM is every bit as flawed with inconsistency and contradictions as the Bible. I would be careful of what you assert. I guarantee that Eightball is perfectly capable of laying your arguments in the boneyard.

If he starts pointing out inconsistencies in the BOM, probably so. If he starts telling us that the Bible is literally true, then no.

However, I have had debates with Biblical literalists before, and they never, but never admit that their position is untenable.

I wish the literalists would realize that the Bible is best intepreted metaphorically (imho) and that faith is not objective. Sure, I believe a dead guy sat up in a tomb 2000 years ago, and somebody not of our culture might think I was telling a ghost story.

Most of the Bible was meant as allegory and metaphor. The problems come when the assertion is made that there was actually a world wide flood, that the human race came from two individuals, that the Earth is really only a few thousand years old, and so on. The Bible is a collection of books, just as its name implies. Some of it is historical, some is fiction, some is much like Aesop's fables, and a lot of it was written in languages long forgotten and is open to many interpretations.