Post Reply
Page 1 of 8  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Discussion on my comment page
2 years ago  ::  Feb 10, 2012 - 11:58AM #1
Joe68
Posts: 289

Black Jebus commented on my B-net page and since it seems to be turning into a discussion it seem it best be placed here.  To read it from the begining you'll have to read the comment section on my profile page. 


BJ, if I am sent to a link by someone with the promise that it has pertinent info promised, but does not I’m much more likely not to read further links provided that person. And especially true if the poster cannot then provide a specific quote for what he said was in the link or summarize what the link was about.


That being said the link you provided does not appear to have the info you claim. So can you provide either the pertinent quote(s) or a summary of the pertinent info?


If you cannot explain it then that means it is plain and simple that you do not understand it enough to explain it. You seem to be following in the footsteps of another LDS poster (Ironhold)who used the exact same tactics.


I think one should look at more than just the two verses you used for determining a “true” Christian.  Mt 7 15-23 warns us of false prophets. A prophet was one who could speak directly from God, who could say, “Thus saith the Lord.” False prophets were thus people who claimed falsely to speak in the name of God. It is not the outward appearance that is important (wolves may be dressed up to look like sheep), but the things the false prophets do, the produce from of their manner of thought and life, their teachings. If the disciples take note of what these a prophet does, says, and teaches they will recognize them for what they are, be that a true prophet or a false prophet. We should probably understand their teaching also as part of their fruits, for their teaching proceeds from what they are and it is by our words that we will be condemned or justified on Judgment Day. 


Btw, Jesus fulfilled the OT law he didn’t supplant it.

Why would I mention John1:1-3 (or any NT passage) when I was dealing with the way the OT talked about God, specifically the usage of Elohim and Jehovah?


First my brother in law and sister do believe the Jesus progressed to godhood just like the Father. And he also believes that John the apostle never died. Is everything he believes in official LDS doctrine?  Does every LDS believe the same exact thing on every doctrine? Probably the answer is no on both counts. So I wasn’t misrepresenting anything. I was merely going by what I heard another LDS say.  


How do the exceptions to the banning of blacks explain the ban in the first place? Even if one accepts that some blacks were allowed into the priesthood how does that alter the fact that the LDS barred blacks?  It doesn’t.  As far a my family’s LDS explanation, it would be along the lines of, “we don’t know why god barred blacks from the PH”

 I’m not writing to disprove the LDS faith. The LDS have made certain claims. Such as, Christianity apostatized soon after the last of the apostles died, the Bible is corrupted (not “translated correctly”), the LDS religion is a restoration of Christianity, the LDS have the Melchezdek and Arronic priesthoods and etc. The LDS church is founded upon Joseph Smith’s contention that all churches were wrong and he came to restore them back to a belief in multiple gods and that it’s possible that an LDS could one day be a god as well.


If anyone makes bold claims like that they deserve to be checked out.


While it’s true that faith plays a part in understanding spiritual matters intellect plays a part as well, As these verses attest: study to show thyself approve (2 Tim. 2:15But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good (1 Thess 5:21) and


Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true (Acts 17:11)


You are wrong to assume everything I write, hear, and learn only serve to disprove the LDS faith. I simply studied Christian theology, history, and the Bible. LDS teachings simply do not hold up under scrutiny.  The LDS have no qualms about criticizing the Christian church but when the table is turned or a Christian defends his faith the LDS get indignant.  Does any organization think they can criticize others and the response will be nil? If they do are not being realistic.


The LDS can believe whatever they choose. But if the LDS set themselves up as having the Truth and are the One True Church then why would they think some would raise questions about their claims? It isn’t done out of any sort of insecurity but of proclaiming the truth. The Mormon religion and the Christian faith are vastly different on core doctrines such as the nature of God, who Christ is, and the nature of salvation. The Mormon religion has a veneer of Christianity but it is not Christian in any significant historic, biblical, or theological way.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Feb 10, 2012 - 1:16PM #2
Ironhold
Posts: 10,913

Actually, most people who are Mormon simply prefer to live their own lives the best they can. They try not to be confrontational. Other faiths are just simply not a common topic of conversation above and beyond what's needed in order to understand the world and get by in it.


In contrast, there's a cottage industry devoted to "proving" that the church is wrong.



What does that tell you?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Feb 10, 2012 - 1:23PM #3
Joe68
Posts: 289

Feb 10, 2012 -- 1:16PM, Ironhold wrote:


Actually, most people who are Mormon simply prefer to live their own lives the best they can. They try not to be confrontational. Other faiths are just simply not a common topic of conversation above and beyond what's needed in order to understand the world and get by in it.


In contrast, there's a cottage industry devoted to "proving" that the church is wrong.


What does that tell you?





It tells me you have your head in the sand about the amount of "anti-Christian" books, websites and other media that is out there. As well as the fact the LDS church was founded upon criticism of the Christian faith.  

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Feb 10, 2012 - 1:43PM #4
Ironhold
Posts: 10,913

Criticism, you say?



In a coda to the 1979 edition of Farenheit 451, author Ray Bradbury offered up the following:


For it is a mad world and it will get madder if we allow the minorities, be they dwarf or giant, orangutan or dolphin, nuclear-head or water-conversationalist, pro-computerologist or Neo-Luddite, simpleton or sage, to interfere with aesthetics. The real world is the playing ground for each and every group, to make or unmake laws. But the tip of the nose of my book or stories or poems is where their rights end and my territorial imperatives begin, run and rule. If Mormons do not like my plays, let them write their own. If the Irish hate my Dublin stories, let them rent typewriters. If teachers and grammar school editors find my jawbreaker sentences shatter their mushmilk teeth, let them eat stale cake dunked in weak tea of their own ungodly manufacture.



At its core, the church did nothing more than what Bradbury proposed: "if you don't like something, take matters into your own hands and do it the way you see best."


What Joseph Smith basically did was ask God what to do, and in the process received word back that most of what he was seeing in his neck of the woods was jive-talkin'. Cue Joseph & co. attempting to set up a church the way they saw best.


So unless you're objecting to the church's very existance,...

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Feb 11, 2012 - 12:23AM #5
Joe68
Posts: 289

Feb 10, 2012 -- 1:43PM, Ironhold wrote:


Criticism, you say?



In a coda to the 1979 edition of Farenheit 451, author Ray Bradbury offered up the following:


For it is a mad world and it will get madder if we allow the minorities, be they dwarf or giant, orangutan or dolphin, nuclear-head or water-conversationalist, pro-computerologist or Neo-Luddite, simpleton or sage, to interfere with aesthetics. The real world is the playing ground for each and every group, to make or unmake laws. But the tip of the nose of my book or stories or poems is where their rights end and my territorial imperatives begin, run and rule. If Mormons do not like my plays, let them write their own. If the Irish hate my Dublin stories, let them rent typewriters. If teachers and grammar school editors find my jawbreaker sentences shatter their mushmilk teeth, let them eat stale cake dunked in weak tea of their own ungodly manufacture.



At its core, the church did nothing more than what Bradbury proposed: "if you don't like something, take matters into your own hands and do it the way you see best."


What Joseph Smith basically did was ask God what to do, and in the process received word back that most of what he was seeing in his neck of the woods was jive-talkin'. Cue Joseph & co. attempting to set up a church the way they saw best.


So unless you're objecting to the church's very existance,...



I understand that the LDS version of Joseph Smith is that he was doing God’s will, but JS got way too many things wrong for that to be true.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Feb 11, 2012 - 12:37AM #6
withwonderingawe
Posts: 4,927

Ya know with all the years I’ve been here I’ve never used the comment page, guess no one likes me.



I’m guess you Joe said; Mt 7 15-23 warns us of false prophets.



Why did Jesus warn us of false prophets if there weren’t going to be anymore???



Joe; Does every LDS believe the same exact thing on every doctrine?


Absolutely not, even with some of what you might think is a basic doctrine like God progressing to Godhood.


I was sort of taught that in seminary, sort of! But then I got a book by Joseph McConkie Bruce’s son and he turned that idea upside down and said


“The idea that God became such by the mastery of laws of nature is a modern tower of Babel built on a collage campus…revelation tells us, “The powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness” D&C 121


So there you have a major disagreement, not to worry we’ll all figure it out in end.



Joe; How do the exceptions to the banning of blacks explain the ban in the first place?



It’s not that God band them from the priesthood but that he didn’t burden them with it.



Joe; The LDS have made certain claims. Such as, Christianity apostatized soon after the last of the apostles died,



“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.” Act 20



Just following the Bible Joe

Wise men still seek him.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Feb 11, 2012 - 9:13AM #7
withwonderingawe
Posts: 4,927

Joe; The Mormon religion and the Christian faith are vastly different on core doctrines such as the nature of God, who Christ is, and the nature of salvation.



Your core concept of the Christian faith is very narrow, did ya know there are 18 million Coptic Orthodox Christians in the world. There are over a billion Catholics in the world. Neither of these two agree with each other or you on “the nature of God, who Christ is, and the nature of salvation”.

Wise men still seek him.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Feb 11, 2012 - 4:34PM #8
Ironhold
Posts: 10,913

Essay I did concerning the notion of an apostasy.


The Bible itself makes reference to an apostasy already taking place in the days of the apostles.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Feb 12, 2012 - 10:43AM #9
Joe68
Posts: 289

Feb 11, 2012 -- 4:34PM, Ironhold wrote:


Essay I did concerning the notion of an apostasy.


The Bible itself makes reference to an apostasy already taking place in the days of the apostles.




Notice that several of these verses say many or some will fall away, but none says that there would ever be a complete apostasy of the Church.


 One verse (Amos 8) is talking about how the Northern Kingdom was under God’s condemnation and couldn’t find God’s Word but not because it had left the earth since it was still in the Southern Kingdom. That is where Judah is located, and this southern prophet [Amos] most surely believes that there in Judah, at least, one can surely find the words of the Lord if one chooses to.


 Other verses listed describe an apostasy in the end times or the latter days as the King James Version renders it. This is another disproof of the theory of a total apostasy. The Mormons claim the apostasy took place early on, in the first few centuries of church history, and these verses do not support the LDS claim.


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Feb 12, 2012 - 10:53AM #10
Joe68
Posts: 289

Feb 11, 2012 -- 12:37AM, withwonderingawe wrote:

I’m guess you Joe said; Mt 7 15-23 warns us of false prophets.



Why did Jesus warn us of false prophets if there weren’t going to be anymore???



The New Testament speaks of the apostles as a first-generation, foundational ministry only (Eph. 2:20; 3:5; Heb. 2:3-4; 2 Pet. 3:2; Jude 17). The danger that the church was going to face after the apostles died was not a lack of apostles or prophets, but the teachings of false apostles and prophets. For that reason, both Jesus and his apostles warned repeatedly about false apostles and prophets (Matt. 7:15; 24:11, 24; Mark 13:22; 2 Cor. 11:13-15; 2 Pet. 2:1; 1 John 4:1-6; Rev. 2:2; 16:13; 19:20; 20:10), but never once expressed concern about the church losing its way with a lack of apostles or prophets.


The New Testament does teaches the principle for the "changing of the guard" after their departure is found (for example) in 2 Timothy 2:2, which says that faithful men were to teach others to serve faithfully as they had done. This description of how the faith is to be perpetuated does not present a top-down, vertical, authoritarian model of church government. Instead, the model is "horizontal," of older Christians teaching younger ones who would then go on to teach the next generation of Christian leaders.


The false teachers in Ephesus were to be rebuked because they were teaching nonsense (1 Tim. 1:3-7), not because they lacked the proper recognition from the top down. Both overseers ("bishops" in the KJV) and deacons were to be generally above reproach ethically and spiritually (1 Tim. 3:1-13). The focus here is on getting mature Christians into these positions, and nothing is said whatsoever about needing apostles and prophets to oversee the church. Likewise, Paul tells Titus to appoint men above reproach as elders (Tit. 1:5-9). The focus is entirely on establishing the church in Crete with leadership that is godly and sound of faith, in contrast with Judaizers whose teachings were leading people astray (Tit. 1:10-16).


The apostasy that was coming would not be a complete apostasy because of a lack of supposedly essential prophets, but would instead be a partial apostasy, a falling away of some (as Paul says explicitly) because they paid attention to prophets inspired by "deceitful spirits" or "demons" (1 Tim. 4:1). When difficult times came and many people professed faith but did not have its reality, the solution would not be to have the church start over with new apostles and prophets, but for truly godly people to continue basing their teaching and life on the Scriptures (2 Tim. 3:1-17).


If we look at the other apostolic writings issued as the period of the apostles was passing and some of them were already dying, we find the same pattern. In Peter's last instructions to the church, he warned that just as false prophets arose among the people in the past, false teachers would arise among the believers (2 Pet. 2:1). Peter says nothing about the church languishing into a general apostasy because of a lack of apostles or prophets. Nor does he suggest that the church will cease to exist. Instead, after speaking at length about the divine judgment awaiting false prophets and teachers (2 Pet. 2:1-22), Peter encourages his Christian readers to remember what the true prophets taught in what we call the Old Testament and what Christ taught through his apostles, which we have preserved for us now in the New Testament (2 Pet. 3:1-2). Notice here that Peter does not say anything about Christians needing the guidance of living prophets and apostles; no, what he says they will need is to remember what the prophets and apostles said.


Peter goes on to alert Christians that they will hear skeptics who mock the Christian faith because the return of Christ and the Day of Judgment about which they warn has not taken place (2 Pet. 3:3-10). Peter's comments here presuppose that true Christians would continue faithfully well after the apostles were gone (and therefore could benefit from Peter's teaching). He encourages them to live in a godly way until Christ's return (2 Pet. 3:11-14), again presupposing that godly believers will continue following the apostolic teaching until Christ's return. They are to be diligent in following the teachings of the Scriptures, including those of the apostle Paul (2 Pet. 3:15-16a). Christians are to keep themselves from being carried away by these false teachers, not by looking to some authoritarian religious organization or restored apostolic hierarchy to guide them, but by "growing in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (2 Pet. 3:17-18).


The apostle Jude's teaching in his short epistle closely parallels that of the apostle Peter in 2 Peter 2-3. Jude encourages his Christian readers to "contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). They are to contend against false teachers who distort the gospel, people whose judgment is as sure as that brought on Egypt,  Sodom and Gomorrah, Cain, and Korah (Jude 4-16). To avoid falling into such error, Jude tells us, "remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Jude 17). Here again, the church is to maintain its integrity by remembering what the apostles said, not by waiting for apostles yet to come. While they await Christ's return, they are to build themselves up in the faith and be agents of God's mercy to others (Jude 18-23).


 Both Peter and Jude, then, are quite clear: the day of the apostles is passing; the church will be rocked by false prophets and false teachers, but will continue existing until Christ's return; the church is to ward off false teaching by adhering to what the Scriptures teach, as they are the preserved revelations given through the prophets and apostles.  Christians are warned about false prophets and false teachers, and are encouraged to adhere to the Scriptures and to grow in their relationship with Jesus Christ, and promised that if they do so they will make it intact to the end of the age and the return of Christ to consummate their salvation. Nothing is said to suggest that the church needs apostles and prophets to function properly, or that the church will be reconstituted with such offices in the future


 



 



 

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 8  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook