Why would I want to be a Mormon?
Related Topics
dckel ...@covenantmail.net (dennis)
I am a Christian, a disciple of the Jesus Christ Who is taught of in the Bible. My theology is nothing new; in fact it is the basic theology that has been taught for 2,000 years now.
Why should I even consider becoming a mormon? What do they offer that is real that I don't have?
They teach the existance of many, many gods, each having dominion over their own little worlds. They also teach (contradictorily) that the Bible is True.
The Bible says there is only ONE GOD ANYWHERE, EVER Isaiah 43:10 "You are My witnesses," declares the LORD, "And My servant whom I have chosen, In order that you may know and believe Me, And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me.
11 "I, even I, am the LORD; And there is no savior besides Me.
Pretty clear, the mormon god is not the God of the Bible it _says_ it espouses.
They teach eternal marriage. . .get "sealed" in the temple and you stay married for eternity in heaven.
Jesus said: Matthew 22:25 "Now there were seven brothers with us; and the first married and died, and having no offspring left his wife to his brother; 26 so also the second, and the third, down to the seventh.
27 "And last of all, the woman died.
28 "In the resurrection therefore whose wife of the seven shall she be? For they all had her." 29 But Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures, or the power of God.
30 "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.
Not one Angel in the Bible is ever said to have been married. They don't GET married, and AREN'T married in Heaven.
Their religion is obviously NOT of the Bible that they _say_ they believe in.
Why would I want to be a mormon and espouse doctrines that contradict what God gave us in the Bible?
in the REAL Jesus (not the mormon one), dennis
"newguy" cerbe...@saber.net
Wonder what their theology was before 2,000 years ago. Somebody had to change to accept what we have now. newguy
fmhlaw fmh...@home.com
I missed something. Which one of the hundreds of sects, each with theologies that differ in various respects from all others, is the one that teaches the basic theology that has been taught for 2,000 years?
graleigh ...@cs.comRLDS (CommUnitarian)
It would be nice to know, wouldn't it? There is always some sectarian or other on A.R.M. attempting to browbeat everybody into submitting to his personal fantasy of what Christianity is all about, but it would be nice, just once to see the bona fide "real" thing.
The "Hi everybody, I'm Chevy Chase--and you're not!" joke was old in 1978.
Substituting the words "a Christian" for Mr. Chase's name does not constitute originality.
Raleigh
-
For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it be good or evil.
Eccles 12 :14 NIV
"CharlesSWaters" cswaters.NOS...@newsguy.com
Mormons are Christians, disciples of the Jesus Christ Who is taught of in the Bible. Their theology is nothing new; in fact it is the basic theology that was taught 2000 years ago and restored in these last days.
They solve the problem of thodicy for starters. In traditionally corrupt Christianity, Satan and Evil are god's creations, because He likes it that way.
Please stop worshiping the wrong Jesus. Thanks.
--
Cheerio, Charles "The Jews are a nervous people. Nineteen centuries of Christian love have taken a toll." -- Benjamin Disraeli
graleigh ...@cs.comRLDS (CommUnitarian)
I ***ume that since you are showing your face on A.R.M. again, Dennis that you have found the verse in which you c laim the Mormon scriptures command Mormons to molest young boys and are willing at last to share it with us to prove that you are not a pathological liar.
I can't think of any other reason why you would come back.
Raleigh
"Randy Bradford" rbradfor...@qwest.net
<9b562a9b.0109011500.17240...@posting.google.com>...
Don't forget the fact, that so many Christians are either unaware of or unwilling to admit, that that "unchanged, 2000 year 0ld theology" is based largely on pagan beleifs and mixed nicely with Platonic philosophy. Truth is the bulk of current Christian "theology" is also the product of voting from conventions such as Nicene where the most fundamental theological aspects such as the trinity and the aspects of God wer not determined by the Bible, but rather by a group of men with political agendas where the I's have it.
I always find it amusing when people talk of THEIR CHrist vs. Ours....I wasn't aware Jesus Christ had a twin brother running around preaching alternative doctrine, be nice if he idd....it would explain a LOT baout the way mainstream Christianity has unfolded.
As for the man who originally posted this thread...didn't recognize the name but the word TROLL comes to mind. My guess he stumbled into here by accident and decided to share his views in a "well thought out" drive-by posting.
graleigh ...@cs.comRLDS (CommUnitarian)
Dennis drops by to troll regularly.
His last effort involved him (in a fit of rage at being refuted), that the Mormon scriptures command Mormons to molest 10 year old boys.
I asked him to point out the chapter and verse for us. He responded by hollering repeatedly that I was a liar and that he had said no such thing. I pulled up the original post and reposted it, and he still contended that the statement was a fabrication. I merely pointed out that instead of proving me a liar, he was demonstrating himself one by refusing to own up to the remark.
I guess he went away and waited for a while hoping that we had all forgotten both him and the incident and would play "troll" with him some more.
Raleigh Jesus: (to the Samaritan woman at the well) "Hi! I'm a Jew--and you're not!"
"Jeff Shirton" unlis...@unlisted.ca
Why would we have to "admit" something that isn't true?
(And yes, it's quite disingenuous of you to make a patently ridiculous claim, refuse to support it, and criticize us for (rightly) denying it.) Did it ever occur to you that the *correlation* (rather than the alleged causation, which you haven't even *BEGUN* to prove) is due to those parts of "pagan beliefs" and "Platonic philosophy" being correct in the first place, correctly recognizing parts of God's truth from the foundation of the world?
(IOW, Christianity didn't copy them, they copied the Christian God's truth?) Too bad you are so ignorant of Biblical teaching.
The Trinity *is* Biblical. This is what it teaches: 1) The Father is God; 2) The Son is God; 3) The Holy Spirit is God; 4) The Father is distinct from the Son and Holy Spirit; 5) The Son is distinct from the Father and Holy Spirit; 6) The Holy Spirit is distinct from the Father and Son; 7) There exists only one God.
To the best of my knowledge, Randy, LDS believe in #1-6. The only difference they have is that LDS are polytheists (although they try to hide behind the term, "henotheists", which is just as bad).
But the sad thing is that the existence of only one God is one of the most consistent teachings of the Bible, and it's the very *FOUNDATION* of Judaism! We see it in Deut. 4:35, 6:4, 2 Sam. 22:32, 2 Kings 19:15,19, Psalm 18:31, 86:10, Isa. 37:16,20, 44:6,8, 45:5,21,22, 46:9, John 17:3, 1 Tim. 2:5, etc. etc.) Of course, I noticed that while you called the original poster a "troll", you never did answer the guy's question. Why *should* anyone want to become a "Mormon". What *truth* does it offer, that Christianity doesn't already teach? It only teaches lies, such as the existence of many gods, as contrasted with the Biblical citations above.
Why would I want to become a Mormon?
God says He's special, unique, "the only God". Mormons say, "No, God, you're not special. You're not unique. There are many gods. And we'll be gods one day too. We'll be where you are now. You're not special.
You're not the only one.
God says He created us. Mormons say, "No, God, we've always existed.
You didn't create us." God says He saves and exalts us. Mormons say, "No, God, you didn't save and exalt us. *We* did that ourselves. *We* followed the commandments, *we* got baptized, *we* went on missions, *we* had faith, *we* endured to the end. All glory be to *us*". (Mormons will, of course, claim that God's grace, Jesus' sacrifice, was a small part of it as well, but that's the same impact and significance as saying that their mothers' labour was part of it, as they couldn't become saved without first being born as well. The atonement of Jesus only gave them the *opportunity* to save and exalt themselves. But of course, the Mormons did all the actual work.) No, to become a Mormon is to spit in the face of God. And that's something I will never do.
From the perspective of your post, I gather that you're LDS. And if that's the case, then you picked the exact *WRONG* argument to make. I guess you haven't realized that you live in a gl*** house yourself.
Let's talk about LDS "sustaining the leaders". How is that "vote" any different?
Let's talk about "political agendas": 1) The Word of Wisdom; 2) Blacks entering the priesthood; 3) ceasing of practicing plural marriage; Aside from the surface of your criticism of ancient Christian leaders having alleged "political agendas", I've never seen any particulars about either what these "agendas" *were*, or proof or even evidence to support such ridiculous claims. In contrast, the political agenda of Joseph Smith and other LDS church leaders is very clear.
You appear to be an individual living in a gl*** house, throwing stones at a concrete house. Not very impressive, or even smart, if you ask me.
Best case scenario shows that your church is no better than the one you attack. Worst case scenario is that you're simply butting your head against the wall, while drawing attention to your own church's shortcomings.
That's okay. We don't believe that Christ actually has a twin.
We don't believe in the existence of *your* "Christ", which by description is different than the Biblical Christ.
--
Jeff Shirton jshirton at home.com =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= He didn't sound like a baseball player... He said things like, "Nevertheless", and "if, in fact." - Dan Quisenberry on Ted Simmons
graleigh ...@cs.comRLDS (CommUnitarian)
Why not? That line of apologetic works for LDS apologists explaining why the Freemasons have all the cool temple signs and know the blood oaths of the temple.
But we are not talking about Judaism here. Judaism rejected Christian "Jews" and ejected them from the synagogues centuries ago because the Christians were not "real" Jews. Judaism considered them pagan heretics for believing that Jesus of Nazareth was God. The foundations of Judaism have no application in Christianity.
That is a legitimate question. However, one of the ways that a message is interpreted is by whom is speaking, and to whom, just as in the rules of Bible interpretation. Here Dennis is speaking, and in this case the question properly put is "Why would any Mormons be interested in prosetylizing D. Kelvie?" In that respect, the great religion of Judaism can see no distinction between LDS and Christians.
That is also why Jews won't become Christians. To do so is to "spit in the face of God." In bringing up Judaism as an excuse to bash Mormons, you have in effect stated that the Mormon's house is gl***, but yours is genuine lead crystal.
Atheists don't believe in God, either, but that doesn't make him go away. Belief, or lack of it does not affect reality. If it did, the statement "God is dead" could be true, based on the fact that we must believe in Him, as in Tinkerbell, to keep him alive.
Raleigh
-
For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it be good or evil.
Eccles 12 :14 NIV
"newguy" cerbe...@saber.net
I don't think God said anything, I think some ancient people said a lot, same as Joseph Smith did. If prayers worked, we would all believe the same thing. The fact that we don't proves something to me. newguy
"Jeff Shirton" unlis...@unlisted.ca
You seem very quick to blame "prayers don't work" on God, rather than on man who places more faith in himself than on God.
If find prayer to be *very* "workable". For instance, in the topic of prayerful Bible study, I've found that individual Bible study has lead me to beliefs which, to my surprise: 1) is consistent with mainstream Christianity; 2) is consistent with Reformation theology; 3) is consistent with Augustinian theology.
Such not only impresses me on the consistency and reliability of prayer, but also on the reliability of these aspects of Christianity.
In contrast, if one is making prayers of the sort, "I hope that the Book of Mormon is true, otherwise my LDS parents will be disappointed in me", might not get the same answer as I would, since there are other competing factors involved.
--
Jeff Shirton jshirton at home.com =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= He didn't sound like a baseball player... He said things like, "Nevertheless", and "if, in fact." - Dan Quisenberry on Ted Simmons
"Horobiru" n...@nowhere.net
The causation/correlation distinction is an important one. However, if one can demonstrate that those pagan beliefs and elements of Platonic philosophy found in Christianity derived from places other than "the foundation of the world," your point would be solidly refuted.
Unfortunately, I don't know how one would interpret "foundation of the world." Interpret that for us and maybe we can have a discussion.
"Randy Bradford" rbradfor...@qwest.net
Yawn....I haven't criticized anyone for denying anything, simply presenting the truth as I understand it. As far as admitting, I'm not going to try and convince you, no amount of evidence from me would accomplish hat goal anymore than any ammount of evidence from your end would convince me that the LDS Church was anything but true and correct.
I don't htink theres anything "patently ridiculous" about my statements, I was of the impression it was a rather well understood concept and needed no support. I notice you are the only one that seems to have problems with the notion.
Prhaps you need to read a bit more, it would seem your ignorance is not my problem. I don't feel "prooving" anything is necessary in this respect.
The issues I've brought out are a matter of historical fact and simple logic. Youwant to deny it, by all means, be my guest. Unlike your attacks AGAINST the church, you will never hear me say that I htink someone elses belifs are totally invalid. I think anything that draws one closer to God is a good hting and I commend anyoner's efforts to focus on the spiritual aspects of their lives in any manner they see fit. What gets me are people like you that try to criticize the church by pointing out how it doesn't fit into some mold you have made for Christianity. The fact is, and it's been said a million times, we follow Christ...the Christ of YOUR Bible, the Christ of OUR Bible. You can dream up all the wild notions you want to exclude us from your little mold, but it doesn't change a thing.
No, it didn't occur to me mostly because Christianity POST DATES Platonic thought. As for prooving anything, I wasn't aware I was under the obligation to do so. Perhaps if you read a few history books and thought things through you might piece it together yourself. The same reasons I am critical of mainstream Christianity are the same problems I have with the Bible as a whole. My beleif that the Bible is obviously a flawed book and subject to caution are what lead me to the LDS Church initially.
Kind of hard to copy something BEFORE it takes place now ain't it?
I'm ignorant eh? Well...if name calling makes you feel better I'll be whatever you think I am. Use your own logic on this one. Perhaps the reason it IS biblical is because the guys that voted on it decided to make it so? hmmm...itneresting concept sn't it. Amazing what a few guys can do to any book they want when they have the reason and the means. The fact is the meetings liek the ones in Nicene (425 AD circa) were undoubtably followed by decisions to strenthen the ideas they came away with by altering scripture in a manner that would reflect the ideas they wanted to propegate.
Easy to do when you consider the relative minor access to books, the genral state of illiteracy among the majority and the fact that the people that COULD read and HAD access to books had the most to gain by transforming them into whatever propeganda they wanted to unleash. If it weren't so there would be no explanation for the Apocrypha, they would merely be a part of standard cannon. Things were taken out, things were added, things were changed..both intentionally and accidentally, but I suppose you expect me to prove that too.
What difference does the number of Gods make as long as we only worship ONE...the same one you worship or at least profess to do so? You can toss around all the words you want, if semantics are your p***ion knock yourself out. Your stance on word usage doesn't change anything about Christianity as I have detailed, nor does it affect LDS perspectives on things. Just as bad...why, because you don't agree with it? Let's face it, any Christian that criticizes the LDS faith has jjudged us and have broken their own moral code. I don't put a lot of stock in what other people say, I go with what I know...what I've experienced and learned. You can come up with all the ideas, complaints, "evidence" you want and it isn't going to change history, and it isn't going to affect my faith.
YEah, Genesis 1:26 Read YOUR Bible...tell me what exactly does God mean when he says Let us make man in OUR image. Simply put you illustrate a point I've been hinting at...the Bible is a contradictory book. From the most fundamental things such as faith and works, baptism, etc....Anyoen can pick up the Bible and support a view on nearly everything, what does that prove? There's a million rednecks screaming the Bible teaches man to hate homosexuals too.
I didn't need to answer it. No amount of answering on my part would have yeielded an answer good enough. I imagine the same can be said of you...and of me for that part. Why does it have to be an issue? Either the guy wants to be LDS or he doesn'r. We both know he wasn't looking for answeres...he rolled in and spit out some contention and left and I would venture a guess his thoughts on the matter will never be known regardless of the amouhnt of support or lack of it one way or antoehr. Here, you want to talk about unsubstantiated claims and proofs...what lies is the church guilty of? We profess a belieef in Christ and his atonement and seek to do nothing more than HIS will ad do our best to live a life that is reflective of his teachings and his ministry. If living that is living a lie, then I want to be a politician or a lawyer my friend. The only LIE I know for a fact, is people like you that judge, criticize, and attack another because you don't agree with their beliefs. If you are comfortable in your faith then nothing anyone else thinks or feels should be of much consequence to you.
Funny I've never heard a Mormon say any such thing. The fact is we rvere God as the creator of the world we know and he whom has made life possible for us, asd well as givin it meaning via the Plan of Salvation. For all practical purposes God IS hte only one for he IS our Father and he is the one we revere as such.
Once again, I dont' recall anyone saying this...but oyu were being cynical weren't you...
We don't say any such thing. We are saved via the death and Atonement of Christ, that's a fact not disputed. We also belive that all men are saved through Christ'satonement. You wanna play the faiths vs. works card, we could do that all night. That's one of the glaring inconsistancies of the Bible whether oyu admit it or not. The biggest problem though isn't the Bible, bu how MOST people have been taught to understand the concept. YOu chose to beleive that God holds a murdering, raping, adaulterer in the same ...
"Lockerboy" locker...@yahoo.com
I've been lurking...
Just wanted to congratulate Randy on an eloquent rebuttal.
...
...
"Jeff Shirton" unlis...@unlisted.ca
Well, I have pointed out that your "truth as [you] understand it" is in error. If I were you, I would check your sources to make sure you're not mistaken (for you are).
That fact that you *CAN'T* support your ***ertion should indicate to you how patently false a statement it is.
There's nothing I can't stand more than someone who continues to support something incorrect, in complete ignorance, and refuses to refuse correction, but instead to continue to spout such falsehoods.
How do you know?
You don't even know me, so you have no idea how I would react, and whether or not I would change my position. The fact that I *have* in the past changed my position when the truth was presented to me (and supported) tends to show your ***umption to be false.
One thing's for sure, however. As long as you shy away from supporting your position with facts and evidence, *nobody* will be lining up to accept it. And unfortunately, about 95% of the LDS I've come across are completely unwilling to support anything they say, although they are *all* very eager to tell me how "wrong" I am.
All talk, no substance. Completely without value, IMO.
Well, thanks for letting me know. Further on, you ask me to provide support for my ***ertions (which I'm usually happy and prepared to do), but since you've pointed out that doing so would be a complete waste of time (as well as being very hypocritical on your part, since you refuse to do what you demand that I do), then I won't bother.
Well, you stand corrected.
I suggest that if you want to be taken seriously, that you refrain from making that statement in the future, or any similar statements that would equally ruin your credibility. (That's just a suggestion, of course, you are free to post all the inane ideas you want.) Oh?! You took a poll of the rest of the 6 billion occupants of the world, to discover that, did you? I would certainly like to see the raw data of such a poll.
I'm certainly eager to learn, and I'll read (within reason) whatever citations you want to recommend. But *YOU'RE* the one claiming this is a "well understood concept". So since I apparently am unable to find any relevant sources, it certainly should be easy enough for you to quickly point me to one or two citations for this "well understood concept", don't you think?
If you have citations, I'll read them.
If you don't, then stop making false claims. Simply making absurd claims, refusing to support them, and sending me on some wild goose chase with accusations of "ignorance" gets tired very fast, and doesn't demonstrate anything other than your unwillingness to be corrected.
So, as I asked before, "citations, please?" Please cite some examples of this "historical fact".
Simple hollow ***ertions by yourself are a waste of everyone's time, yours, mine, and everyone else's.
Of course, the "mold" you so disrespectfully refer to is the Bible.
And has been pointed out and demonstrated with facts, *TWO* millions times, the LDS "Christ" is not the Christ of the Bible.
To paraphrase you, "You can deny it all you want..." What do timelines have to do with anything?!
Do you really think God didn't reveal anything about Himself to mankind before the publication of the Bible, or first century Palestine?!
Well, if you want to be taken seriously, then you do.
Well, I *HAVE* "read a few history books and thought things through", and I haven't found anything indicative of your silly claims. But I'm willing to learn, and I'm willing to be corrected if I'm in error due to some alleged "ignorance". So what "history books" should I read, what page numbers? Give me some citations. (And I would suggest that periodicals would be more reliable than "textbooks", but at this point I'd look at *anything* you might offer. Just *offer* something!) That's unfortunate, although not unexpected.
How much study of textual criticism have you done?
God's been around since before the foundation of the world. That would seem to predate any "pagan philosophies", wouldn't you agree?
You see? This is why you won't change your mind. You're too closed-minded. All I've done is show you Biblical support for the Trinity (would you like specific citations for each of #1-6 above?!), and all you do is go back to your "conspiracy theory" of "voting".
The truth is apparently irrelevant to what you want to believe.
A couple of problems spring up from such a "theory"...
First, you seem to have a problem with the canon of the Bible, apparently claiming that some books of the Bible were included *soley* to support the Trinity teaching. That simply begs the question of which books of the Bible do you feel should not have been canonized? It seems to me that the only book the LDS church has problems with is Song of Songs. How come the LDS church keeps the rest of the books in the Biblical canon if they allegedly shouldn't be there? Which books would you rip out of the Bible as not belonging there?
Second, do you have any evidence to *SUPPORT* your conspiracy theory, or is it simply the product of your imagination? (And guess what? I'm not going to hold my breath expecting to hear any evidence from you.) If you want to be believed, or even taken seriously, then yes, you would have to provide at *least* a little bit of evidence, don't you think?
What "difference" does it make?!
Jehovah God seems to think it makes a "difference", since He spent so much time telling us through His prophets that He was the only One. Why do you think God would waste His time that way if it didn't make "a difference"?!
Sorry, but it's the *LDS* who play "semantic games".
They redefine, "atonement".
They redefine, "salvation".
They redefine, "Trinity".
They redefine just about every other theological term to spin Biblical statements towards their theology.
And *they're* the ones changing "polytheists" to "henotheists", to try to get away from the fact that they believe in multiple gods.
Because the *BIBLE* "do[es]n't agree with it".
You really enjoy making absolute ...
"newguy" cerbe...@saber.net
If prayers are true, we would all believe the same thing. newguy
"Randy Bradford" rbradfor...@qwest.net
You know something, it's been my experience on this board that compliments are about as rare as moon rocks...well, moon rocks on the earth. Let me tell you how much I appreciate the feed back! More often than not it seems like my replies do little more than signal the death of a thread! Thanks again...don't be so quiet. I might be happier if I WAS quiet, but it's just not my nature!
Randy
"Nuxodom" nuxo...@frontier.net
Prayer *may* work - but it's only a placebo effect. What prayer does allows the weak one saying the prayer to actually believe it will do something, therefore telling the brain that it will happen. This is fine, but it's no "god" answering the prayer - it's your own brain answering the prayer...give yourself more credit. "God" has nothing to do with it.
If a doctor gives you a pill to cure something, even though the pill does absolutely nothing, you have a much better chance to cure the illness. The brain can do amazing things - including making up these gods and believing in them. God is that "pill" - it doesn't exist, it does nothing at all, but believing in it makes some people better, which is FINE - but it's still not real.
I was a SERIOUSLY religious person for over 20 years. Not once did a prayer do anything for me. I finally came to the conclusion - through research -
that religion is a pile of dung. Man must place more faith in himself than in some fictional god thing.
...
"newguy" cerbe...@saber.net
Nuxodom, if prayer worked, we would all believe the same. newguy
"I am Spartacus" karlmarxsparti...@yahoo.com
So you are a died in the wool Catholic of the mold of Constantine and the Nicene Creed? That was the dominant religion believed by all until protestantism arose in the 16th century.
dckel ...@covenantmail.net (dennis)
Hello newguy, You sure did miss something. You BELIEVED J. Smith when he said stuff like that. But if you go back to the Bible, specifically the New Testament, which was written 2,000 years ago, it is all there.
Jude had it right when he said in verse 3: 3 Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.
"The faith which was ONCE FOR ALL delivered to the saints." Not which was once "for part of it only" delivered to the saints.
The doctrines of Christ's church haven't changed in that time.
The LDS religion is the newguy on the block. THEY have introduced such strange teachings as eternal marriage, multiple gods existing, and the introduction of the Aaronic and Melchizedek "priesthoods" into their church. Historical Christianity knows that Jesus is THE ONLY Melchizedek priest, and that the Aaronic priesthood was part of the OLD LAW, not part of Christ's church. It didn't even exist in the New Testament Church of Christ.
Which sect?
The Bible doesn't set Christ's church up as a sect. Or a religious organization. Look up the meaning of the word translated "church" in Matthew 16:18 and elsewhere. Gk "ekklesia." Not one word about religious organization.
In Christ Jesus (the REAL ONE, not the mormon one), dennis
dckel ...@covenantmail.net (dennis)
Hey raleigh, If I considered you a Christian, would you consider me a Mormon?
No, substituting the name (as the LDS do) does not constitute originality, nor does it constitute Truth.
in Christ Jesus (the REAL ONE, not the mormon one) dennis Matthew 24:24 "For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect.
25 "Behold, I have told you in advance."
dckel ...@covenantmail.net (dennis)
Are you describing something like the selection of replacement of mormon "prophets" when the last one died?
The Nicene Creed and others are simply attempts at putting into words what God is like. A little like an ant trying to "explain" what man is like. Very inadequate to say the least, and historical Christianity has always held this to be true. Most of them too were written by Roman Catholics in a church that had already strayed from truth into politics.
But Christianity was NEVER limited to Rome alone, nor to its political/religious rule. Not at any point in history.
But it is an easy cop-out to pretend that it is. That way you don't have to actually EXAMINE any evidence.
Matthew 24:24 "For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect.
25 "Behold, I have told you in advance.
Jesus said that. It is not something anyone of us Christians "invented." You believe (IF you follow the mormon teachings) that Jesus is a god among many other gods, a brother of lucifer.
Jehovah's Witnesses believe in a Jesus who was NEVER God, never possessed any deity, was just a fine man.
Christian Scientists believe in a Jesus who was NEVER man, but was only a spiritual "idea" of God's Muslims believe in a Jesus who was just a messenger, NEVER the SON of God, for they believe Allah has NO sons.
All of these except the Muslims believe the Bible to be the Word of God and CLAIM they are following "the Jesus of the Bible." Which "jesus" amongst these is yours?
Or do you think that the REAL JESUS lied in Matthew 24:24?
Haven't been around long, have you? I have posted in this group for years, but frequently am called away by time-consuming life.
in Christ Jesus (the REAL ONE, not the mormon one), dennis
| To Top |