The Lord's day.

[from scratch]

Recycled material relevant to your post:

Dr. Martin and Dr. Barnhouse concluded their interviews with GC officials with two major complaints, revolving around Ellen White's status as "a continuing and authoritative source of truth" (SDA FB #18), and the Investigative Judgment (SDA FB #24). They concluded that the SDA church needed to drop these from their Fundamental Beliefs, consistent with their embracing Questions on Doctrine that Dr. Martin preferred to accept as representative of Adventist doctrine over their other writings.

Before the GC discussions and the publication of Kingdom of the Cults, Dr. Walter Martin's earlier book The Rise of the Cults classified the SDA church as a cult. Based on QoD, he chose to remove that classification and codify that conclusion in Kingdom of the Cults.

His reliance on QoD as the sole determinant for that reclassification becomes more clear in his comments made in 1983:

Now, the result today is that QoD isn't accepted and does not reflect Adventist doctrine. I just looked up the list of SDA Fundamental Beliefs on their official website; #18 still claims Ellen White to be "the Lord's messenger", and #24 still claims that Jesus "entered the second and last phase of His atoning ministry" in 1844. The Adventist publication of Questions on Doctrine has been relegated to the trash, and Dr. Martin noted this in 1983 in the same interview as above:

There has been no change in Adventism, as Dr. Walter Martin thought possible in 1965. It is still properly classified as a cult, as he originally determined in his book The Rise of the Cults.

And there still isn't. An SDA who I've had personal interaction with tried to convince me that Jesus is merely another of the prophets and in His sojourn on this planet wasn't in fact God (incarnate or otherwise). IOW what they were really saying is Mary is the Mother of God to a man who wasn't God but became God. What a bunch of hughey.

 

[from scratch]

Just asked a question. I am defending no one and I am not one. Just wondering if the scales are equally balanced. You see. I have not really read up on "adventism" to the extent others have. The reason I know about catholics is that they are "in your face" most of the time and crowing and thumping the chest about being...THE...church. THAT is why I learned about catholicism many years ago.

I do understand "adventism" teaches Sunday worship is a mark of the beast. Pretty far off base on that one though.

If "adventism" is as is declared...contrary to the creed...why are they allowed in a Christian forum? Something a half a bubble out of plumb on that one.

In 60 years I've never had the problem with RCC's as I do with SDA's. So I've no clue what on earth you're talking about. I've lived next door to both.

 

[from scratch]

Just asked a question. I am defending no one and I am not one. Just wondering if the scales are equally balanced. You see. I have not really read up on "adventism" to the extent others have. The reason I know about catholics is that they are "in your face" most of the time and crowing and thumping the chest about being...THE...church. THAT is why I learned about catholicism many years ago.

I do understand "adventism" teaches Sunday worship is a mark of the beast. Pretty far off base on that one though.

If "adventism" is as is declared...contrary to the creed...why are they allowed in a Christian forum? Something a half a bubble out of plumb on that one.

Maybe you haven't seen my post saying -

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Do you really take you clues from those who make a living off of you? Poor soul.

 

[By Faith Alone]

IOW you're saying the New Covenant isn't currently in place contrary to God's (Jesus) own words.

Congratulations are in order here as you know something Jesus doesn't.

Before you get involved with discussing the New Covenant with me you had better be able to tell me the terms and conditions that will be present under the New Covenant and to WHOM the New Covenant promise was made. You are not dealing with an idiot here. I fall in line with a forensic/type investigator where CLOSE ain't good enough. Are you prepared to show me the fingerprints of the New Covenant and match them with the conditions today? Satan is a master of disguise and HIS fingerprints will NOT match God's.

If not? You may cease your assertions.

I also must advise you that the Words of Jesus are NOT restricted to the red letters. He was and IS the Word. He is the same God as Genesis 1:1. (John 1:1, 14).

HINT. God cut a covenant with Abraham and he DIED not YET having seen those promises. The covenant He made with Abraham is YET future. The promises WILL be received at the resurrection

Heb 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.


ABRAHAM was included in that list!

 

[By Faith Alone]

Maybe you haven't seen my post saying -

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Do you really take you clues from those who make a living off of you? Poor soul.

You have gone off the deep end there. What in the ____ are you talking about?? You have scratched the same spot so long your brains are leaking out.

 

[VictorC]

If "adventism" is as is declared...contrary to the creed...why are they allowed in a Christian forum? Something a half a bubble out of plumb on that one.

I can't answer your question, as it falls in the purview of the administrators and owners of Christian Forums. But I do agree with your point.

 

[LarryP2]

If "Adventism" is as is declared...contrary to the creed...why are they allowed in a Christian forum? Something a half a bubble out of plumb on that one.

That's a question I have asked many times. And one of Walter Martin's long-time anti-cult associates at the Christian Research Institute has THIS to say in the latest Proclamation Magazine:

MY MIND WAS OPENED

By Paul Carden

"Seventh-day Adventism distorts or denies nearly every central teaching of the historic Christian faith. While its façade is benign, the devil is in the details."
.....
"Along with its weird, unscriptural views on the Trinity and the person and work of Jesus Christ, the “Great Controversy” theme and the Investigative Judgment, and the incredible amount of material that Ellen White simply made up, Adventism…

• confuses law and gospel (50 trillion Sabbath spam posts, versus 5 or so on the Resurrection easily proves that point. LP2)
• denies the biblical doctrine of hell
• claims that Satan is a sin-bearer for Christians
• denies that human beings possess an immaterial soul or spirit
• employs the deceptive Clear Word version of the Bible
......
"I’m convinced that evangelicals around the world desperately need a straightforward summary of Adventism’s toxic doctrines and their impact on the people who follow them."
......
"I have reached the conclusion that Seventh-day Adventism—as a system—is deeply heretical and undeniably cultic. It is not a normal church."

Proclamation 2014 Spring

And the Adventist "Trinity Doctrine is NOTHING like orthodox Christianity's definition:

"The reality is that Seventh-day Adventism is actually anti-Trinitarian and teaches Tritheism (three gods), just like the Mormons do."
.....
In the early days of Seventh-day Adventism, they (including their prophetess Ellen G. White) taught some form of Arianism--denying the eternality of Jesus Christ, denying the personality of the Holy Spirit, and teaching bitheism, or two gods: the eternal Father and the non-eternal Son.
.....
"So while they now, officially, use the term "Trinity," in reality they deny the Trinity and actually teach Tritheism, just like the Mormons do."
....
"From the above excerpts, we can see very clearly that these SDA leaders who helped adopt the official Fundamental Belief statement about the Trinity at the 1980 General Conference Session were, in fact, not Trinitarians, but instead tritheistic in their beliefs, even using the phrase "three Beings" in reference to the "three Persons" mentioned in the belief statement. Also notice, as we will continue to see repeatedly, that in Adventism, the "mystery" about God is how "three Beings" can be "one." This is the exact opposite of Trinitarianism. For the Trinitarian, it is not God's oneness that is the mystery about God (how three "gods" can be "one," as in Adventism), but instead the mystery is how the one living God/Divine Being can be three distinct, but not separate, persons."

http://www.cultorchristian.com/

Slowly but surely, the world is becoming "wise" to this blatantly non-Christian organization. An organization that stresses the Sabbath by many magnitudes of more significance than the Resurrection, and denies the Trinity is an extremely suspect and deceitful organization.

 

[VictorC]

And there still isn't. An SDA who I've had personal interaction with tried to convince me that Jesus is merely another of the prophets and in His sojourn on this planet wasn't in fact God (incarnate or otherwise). IOW what they were really saying is Mary is the Mother of God to a man who wasn't God but became God. What a bunch of hughey.

This description sounds more like it comes from Islam than Adventism.
But anyway...
Your point is good: Adventism didn't change from being a cult during the 1950's, to becoming orthodox in 1965, and then reverted to a cult again in 1983. Adventism hasn't changed, and isn't going to as long as it retains Ellen White in its Fundamental Beliefs. Fully 2/3 of the FB's contains at least some language that is sourced from the writings of Ellen White, and many of them are contrary to Scripture where they touch on a topic Scripture addresses.

 

[By Faith Alone]

ELDER 111:

What say YOU to the charges filed against the SDA?? AGREE?? or DISAGREE??

Was Jesus Christ GOD Himself in the flesh as John 1:1 and 14 indicate??

THAT is a good start there.

 

[LarryP2]

ELDER 111:

What say YOU to the charges filed against the SDA?? AGREE?? or DISAGREE??

Was Jesus Christ GOD Himself in the flesh as John 1:1 and 14 indicate??

THAT is a good start there.

"Then Guy goes on to use this false claim for devious purposes, to teach that Jesus is not fully God! He says that Jesus is only part of God, not the whole of God (fully--or all of--God). In Trinitarian doctrine, God is a simple being, and does not have parts. Notice also how he says that Jesus is "truly God" rather than "fully God." The SDA Church's official statement of "Fundamental Beliefs" also uses this wording, saying in belief number 4 ("Son") that Jesus is "truly God" rather than stating that He is "fully God." As the above article by Guy shows, Adventism does not believe that Jesus is "fully God," but instead that He is just "part" (one third) of "God"--one of three divine beings who together make up the one "Godhead" group. (And, as we will see later, even when Adventists do use the term "fully God" they, once again, have a different definiton for the term than the Christian definition.)"
.....
"We also see in the above article some of their denial of Christ's omnipresence. Also, Guy makes reference to the SDA teaching (which we will see a bit more of later) that Jesus ceased to exist when He died, and that "the Father" is the one who ran the universe during that time because "the Son" no longer existed, and that the Father "continued to love the human family" but the Son was not able to, because He was non-existent!"
CultOrChristian.com - Does Seventh-day Adventism Teach the Trinity?

A better question to ask is whether a person who knows about the Sabbath, but does not keep it, can be saved.

According to Ellen White, Jesus Christ was pulled "out of the wringer" several times while on earth, and was Resurrected by Angels:

"You would drop as powerless as the Roman guard, who watched around the sepulcher of Jesus Christ, when the angels there descended to resurrect the Son of God. As that light fell upon the Roman guard, they became as dead men. They fell to the earth. They could not endure the light from Heaven, which was reflected from one mighty angel. Ellen G. White, Review and Hearald, April 12, 1870

This is miles and miles apart from orthodox Christianity, and either FURTHER away from the Gospel. I am predicting that your answer will come in the form of some scattered verse fragments, and partial sentence fragments since the Trinity Doctrine that Christianity teaches does not feature a verse that spells out "T-R-I-N-I-T-Y." Therefore, the Trinity Doctrine will be argued is "unbiblical." Nowhere in the Bible is the phrase "Trinity Doctrine" used.

I've become very familiar with this incredibly-deceitful argument over the last day. Their Official Beliefs state they believe in the Trinity, but their definition of it is not even remotely resembling Orthodox Christianity's. Much much closer to Mormonism.

But then of course, if Ellen White is not a false prophet, then neither is Joseph Smith.

 

[By Faith Alone]

"Then Guy goes on to use this false claim for devious purposes, to teach that Jesus is not fully God! He says that Jesus is only part of God, not the whole of God (fully--or all of--God). In Trinitarian doctrine, God is a simple being, and does not have parts. Notice also how he says that Jesus is "truly God" rather than "fully God." The SDA Church's official statement of "Fundamental Beliefs" also uses this wording, saying in belief number 4 ("Son") that Jesus is "truly God" rather than stating that He is "fully God." As the above article by Guy shows, Adventism does not believe that Jesus is "fully God," but instead that He is just "part" (one third) of "God"--one of three divine beings who together make up the one "Godhead" group. (And, as we will see later, even when Adventists do use the term "fully God" they, once again, have a different definiton for the term than the Christian definition.)"
.....
"We also see in the above article some of their denial of Christ's omnipresence. Also, Guy makes reference to the SDA teaching (which we will see a bit more of later) that Jesus ceased to exist when He died, and that "the Father" is the one who ran the universe during that time because "the Son" no longer existed, and that the Father "continued to love the human family" but the Son was not able to, because He was non-existent!"
CultOrChristian.com - Does Seventh-day Adventism Teach the Trinity?

A better question to ask is whether a person who knows about the Sabbath, but does not keep it, can be saved.

This is miles and miles apart from orthodox Christianity, and either FURTHER away from the Gospel. I am predicting that your answer will come in the form of some scattered verse fragments, since the Trinity Doctrine that Christianity teaches does not feature a verse that spells out "T-R-I-N-I-T-Y." Therefore, the Trinity Doctrine will be argued is "unbiblical." Nowhere in the Bible is the phrase "Trinity Doctrine" used.

You see. I sort of sympathize with them in that respect as to the trinity as to misunderstanding.

The word "person" is a stumbling block to the true understanding of the trinity. I offer this:

Persona - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
persona - definition and examples of persona

The word "person" in the Queen's day WAS the Latin word "persona". A mask put on to portray a character on the stage. Or an office one holds. It does NOT imply a separate individual as the word "person" does today.

IOW...when God is not a "respecter of persons" it simply means that He does not care what office one holds it is how the individual carries out his duties.

People question "how did man become God?" but the REAL question is? "How did GOD become man"?

 

[VictorC]

ELDER 111:

What say YOU to the charges filed against the SDA?? AGREE?? or DISAGREE??

Was Jesus Christ GOD Himself in the flesh as John 1:1 and 14 indicate??

THAT is a good start there.

You're taking the long way to get to salvation by Jesus Christ alone, and I know from experience you aren't even going to get to that point in conversation. So do others, who note the circular reasoning appealed to by those who long to appear orthodox:

I also remember the time when I was talking to a middle-age SDA pastor inside Manila Sanitarium about his stand on salvation. This is how a number of SDA people like him will argue in circle to defend their founder’s teachings.

Justyn: Pastor, do you believe that a person will go to heaven because of his faith in Jesus alone?
SDA Pastor: Yes!
Justyn: What if a Christian who has faith in Jesus alone was eating pork and he died, will he be saved?
SDA Pastor: If he is a true Christian then he will not eat pork.
Justyn: But what if he is eating pork and he died, will he be saved?
SDA Pastor: If he is a true Christian then he will not eat pork.​

I also ask him about Ellen G. White’s writings:

Justyn: Pastor, is the writings of Mrs. White at par or equal with the Scripture?
SDA Pastor: No, it is not.
Justyn: Then would you consider that Mrs. White’s writings contain errors?
SDA Pastor: No, because she was guided by the Holy Spirit.​

You've already seen quotes from Elder111, that can't be reconciled with the one faith we share in Christ's redemption. To get any further, you would need to digest the source documents the SDA church considers authoritative. That entails an investment in time (years) and effort few are willing to commit to. Watching the antics of a rodent on a hamster wheel won't get you anywhere.

 

[By Faith Alone]

You're taking the long way to get to salvation by Jesus Christ alone, and I know from experience you aren't even going to get to that point in conversation. So do others, who note the circular reasoning appealed to by those who long to appear orthodox:

You've already seen quotes from Elder111, that can't be reconciled with the one faith we share in Christ's redemption. To get any further, you would need to digest the source documents the SDA church considers authoritative. That entails an investment in time (years) and effort few are willing to commit to. Watching the antics of a rodent on a hamster wheel won't get you anywhere.

What Bible do they use?

 

[LarryP2]

You see. I sort of sympathize with them in that respect as to the trinity as to misunderstanding.

But then you wouldn't be "orthodox Christianity." Christianity has defined itself. It needs neither your help or mine to define itself. This debate has gone on for nearly 2,000 years by some of the brightest people who ever walked the face of the earth. The creed is the consensus of Christianity. Take it or leave it. If you "misunderstand" it, forego calling yourself an "orthodox Christian."

The word "person" is a stumbling block to the true understanding of the trinity. I offer this:

Persona - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
persona - definition and examples of persona

Real theologians do not rely upon a Merriam-Webster dictionary definition for the most important creedal statement in Christianity. Dictionary's are constantly evolving in their definitions. The Nicene Creed does not evolve. The Nicene Creed says what it means and means what it says. If you need another definition, then forego calling yourself and "orthodox Christian."

The word "person" in the Queen's day WAS the Latin word "persona". A mask put on to portray a character on the stage. Or an office one holds. It does NOT imply a separate individual as the word "person" does today.

None of those ideas were available when the Nicene Creed was defined and adopted. Apples and Oranges.

IOW...when God is not a "respecter of persons" it simply means that He does not care what office one holds it is how the individual carries out his duties.

Your "understanding" and "IOW" are not congruent with the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed is not about an "office." It is a Godhood. Your or my "understanding" of it is irrelevant. There are no "IOW," it means what it says and says what it means. It needs no "help" to "understand it." If you don't "understand" it and accept it, then forego calling yourself an "orthodox Christian."


The entire purpose of the Nicene Creed is to smoke out heresies. With respect to SDA, it shines a bright light into a convoluted smoky room full of deception.

 

[VictorC]

What Bible do they use?

They generally adopt the 1769 AV, commonly known as the King James Bible. A couple of us have noted how the 'foundation and central pillar of the Advent faith' depends on one verse -Daniel 8:14- which is mistranslated in the KJV as 'days' instead of the actual 'ereb-boqer' evening/days the oblations are performed in. Their theology depends on a mistranslation.

If you've been here long enough, you've seen Elder111 depend on the mistranslation in the KJV where 'Jesus' appears in that translation of Hebrews 4:8, instead of 'Joshua' who was a starring member in the provocation recorded in Numbers 14. They live and die on the mistranslations commonly known in the KJV.

They also have a paraphrase created by Jack Blanco called The Clear Word. It codifies all those known mistranslations and inserts Adventist interpretation into Scripture to the point it isn't fit for the furnace. Do a web search on The Clear Word to see how well that item is received outside the SDA church. Wikipedia page available as introduction here, which doesn't have much to say.

 

[LarryP2]

A couple of us have noted how the 'foundation and central pillar of the Advent faith' depends on one verse -Daniel 8:14- which is mistranslated in the KJV as 'days' instead of the actual 'ereb-boqer' evening/days the oblations are performed in. Their theology depends on a mistranslation.

And even if it did not "depend" on a mistranslation, it would still be jaw-dropping amazing that a Christian website would allow them to post in the Orthodox areas. What is critical here is that the Trinity, which is Christianity's "central pillar of faith" is NOT Seventh Day Adventism's "Central Pillar of faith."

"If any doctrine makes Christianity Christian, then surely it is the doctrine of the Trinity. The three great ecumenical creeds—the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed—are all structured around our three in one God, underlying the essential importance of Trinitarian theology. Augustine once commented about the Trinity that “in no other subject is error more dangerous, or inquiry more laborious, or the discovery of truth more profitable.” More recently, Sinclair Ferguson has reflected on “the rather obvious thought that when his disciples were about to have the world collapse in on them, our Lord spent so much time in the Upper Room speaking to them about the mystery of the Trinity. If anything could underline the necessity of Trinitarianism for practical Christianity, that must surely be it!”
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs...ne-of-the-trinity-no-christianity-without-it/

An organization that has Daniel 8:14 as its "central pillar of faith" is emphatically NOT Christianity.

 

[By Faith Alone]

But then you wouldn't be "orthodox Christianity." Christianity has defined itself. It needs neither your help or mine to define itself. This debate has gone on for nearly 2,000 years by some of the brightest people who ever walked the face of the earth. The creed is the consensus of Christianity. Take it or leave it. If you "misunderstand" it, forego calling yourself an "orthodox Christian."



Real theologians do not rely upon a Merriam-Webster dictionary definition for the most important creedal statement in Christianity. Dictionary's are constantly evolving in their definitions. The Nicene Creed does not evolve. The Nicene Creed says what it means and means what it says. If you need another definition, then forego calling yourself and "orthodox Christian."
None of those ideas were available when the Nicene Creed was defined and adopted. Apples and Oranges.
Your "understanding" and "IOW" are not congruent with the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed is not about an "office." It is a Godhood. Your or my "understanding" of it is irrelevant. There are no "IOW," it means what it says and says what it means. It needs no "help" to "understand it." If you don't "understand" it and accept it, then forego calling yourself an "orthodox Christian."
The entire purpose of the Nicene Creed is to smoke out heresies. With respect to SDA, it shines a bright light into a convoluted smoky room full of deception.

John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

Jesus said He was on earth and in Heaven at the same time...Go figure.

 

[VictorC]

And even if it did not "depend" on a mistranslation, it would still be jaw-dropping amazing that a Christian website would allow them to post in the Orthodox areas. What is critical here is that the Trinity, which is Christianity's "central pillar of faith" is NOT Seventh Day Adventism's "Central Pillar of faith."

That 'foundation and central pillar of the Advent faith' is the apologetic foundation for the Investigative Judgment doctrine (Sanctuary Doctrine) exclusive to the SDA church. Each and every SDA member on this forum has completely misrepresented this doctrine, even in the face of long passages of SDA source material quoted that defines it. This illustrates a uniform modus operandi of deception that is hammered into their members. The Sanctuary Doctrine is also the leading doctrinal reason members leave the SDA church.

 

[LarryP2]

John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
Jesus said He was on earth and in Heaven at the same time...Go figure.

I can understand your hand stretched out in sympathy, but there is no way of soft-pedaling the blow to Elder 111. He belongs to an organization that has plainly and forcibly REJECTED the Nicene Creed's definition of the Trinity. That is precisely the Nicene Creed's function: it separates orthodox Christianity from the heresies and the cults. It pastes the "H" and "C" brands on heresies and cults.

It is the Seal of Bad Housekeeping.

That it has done very well in the case of Seventh Day Adventism.

That 'foundation and central pillar of the Advent faith' is the apologetic foundation for the Investigative Judgment doctrine (Sanctuary Doctrine) exclusive to the SDA church. Each and every SDA member on this forum has completely misrepresented this doctrine, even in the face of long passages of SDA source material quoted that defines it. This illustrates a uniform modus operandi of deception that is hammered into their members. The Sanctuary Doctrine is also the leading doctrinal reason members leave the SDA church.

And NONE of Seventh Day Adventism's theologians have ever found a Biblical basis for that doctrine. Remarkable, given Elder111's insistence on ANY definition must be found in the Scriptures. There seems to be extremely broad swaths in their doctrine that have NO Biblical support. And in reality, the Adventist "Health Message" is much more important in their theology than is the Trinity:

Ellen G. White on the importance of diet in your spiritual life:

“Those who have received instruction regarding the evils of the use of flesh foods, tea and coffee, and rich and unhealthful food preparations, and who are determined to make a covenant with God by sacrifice, will not continue to indulge their appetite for food that they know to be unhealthful. God demands that the appetites be cleansed, and that self-denial be practiced in regard to those things which are not good. This is a work that will have to be done before His people can stand before Him a perfected people.” (Testimonies for the Church, Volume Nine, page 153, paragraph 4.)

“Greater reforms should be seen among the people who claim to be looking for the soon appearing of Christ. Health reform is to do among our people a work which it has not yet done. There are those who ought to be awake to the danger of meat eating, who are still eating the flesh of animals, thus endangering the physical, mental, and spiritual health. Many who are now only half converted on the question of meat eating will go from God’s people to walk no more with them.” (Counsels on Diet and Foods, page 382, paragraph 1.)

“We have seen the poor wrecks of humanity come to our sanitariums to be cured of the liquor habit. We have seen those who have ruined their health by wrong habits of diet, and by the use of flesh meats. This is why we need to lift up the voice like a trumpet, and show ‘My people their transgressions, and the house of Jacob their sins.’” (The Medical Evangelist, 01-01-1910, paragraph 16.)

http://8thday4life.com/sda-health-message/

"I cannot find any scriptural foundation for teaching that your choice of diet and level of health will affect your ability to be holy. The Seventh-day Adventist church, from its very origins, has made this a monumental issue. Ellen White presented this as a vital part of process of sanctification, without which your very soul could be in danger. I heard more than once as an Adventist that the health message was the “right arm of the gospel”
http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/698054451/interview-with-an-ex-adventist-sondra

Maintaining a vegetarian diet for your Salvation is miles and miles apart from orthodox Christianity.

 

[VictorC]

If "adventism" is as is declared...contrary to the creed...why are they allowed in a Christian forum? Something a half a bubble out of plumb on that one.

I can't answer your question, as it falls in the purview of the administrators and owners of Christian Forums. But I do agree with your point.

Let me add one more comment: I don't tolerate the Mormon advertisements that have plagued the forum's site for days (weeks?), but apparently the administration of the site does. Chew on that revelation for a while.