B
bbbbbbb
Guest
Thank you. Then why do you not refer to it as the Gospel rather than the Restored Gospel?
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Why does Mormonism want to be Associated with Christianity?
- Thread starter McKeehan
- Start date
- Status
Thank you. Then why do you not refer to it as the Gospel rather than the Restored Gospel?
B
bbbbbbb
Guest
Even more troubling to me is that if mormon temples were taught by the Savior to the apostles and they were expected to erect them and put them into operation, why is that it very first one known to mankind was not erected until after 1830?
Upvote
0
And yet, you actually do believe that the god you worship has a body and was once a man... It's just a matter of how you look at it.
If the Second Coming was today and the vast majority of the world was to see Christ (the God you worship) for the first time... Do you think they would say "this is ****(fertilizer)" because they will see him with a body? Will you react the same way?
Yet ironically this is exactly what happened when Christ came the first time.
Would you have reacted the same way if you lived back then?
I can't speak for the other Mormon Poster, however, almost all Mormons I know never get tired of "fielding questions" yet that is not what you are doing, you are not "asking questions", you are "questioning", there is a vast difference between the two.
I seen exactly the same argument when an Atheist debates a Christian... Does that make it true?
One never gets angry when one understands the nature of a thing. Yet I do get frustrated and will give up on two types of people. "Those who disagree with everything you say" and "those who agree with everything you say" reasonable thinking people with which you can have a conversation will fall somewhere in the middle. In what category do you think you are starting to fall?
Yet you seem to have no problem believing that the Israelites would divine the Word of God with two stones in a breastplate... It's all just a matter of how you look at it.
Its actually "Golden" tablets. In any case they are not missing, the part that matters is still here. Only those seeking a sign would be looking for the part that doesn't matter.
And yet the Bible says the Kingdom is to be of those who are as children; meaning, those who are believing and trusting. It's just a matter of who you trust. You appear to be trusting your own understanding, and that is why you will never understand or believe the things of God.
Once again, it's just a matter of how you look at it.
What is your reality.
The reality that tells you, you cannot walk on water?
Or the reality which tells you, you can walk on water?
You said before that you had an open mind, yet I am not seeing that.
I get that sometimes having an open mind is just anther way of saying that someone has a hole in their head, but if you really want to know the truth you need the faith to believe whatever the Lord tells you is true, even if it goes completely against everything "you believe" to be the truth.
I for one, only tell the truth as I know it, there would be no profit for either one of us if I was to tell you something I didn't know to be the truth. However, I as a mortal man could be wrong on some things, that's why I will always say to go to the Lord for confirmation.
Upvote
0
G
glen55
Guest
The Egyptians could say the same about the above being shadowed after their religious teachings, plus the stolen Christ concept being in each man and termed the mystery by Paul that was gleaned from the Gnostic camps (prior to the Roman carnality of that inner principle) which held sway among a lot more early teachings than the literal student since the third century is allowed to experience, labeled heretic when it is the correct way silenced by guile and murder, burning down libraries like insane zealots spreading the historical lie by force, which supports the effects of the literal letter and the bloody trail it has left behind it, 2Cor 3:6.
Upvote
0
B
bbbbbbb
Guest
In what sense do the LDS claim the blood of Jesus as their covering? It is my understanding that they believe that the atonement of Jesus Christ provides for the salvation (resurrection) of all mankind regardless of whether one claims it or not.
Upvote
0
Yeah? So???
Do you not believe the same thing?
Is not everybody resurrected in your theology?...
The only difference being that some are resurrected to life = good resurrection,
while others are resurrected to judgement and spiritual death = bad resurection.
Upvote
0
TheBarrd
Teller of tales, writer of poems, singer of songs
- Mar 1, 2015
- 4,955
- 1,746
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
Not quite. I would never say that God the Father had once been a man, because He is eternal. Men did not exist at all until He created them. I suppose it is a difficult concept, believing as you do, but God doesn't need a body to be God.
Now you are talking about Jesus Christ, Who is God Incarnate. Quite a different story. Again, a difficult concept for you.
Neither of us lived back then. I'm half Welsh and the other half is mostly Native American. So the chances that I would have lived in Israel aren't too good, anyway.
I really was hoping to find that the notion that god was once a man wasn't really something Mormons truly believed. I suppose that I am questioning.
And I learned much more than I had bargained for.
Actually, I have learned a great deal from the Atheists I have spoken with. Most of them are pretty reasonable people, who will admit that they don't know. A few of them have had some really bad experiences with Christianity as kids, and have decided that if there were a god, he couldn't be as cruel as his fanclub. One can see the point.
If you were waiting for me to agree that god was ever a man from another planet, or even that he could have ever been a man from another planet, you should have given up long ago. It's never gonna happen.
I never said such a thing. And I'd smile behind my hand at anyone else who thought such a thing.
No one ever gave a satisfactory explanation for why the records were engraved on golden tablets in the first place. Papyrus was good enough for the Bible, which has been around for a very very long time, without an 1800 year hiatus. And no one has explained why the only folks to have seen the golden tablets were Joe and his family. Or what god needed golden tablets for. He doesn't seem to mind the ancient scrolls that we still have of the Bible. Surely he wasn't worried about thieves stealing the thing? Not the god who told us that we should keep our treasure in heaven, and not to be attached to worldly riches?
Perhaps I did not tell you that I have been a Christian all of my life? My parents weren't huge church goers, nor was there much conversation about our faith in our home. No one ever heard our prayers, or anything like that.
In other words, I wasn't fed my faith with my pablum. Till I was twelve years old, it was just an accepted fact...we were Christians. Oh, we had been to church occasionally, especially at Christmas and Easter, and there was a family Bible in our house. And there was a book of children's Bible stories in my little book shelf along with Alice in Wonderland, Mowgli, Mother Goose, and Just So Stories, among other familiar faces.
My Gramma gave me my first "big girl" Bible for Christmas the year I turned twelve, and I had devoured it by Easter. I met Jesus face to face for the first time...and I fell totally in love. Jesus has been my Hero ever since.
It is not my own understanding I have trusted. I know in Whom I believe, and I am persuaded.
Have you walked on water yet? I'm not the one who thinks that Jesus was ever a "natural man"...I don't expect to walk on water, or feel virtue going out of me, or any such thing. Do you?
Again, you are assuming that I have never believed what the Lord has told me is true. You're assuming quite a bit about someone you've never met.
I had an open enough mind to listen to a couple of Mormon missionaries who came to my house. Unfortunately, they didn't have very open minds, however.
Did I ever tell you about the JWs who came? They don't come around any more...not since one of them became convinced that I was right and the JWs were wrong...
Very wise advice.
Very wise advice, indeed...
Upvote
0
TasteForTruth
Half-truths are lies wearing makeup
Thanks for your votes of confidence. I'd also like to think that I'm a nice person and such, but let's be clear that I have not always maintained a "cool" composure. I do try, though. And, in all honesty, when a person starts asking questions who really has no frame of reference for LDS doctrine, it is understandable that it takes a while for things to start clicking (as in, "Why do they believe this?" or "How can they believe this?"TheBarrd said:
You have believed a certain thing for a long time, and whether or not you realize it, the things you believe are intertwined with one another. One doctrine appeals to others for full comprehension. And sometimes a single doctrine is either best understood, or ONLY understood, relative to the entire system of doctrine. So as long as I can see you're still trying to sort things out, there is little point in getting overly worked up over your continued expressions of incredulity at our beliefs.
Then there is the misinformation side of things. It is extremely easy for critics of the LDS religion to make it seem incomprehensible or offensive. And as you come into the discussion already believing that it's false, it could be very easy to persuade you to see something there that is not actually there. It is always easier to destroy a thing's credibility in the mind of another, than it is to build it.
These are all reasons for me to be patient when someone is sincerely trying to understand. But to be honest, until I read certain comments of yours yesterday, I had pretty much given up on your sincerity. It just seemed like you only wanted the slightest confirmation of your preconceptions, so that you could shake your head, and say "Those people are crazy!"
Well, gossip, even when true, is but a caricature of the person. What if all I ever heard about the Bible was that it has one story about a guy whose mule speaks to him and another story about a guy who turns sticks into live snakes. Believable? With just that little bit of info? Even with a little more context, does it get much more believable? And what do I think when I'm told, "Oh it gets better... the guy who turns sticks into snakes..." "Yeah?" "He turned water into blood and made it storm down hail that caught fire on the ground. And he made the Red Sea part right down the middle so that 600,000 people could waltz right across to the others side."TheBarrd said:
Only as one approaches a fuller view of what the Bible is do these things, which strain the logical mind, begin to be possible. In the end, though, they all require a person to believe things he cannot ever explain or prove. You think my religion has some weird history. What about your own? Is it not just as difficult for some people to believe what you do? Are there not persons who say, "How on earth could TheBarrd believe this nonsense?"
I appreciate the analogy. Now keep applying it...to your own religious beliefs. Who could ever seriously believe that a dead man could come back to life as a being incapable of dying again? Doesn't that sound a great deal like sitting in the garden watching for fairies? And talking mules? A guy living inside a fish for three days? Come on! Maybe as a kid you could believe this stuff, but now? As an adult?TheBarrd said:
You see.
Sure. That's all I have to offer on this forum.TheBarrd said:
Upvote
0
TasteForTruth
Half-truths are lies wearing makeup
The Way's answer was actually the best one. There isn't a difference, at least not within a particular context. But I don't think that's what you were asking. I understood you to be asking about the Restored Gospel vs. the Gospel of Nicene Christianity.
The high points are that the two systems disagree on certain attributes/characteristics of Heavenly Father, the origin of Heavenly Father, the nature of the Godhead, the origin of Jesus Christ, and a few other noteworthy things.
Upvote
0
so do yu believe the restored gospel as you call it is the original gospel that god wanted?
Upvote
0
Hi,
If you have noticed that, then I will now tell you this. In JW's that is confirmed that they do that.
In one piece of information they presented to the public, about them it was totally truthful, but in cult speak. Cult speak is defined here, as changing the words of common English words to have a totally different meaning to them, when and where they are using them, as they switch constantly.
On prophets and paraphrased by me they said this.
"We are prophets. We are not prophets like The Catholics are infalible, nor are we prophets like we are inspired, rather we are prophets when we get on the wall like Ezekiel. When we do that. We are propets like that. Of course this is and easy thing to say, it is another thing to prove it. Look at our record."
When this was finally decoded, by me. I asked someone who was a JW, and who always stormed off, (most of them do), when I asked to many questions. I was also always accused of starting a fight. (Also common with her, and it seems with them in general.)
I asked her, if this was thier definition of prophet. She asked me a few questions about the article, then said: "Yes that is us. We always write that way, not giving the author." "Why did you have to get that from someone else." "Yes we are prophets that way, why do you think we have had to change our scripture so many times, over the years?" Stunned. I said no more on this subject. I will decode the passages, and show you why I was stunned.
Again, here is the paraphrased quote:
"We are prophets. We are not prophets like The Catholics are infalible, nor are we prophets like we are inspired, rather we are prophets when we get on the wall like Ezekiel. When we do that. We are propets like that. Of course this is and easy thing to say, it is another thing to prove it. Look at our record."
Translated out of cult speak, it is this:
"We are actors. We are not prophets for real, like the Catholic's talk about prophets of God speaking God's words. Nor are we prophets in the Protestant sense, where there scripture is inpired by God and they are correct in that. Rather we are phrophets in the sense, that when we act like Ezekiel did, in that role as actors, all of us, acting as that one single part of being like Ezekiel, we are propets like that, when we act, play the role, of Ezekiel. We are prophets like that. Of course we can say that we are all actors and not true prophets, in the Catholic sense, nor in the Protestant sense, it is another thing to prove it. Look at our record, we change things constantly to be more believable, and when our acting scripts not longer work."
If you are saying that the LDS, also engage in cult speak, then no normal Christian can understand them. I know actually only what the Christian God has given me, and that has all been verified by God, from a Fleece Type of Test, which is listed in Judges as to what that is. Mine was totally perfectly answered by God, as it says there, thus your God and my God, told me things about them. I also know the spirit in their church. It is there. It is felt. I also know who that spirit is not. I also have felt the spirit in the JW's church. I know who that spirit is not. Yes, I am mystical some of the time. Even two Psychologists and three Psychiatrists tell me, to belive that I am that, and not something else, in my case.
What I do not know about the LDS is virtually everything else. Kolob Sun/planet, I knew not of. Nor of their statements, about God originally being a man. I did not know that. However, if it is so, that they speak in cult language, then none of us know what they are really saying.
LOVE,
...Katherina., .... .
Upvote
0
TasteForTruth
Half-truths are lies wearing makeup
What I believe is that the Gospel was, in the beginning, defined by God. And that at various times during man's history, the Gospel was given to man to the extent that God judged prudent. I believe that certain aspect of the Gospel were held in reserve until the last days. I believe that man's religious quarrels either all, or primarily, stem from corruption of the Gospel. So I understand the Restoration of the Gospel not to be a tit-for-tat reconstruction of something man once possessed, but a re-establishment of God as the present and ongoing source of the Gospel. This is not to say that the Restored Gospel is not the same true Gospel as was taught in previous dispensations. It is. But it also isn't, in that circumscribes more of the Gospel than, to my knowledge, has ever been given to man before, at least en masse.
Upvote
0
TheBarrd
Teller of tales, writer of poems, singer of songs
- Mar 1, 2015
- 4,955
- 1,746
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
You have been very patient with me from the beginning, and I appreciate you more than you realize. In fact, the only reason I'm still listening is you. There has to be something I'm missing, if LDS can produce someone like you.
You're right, I'm still trying to sort this out. Seriously, if God is eternal, how could He be a man? And if God were once a man, how is He eternal? The two things are mutually exclusive, and it seems to me that the whole idea puts intolerable limits on the omnipotence of God.
Would you be surprised if I told you that I have a few friends who are atheists? It's pretty obvious that I'm never going to agree with them, either...but we still enjoy each other's friendship. Do you understand?
Unfortunately, all we have to know each other by in forums like this one, is the written word...well, typed word. We have no facial expressions, or voice inflections, or body language...and to be fair, I have been known to be sarcastic. It is one of my not-so-charming traits, I'm afraid.
I'm fairly sure you believe all of those things, and more.
Like the White Queen...“Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”
Did I mention that I have several friends who are atheists? Even my own kid brother whom I adore, is an atheist. He is also arrogant, and if you thought I was sarcastic...well, you get the idea.
So, your point is well taken.
Did you miss the part where I told you that I still believe in fairies? I do, you know. We haven't discovered every species on this planet, let alone throughout our galaxy...and who knows what might exist within the vastness of space? However, there is a child in me who is quite sure that there are fairies who may or may not live inside the flowers in my yard. I'm not the gardener my Gramma was, unfortunately...but I do have a beautiful magnolia tree in my front yard, and some wildflowers growing out back near where the woods begin.
A great many debates with atheists feature pink unicorns, leprechauns, and, for some reason, orbiting teapots. My response always is the same...how do you know? Of course, science geeks are easier to deal with, because they have to admit...they don't know. It almost always comes down to "I'm not sure that TheBarrd's God doesn't exist." Most of the time these kids are atheists either because there is something in their life that mainstream Christianity calls an "abomination", or because they had religion "shoved down their throats" as children.
However, the are not intractable. Because they mostly love science, they can be reasoned with. (Well, except for my kid brother.) In fact, I can actually brag that back in the days of Yahoo chat, I once met an atheist who had come to a Christian chat room to mock...but who stayed to pray...largely because of our private conversations.
Dear man, that's all any of us have to offer.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Your friend didn't know what they were talking about, and so it's understandable that the missionaries had no response for something so off-base.
Kolob is simply the star God used to mark the days of creation.
That's it.
Upvote
0
Hi,
Wikipedia is correctable by everyone. They say this. Are they wrong? If they are please change them to the right version of Kolob, according to your words.
Kolob is a star or planet described in Mormon scripture. Reference to Kolob is found in the Book of Abraham, a work that is traditionally held by adherents of the Mormon faith as having been translated from an Egyptian papyrus scroll by Joseph Smith, the founder of the Latter Day Saint movement. According to this work, Kolob is the heavenly body nearest to the throne of God. While the Book of Abraham refers to Kolob as a "star",[1] it also refers to planets as "stars",[2] and therefore, some Mormon commentators consider Kolob to be a planet.[3] The idea also appears in Mormon culture, including a reference to Kolob in a Mormon hymn.[4]
Kolob - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
LOVE,
...Katherina., .... .
Upvote
0
TasteForTruth
Half-truths are lies wearing makeup
Permit to strongly assert that there is something you're missing. I don't know what it is, though. I try not to get into the broken-record method of explication. Sometimes if you simply phrase something another way, it becomes easier to understand. Sometimes it comes down to simple things, like word definitions. In fact, the longer you express your hang-up on the "man" thing, the more it seems that this could play a big part in the confusion (word definitions, that is). We'll see, I guess.
OK. Good. When you say "man," what, precisely, are you talking about? This very well may be where the hurdle lies. If what you understand "man" to be is wholly, and irreconcilably incompatible with "eternal," then that could be the clue here.
I do, but I wasn't talking about friendship. I wasn't calling into question your ability to be friends with someone with differing beliefs. I was talking only about comprehension of another person's beliefs. I was talking about how easy it is to feed the already-skeptical mindto poison it against an idea, not a person.
A trait I share, actually. The TFT you're talking to right now is not the TFT of many years ago. I have had to learn the hard way that there is very, very little room for certain types of expressions in this forum which, in other environments, are usually not problematic. Sarcasm being one of them. And I'm still not perfect here. I bite my keyboard-tongue a great deal. I, also, know the carnal satisfaction of pouring the salt of sarcasm into others' wounds.
Yes. My objective was not to slight the Bible's legitimacy, but to point out that your belief system is just as vulnerable to the criticism of skeptics and unbelievers and strict literalism/logic worship as is mine. If we can somehow agree that here, in this forum, in spite of the fact that your beliefs are "orthodox" and mine aren'tif we can arrive at the place where no system gets any more benefit of the doubt than another, then we may be able to begin to see what the other person sees...to understand what the other person understands. We needn't embrace, but at least we can understand. And we mightjust mightdiscover that what we initially judged to be ridiculous at least does actually makes some sense. And we'll arrive there faster when we start from the point of admitting that our own beliefs also don't make any sense...to someone.
Then we needn't bring it up again. Unless you call my bluff!
I believe we're beginning to understand one another better.
Indeed. Here, anyway.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
