LDS LDS: "WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT!"

[Christian Apologist]

It is more fully mentioned in the D&C:

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 19:17 - 20)

17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;
18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—
19 Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men.
20 Wherefore, I command you again to repent, lest I humble you with my almighty power; and that you confess your sins, lest you suffer these punishments of which I have spoken, of which in the smallest, yea, even in the least degree you have tasted at the time I withdrew my Spirit.

I asked about The Book of Mormon which I know was printed way before the core unique doctrines of Mormon weren't developed yet so aren't found in it's pages

The Truth about Mormonism: The misinformation and hyperbole of the Mormon leaders pertaining to the Book Of Mormon

 

[Rescued One]

(New Testament | 1 Peter 4:1 - 2)

1 FORASMUCH then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;
2 That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God.

Anyone who would endure what Christ did would suffer. For an atonement to take place the Lamb had to be SLAIN. Joseph Smith's writings don't trump the word if God.

 

[Peter1000]

Anyone who would endure what Christ did would suffer. For an atonement to take place the Lamb had to be SLAIN. Joseph Smith's writings don't trump the word if God.

While that is true, just remember that the most current prophet is the one we follow, for he is getting direct current revelation from God and is not relying on what a book says 2000 years ago.

Which would you choose:
1) direct current revelation from Jesus Christ. (assuming the prophet receiving it is a true prophet)
2) a book that was written 2000 years ago.

 

[mmksparbud]

Jesus was the sacrificial Lamb. The Lamb of God.

How in the world do you think that answers what I said!!! Everyone knows that.

You NT quotes do not state that partial blood letting is an atonement for our sins and certainly does not state that the Sacrificial Lamb was brought into the Sanctuary and tortured and partially bled before being sacrificed.

 

[mmksparbud]

While that is true, just remember that the most current prophet is the one we follow, for he is getting direct current revelation from God and is not relying on what a book says 2000 years ago.

Which would you choose:
1) direct current revelation from Jesus Christ. (assuming the prophet receiving it is a true prophet)
2) a book that was written 2000 years ago.

A true prophet of God will not contradict what Jesus believed in from the writings of several thousand years ago nor from the writings of His apostles. If it does---they are not of God.

 

[He is the way]

Anyone who would endure what Christ did would suffer. For an atonement to take place the Lamb had to be SLAIN. Joseph Smith's writings don't trump the word if God.

Yes Jesus Christ did have to die for us, but that is not all He did to atone for the sins of the world:
(New Testament | Hebrews 9:22)

22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

(Old Testament | Isaiah 53:5)

5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

(New Testament | Matthew 26:28)

28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

 

[Peter1000]

A true prophet of God will not contradict what Jesus believed in from the writings of several thousand years ago nor from the writings of His apostles. If it does---they are not of God.

I guess you never read the OT vs the NT if you want to talk contradiction in religious systems. And BTW, the author of the OT is the exact same author of the NT. So no, Peter for instance didn't confer with the OT to see if his writings contradicted the writings of Moses. Because they did, but Peter knew he was in a new era.
JS did not wait and see if his revelations from the Lord contradicted the OT or NT. If the Lord says do something, you don't tell him you will not because it's not in the bible? Right?

Or would you counter the Lord and say no, if I don't read it in the bible, I won't do it. Good luck with that.

 

[mmksparbud]

I guess you never read the OT vs the NT if you want to talk contradiction in religious systems. And BTW, the author of the OT is the exact same author of the NT. So no, Peter for instance didn't confer with the OT to see if his writings contradicted the writings of Moses. Because they did, but Peter knew he was in a new era.
JS did not wait and see if his revelations from the Lord contradicted the OT or NT. If the Lord says do something, you don't tell him you will not because it's not in the bible? Right?

Or would you counter the Lord and say no, if I don't read it in the bible, I won't do it. Good luck with that.

I have read and still read the OT and the NT. I am in the process of reading the OT AGAIN and tomorrow start Solomon. No---the new and the old testaments do not contradict each other when read in context. Jesus was throughout the OT, He is fulfilled in the NT and Jesus always pointed to the Father. The old is what Jesus and the apostles all read--it was all they had. Jesus quoted the old constantly. That was the problem with JS---he had no discernment from the Holy Spirit and just dashed headlong into believing Satan's apparitions and never bothered to test them if they were real revelations from God---they were not. And that is exactly what I say---if it contradicts the bible, I will not do it!

 

[Peter1000]

I have read and still read the OT and the NT. I am in the process of reading the OT AGAIN and tomorrow start Solomon. No---the new and the old testaments do not contradict each other when read in context. Jesus was throughout the OT, He is fulfilled in the NT and Jesus always pointed to the Father. The old is what Jesus and the apostles all read--it was all they had. Jesus quoted the old constantly. That was the problem with JS---he had no discernment from the Holy Spirit and just dashed headlong into believing Satan's apparitions and never bothered to test them if they were real revelations from God---they were not. And that is exactly what I say---if it contradicts the bible, I will not do it!

If you were a Jew at the time of Christ, you would have never accepted Jesus either, because your OT would have rubbed out Jesus's name and nowhere did it record the name of Jesus.

Jesus also said that Israel was going to be replaced by the gentiles, a pure radical and heretical statement. Jesus also did things on the Sabbath that their bible said we should not do, so the leaders and people were against him for breaking the Sabbath.

The point is, the Jews killed Jesus because of their bible. Do you still want to say that the OT and NT did not conflict, for it lead to the killing of our Savior.

 

[Christian Apologist]

Christ prayed for the cup to be removed if possible. Instead God the Father sent an angel to strengthen Him. I believe the decision had been made at that point. Christ continued to pray while He was in agony and He bled great drops of blood at every pore. No wonder He was thirsty while on the cross. Then they taunted Him with vinegar on a sponge.

Don't Mormons teach that angel sent was Adam

 

[He is the way]

Don't Mormons teach that angel sent was Adam

Bruce R. McConkie summarized that it may have been Michael the arc angel. We are not taught exactly who the angel was.

 

[BigDaddy4]

If you were a Jew at the time of Christ, you would have never accepted Jesus either, because your OT would have rubbed out Jesus's name and nowhere did it record the name of Jesus.

How absurd. Are you saying Peter, Paul, John, etc. were not Jews before following Jesus?

 

[Christian Apologist]

Bruce R. McConkie summarized that it may have been Michael the arc angel. We are not taught exactly who the angel was.

So Bruce R McConkie wasn't a reliable source even thou he was a so-called Mormon Apostle with continuing revelation skills

 

[Christian Apologist]

If you were a Jew at the time of Christ, you would have never accepted Jesus either, because your OT would have rubbed out Jesus's name and nowhere did it record the name of Jesus.

Jesus also said that Israel was going to be replaced by the gentiles, a pure radical and heretical statement. Jesus also did things on the Sabbath that their bible said we should not do, so the leaders and people were against him for breaking the Sabbath.

The point is, the Jews killed Jesus because of their bible. Do you still want to say that the OT and NT did not conflict, for it lead to the killing of our Savior.

Wouldn't the Jews know the name Yeshua ?

 

[He is the way]

So Bruce R McConkie wasn't a reliable source even thou he was a so-called Mormon Apostle with continuing revelation skills

Bruce R. McConkie did not give a definitive answer. He said he supposed it was Michael the archangel.

 

[mmksparbud]

If you were a Jew at the time of Christ, you would have never accepted Jesus either, because your OT would have rubbed out Jesus's name and nowhere did it record the name of Jesus.

Jesus also said that Israel was going to be replaced by the gentiles, a pure radical and heretical statement. Jesus also did things on the Sabbath that their bible said we should not do, so the leaders and people were against him for breaking the Sabbath.

The point is, the Jews killed Jesus because of their bible. Do you still want to say that the OT and NT did not conflict, for it lead to the killing of our Savior.

The scriptures did not lead to the killing of our Savior. Pride, self-righteous Pharisee, love of power--all those lead to His death. It was a death that had to be, for even if the Jewish nation had accepted Jesus as the Messiah---HE HAD TO DIE TO PAY THE PRICE FOR OUR SINS! He did not, however, have to be so brutally tortured. The High Priest would have had to offer Him as the sacrificial Lamb---as Abraham would have, but this time, no hand would have stayed him.

 

[Rescued One]

How absurd. Are you saying Peter, Paul, John, etc. were not Jews before following Jesus?

Agree! Faith is a gift of God as is revelation.

Matthew 16
13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”

14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.

 

[Rescued One]

All of mankind sinned and thus Jesus had to die.

 

[Rescued One]

Your chart is unreliable, for one thing we believe that Jesus was born to a virgin and another thing we do not believe that salvation is by works, it is by grace after all that we can do:

(Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 17:14)

14 Therefore, the Lord himself shall give you a sign—Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and shall bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

(Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 25:23)

23 For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.

There may be more problems with your post. Please don't tell us what we believe.

In Mormonism grace has to be earned by "all we can do."

D&C 130:20-21
There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated--
And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.

 

[He is the way]

In Mormonism grace has to be earned by "all we can do."

D&C 130:20-21
There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated--
And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.

No amount of work could or would earn grace. Grace can not be earned it is given as a gift to those who love God and keep His commandments:

(Old Testament | Deuteronomy 5:10)

10 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.

He rewards us according to our righteousness:

(Old Testament | 2 Samuel 22:21)

21 The LORD rewarded me according to my righteousness: according to the cleanness of my hands hath he recompensed me.

(Old Testament | 2 Chronicles 15:7)

7 Be ye strong therefore, and let not your hands be weak: for your work shall be rewarded.

(New Testament | Matthew 6:3 - 4)

3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:
4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.

(New Testament | Matthew 10:41 - 42)

41 He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward.
42 And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.

(New Testament | Hebrews 11:6)

6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

(New Testament | Revelation 22:12)

12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.