If you reject the LDS message...

[A New Dawn]

It's one thing to have a testimony of Christ, quite another to actually know what his doctrines actually are contrasted to the doctrines of men. I know you want to think you're all about Christ, Christ is the most important thing etc., but that's not really true, because you spend all your time here attacking things you once more or less believed in. You also shouldn't confuse your current testimony of Christ as being the same thing as you being accurate in what His Truths IN FULL actually are.

To many leave the Church and then find Jesus and then think that it was the Church that prevented you from finding Jesus. Problem with that is that many find Jesus before becoming mormon and still know Jesus, they just know HIS Truths better, as well most find Jesus while being mormon. Thus, the thing is, did you ever consider that it's a flaw in your own thinking and progress from not being able to "find Christ" in the Church, hence why it was so "easy" for you to believe the perversions of mormonism and scripture over what the truth actually is??? Food for thought.

Knowing the "truth" in full is not the same as feeling the Holy Spirit. Everyone has access to the Spirit, but not everyone has the Truth.



And you actually prove my point..... You had a different "intellectual" change in you at some point in which everything else rolled from that change, and such is separate from the Spirit of Christ. Further, you incorrectly assume that if Christ's Church is actually on the earth, that the Church is actually "separate" from Christ. It is not..... You are right concerning man-made religion, but you are wrong when it concerns Christ's Church. Finding His Church is finding Him...... Such is of both the intellect and the heart.

Obiwan, for all your hatred of the RLDS, the RLDS (at least, the RLDS that I participated with) hold to many of the same ecclesiastical beliefs that the LDS church does. I fully believed that the RLDS church was Christ's church, and that, being His church, serving and loving the church was the same as serving and loving Christ. But when God pulled me from the church, one of the first things He let me know to be wrong was my equation of the church with Him. He let me know, in no uncertain terms, that that was idolatry. It was something I needed to repent of. Giving a visible church (which is a man-made institution (all of them, including the LDS church)) the love, honor, respect and glory that we should be giving to Christ, alone, is idolatry, and God is not pleased with it. You would be wise to make note of this. God is a jealous god. The church is not Christ, neither is it Christ's church. Christ's church is the body of believers. In order to really know Christ, you need to put aside notions of needing to please a physical church. Only then will you know true joy, love and peace. And only then will you be able to worship Him in truth.

 

[sk8Joyful]

Obiwan,
I fully believed that the RLDS church was Christ's church, and that, being His church, serving and loving the church was the same as serving and loving Christ.
Giving a visible church (which is a man-made institution (all of them, including the LDS church)) - the love, honor, respect and glory that we should be giving to Christ, alone, is idolatry, and God is not pleased with it. You would be wise to make note of this.

The church is not Christ, neither is it Christ's church. Christ's church is the body of believers. In order to really know Christ, you need to put aside notions of needing to please a physical church. Only then will you know true joy, love and peace. And only then will you be able to worship Him in truth.

Gee, this was also Well said! - All of it!
and
"the love, honor, respect & glory that we should be giving to Christ," -
we can help other people learn, so they can in-Him-heal...

 

[mormonheretic]

Originally Posted by mormonheretic

Irish Catholics and Protestants have fought wars for years. They believe in Christ. Does Christ accept them, or do they work iniquity?

When I watch the news or read a history of ireland, I do not know who is Christian and who isn't. Were there no christians fighting in World War II? If there were, which country were they fighting for?

Phoebe, it appears to me we are not communicating very well. "Does Christ accept them?" is looking for an answer like "yes, Christ accepts both Protestants and Catholics as they war with each other", or "no, Christ rejects anyone who fights war in his name, and believes they work iniquity." Then you could expand on why you feel the way you do. You responded with a question; that leaves me unsure of your answer of "yes" or "no". Lest I be accused of not answering your questions, let me answer your questions.

Yes, there were Christians fighting in WW2. Christians fought in many countries. I do not know why you are asking me which country they are fighting for. The Ireland Protestant/Catholic clashes are over religion. WW2 was not fought over religion--it was fought to defeat Nazi fascism, and the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor. It was not a religious war like the Irish conflict is, so it appears to me WW2 and the Irish conflict are apples and oranges. Perhaps you could explain why you think they are connected, because I'm not seeing a correlation that you seem to be pointing out.

Originally Posted by mormonheretic

During the Crusades, Catholic Christians attacked Eastern Orthodox Christians in Constantinople. Does Christ accept Catholic and Orthodox warriors, or do they work iniquity?

Have there been any LDS fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan? Did LDS fight in Vietnam? Did LDS fight in Missouri?

One again, you answered my question with a question, and left your position unclear. To answer your questions, Yes there are LDS fighting in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Once again, I'm not seeing a parallel here. The Afghanistan War is not a religious war. Al Qaida bombed the World Trade Center. We wanted to capture Osama Bin Ladin. It is not a religious war. I do not understand why you bring this up.

Yes, LDS fought in Vietnam. The purpose of the Vietnam war was to prevent the spread of Communism in Southeast Asia. It was not a religious war. I do not understand why you bring this up.

Yes, LDS fought in Missouri. Perhaps this could be considered a religious war. However, most Missourians in the 1830's did not care about what the Mormons believed; They were concerned the Mormons were tipping the balance of political power. Missouri was a slave state. When WW Phelps published an article welcoming people of all races to come to Independence, slaveholders took offense and destroyed the Mormon press. Additionally, Missourians were concerned that Mormons voted in blocs, and felt this was not a true democratic form of government (and I agree that bloc voting is not truly democratic.)

So, it appears to me that the fighting in Missouri had more to do with politics than religion, though certainly the Mormon bloc voting and political control of Jackson County played a part. Mormon responses to hostile Missouri mobbings were generally defensive in nature, though some offenses did occur as well. However, I'm not seeing the same parallels with the Crusades or Irish religious wars. Please explain why you are asking me this, because I do not understand. If you are making the point that Mormons worked iniquity when they destroyed Missouri businesses, then yes, I agree, Mormons did work iniquity. However, I think that 80% of Mormon actions during this 1830-1840 time period were reponses were to harrassment, mobbings and beatings instigated by Missourians. Those responsible for the Haun's Mill Massacre no doubt have great blood on their hands and worked great iniquity. Mormons committed no such atrocities such as Haun's Mill in Missouri, and I hope that nobody here has the audacity to claim that Mormons were justly persecuted. Sure, the Mormons weren't perfect, but Haun's Mill makes every other Mormon action in Missouri pale in comparison. Mormon fighting in Missouri was primarily defensive in nature, and I hope nobody here believes that Mormons didn't have a right to defend themselves.

Originally Posted by mormonheretic

In my opinion, it takes a bit more than simply faith in Christ. What do you think?

What takes more than faith in Christ? You did not make that clear.

Sorry that wasn't more clear, but (1)I thought you were following my conversation with New Dawn, who claimed that "faith alone in Christ" was all that was required for salvation and (2) I didn't expect you to chop this question separate from my previous questions about the Crusades. I brought up the Crusades and the Irish conflict because people on both sides seemed to believe deeply in Christ. They took up arms to defend their faith. If "faith alone in Christ" was all that is needed, then both sides should be welcomed into the arms of Christ for defending their faith, right? Or are Crusaders working iniquity? That's what I am asking you. "Yes" and "No" are very useful here as it generally makes your answers more clear.

I'll answer my own question: "are Crusaders working iniquity?" Yes, I believe they are working iniquity, and I believe Christ is unhappy with them for attacking Orthodox Christians in Constantinople. Do you agree or disagree with my reasoning?

Originally Posted by mormonheretic

I bring these situations up because most people clearly see that Hindus are unbelievers.

Are you trying to tell us that Hindus are Christians?

You chopped up my comment a little strange; this really tied in with the previous comment. To answer your question, Hindus are not Christians, and I believe I made that pretty clear when I said "most people clearly see that Hindus are unbelievers." I'm not sure where you're getting confused here, because I think that was pretty clear. Hindus do not believe in Christ and are not Christians.

Is faith in Christ not so important after all?

Faith in Christ is very important, but it is not the "end-all" that New Dawn made it sound at first. New Dawn made a clarification, and I understand the position better now. I am glad that New Dawn doesn't think that someone can profess in Christ and then commit murder in a Crusade and be saved. I agree with that position. I am still trying to understand New Dawn and your position on Hindus, and I still haven't received an answer saying "Hindus are all damned", or "some Hindus will get into heaven." I am sure you understand that Mormons don't simply believe in only heaven and hell; we believe that honorable men (Hindu or not) will receive some sort of glory, perhaps more than a "faithful" Crusader who engaged in war crimes. I'd like to get a clearer understanding of New Dawn and Phoebe's position, but it seems like neither of you answer the question directly and make your position clear. I hope I have made my position clear.

Why do LDS send missionaries to Hindu homes?

I'm surprised by the question, because I think you know the answer: to bring the Good News of the Gospel of Christ, and help them obtain salvation and eternal life.

Originally Posted by mormonheretic

I think Catholic Christians were clearly in the wrong when they attacked Orthodox Christians.

Which Catholics were Christians and which Orthodox were Christians?

Here is another example of not addressing the issue directly. I'm not sure what you mean by Christian, so let me offer a few scenarios; hopefully one of them answers your question. If a Christian is defined as "someone who believes in Christ", then Catholics and Orthodox are both Christians. If a Christian is defined as a "true believer in Christ, who does not work iniquity", then I would say the aggressor Catholics are not Christians because they worked iniquity. The Orthodox Christians were merely defending themselves; I see them as defending themselves by a foreign invader. Is this what you are getting at? I believe so, because you said next,

If a Catholic is an unbeliever, he is not a Christian.

It appears we are in agreement here. I am glad to see you do not believe "faith in Jesus" saves at all costs.

Originally Posted by mormonheretic

(Of course, other Crusades attacked Muslims and Jews as well.) Perhaps Irish Catholics and Protestants are also unbelievers. What do you think--should these groups be considered unbelievers?

Who can say that there are no believers among those who profess faith in Christ?

This seems to contradict your statement that "If a Catholic is an unbeliever, he is not a Christian." I am confused again on your position.

If someone does not have faith in Christ, he is an unbeliever for sure.

So, can you please clarify you position on Hindus that do not have faith in Christ? I am not asking you to judge them, but I am asking what is your understanding of their state: salvation or damnation?

Originally Posted by mormonheretic

I also think that God will be happier with a good Hindu than a bad Christian. LDS theology seems to indicate that the good Hindu can inherit a higher degree of glory than say a Crusading Christian. Does your belief system offer that, or is the good Hindu assigned to Hell because he does not have faith in Christ?

Is it about being good apart from Christ?

As you know, Mormons believe that there are 3 degrees of Glory. Those who accept Christ fully will inherit the highest glory, but a good Hindu who does not fully accept Christ will not obtain the highest glory. However, the good Hindu does have an opportunity to receive a higher glory than a Christian that murders in God's name.

If I understand your position correctly, you don't have this "gradient" scale. Either man goes to Heaven or Hell. Hindus have no shot at Heaven, because they do not believe in Christ. Plundering Christian Crusaders probably will go to Hell because they are not "true believers." If my understanding of your position is correct, then all Hindus are damned. Is this correct?

I'm getting confused about why you think Christ died on the cross. What did He actually accomplish by that? Does His blood save individuals who come to Him or does it save all people regardless of what god they serve?

As a former member, I am surprised that you are asking this question. Christ's resurrection is freely given to all men--Christian, Non-Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc. All receive this gift that Christ gave us by dying on the Cross and being resurrected the 3rd day.

The gift of Eternal life is another matter. Christ's blood grants eternal life only to those who have accepted him as a true believer. This gift is not available to Hindus or believers of another god.

What is a bad Christian?

A bad Christian is most easily discerned by his fruits. "By their fruits ye shall know them." Those who use religious to swindle, and murder are some of the "baddest" Christians.

Don't you mean non-Christian?

It depends how one defines Christian/non-Christian. A bad Christian could be considered a non-Christian, but not necessarily. Some people use the term Christian to exclude Mormons, so I need to know your definition before I can clearly answer the question.

I know this is long, but I think it takes more that a "sound bite" to answer questions with clarity. Now that I have answered yours, will you please answer mine? (Yes and No are very helpful words when you choose to answer.)

 

[Ran77]

Phoebe, it appears to me we are not communicating very well. "Does Christ accept them?" is looking for an answer like "yes, Christ accepts both Protestants and Catholics as they war with each other", or "no, Christ rejects anyone who fights war in his name, and believes they work iniquity." Then you could expand on why you feel the way you do. You responded with a question; that leaves me unsure of your answer of "yes" or "no". Lest I be accused of not answering your questions, let me answer your questions.

If a yes or no response was given, you might be able to point out any flaws that exist in the answer. However, by avoiding a clear answer it is impossible to be shown to be wrong.

I think it's a variant of the military axiom that you can't hit what you can't see.

 

[Rescued One]

Phoebe, it appears to me we are not communicating very well. "Does Christ accept them?" is looking for an answer like "yes, Christ accepts both Protestants and Catholics as they war with each other", or "no, Christ rejects anyone who fights war in his name, and believes they work iniquity." Then you could expand on why you feel the way you do. You responded with a question; that leaves me unsure of your answer of "yes" or "no". Lest I be accused of not answering your questions, let me answer your questions.

Yes, there were Christians fighting in WW2. Christians fought in many countries. I do not know why you are asking me which country they are fighting for.

Were there any Christians in Germany who belonged to the Nazi forces? Were there any Protestant Christians who killed Catholic Christians in Ireland? Were there any Catholic Christians who killed Protestants in Ireland? Do LDS belong to the CIA? Have LDS in the American armed forces killed anyone during the different wars?

One again, you answered my question with a question and left your position unclear.

LDS do this often. Frequently my questions are never answered.

When I watch the news or read a history of ireland, I do not know who is Christian and who isn't. Were there no christians fighting in World War II? If there were, which country were they fighting for?

Have there been any LDS fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan? Did LDS fight in Vietnam? Did LDS fight in Missouri?

To answer your questions, Yes there are LDS fighting in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Once again, I'm not seeing a parallel here. The Afghanistan War is not a religious war. Al Qaida bombed the World Trade Center. We wanted to capture Osama Bin Ladin. It is not a religious war. I do not understand why you bring this up.

Yes, LDS fought in Vietnam. The purpose of the Vietnam war was to prevent the spread of Communism in Southeast Asia. It was not a religious war. I do not understand why you bring this up.

I believe that LDS may not always be justified in killing others and that when you are in a war, you do not know if the person you just killed was a Christian.

They took up arms to defend their faith. If "faith alone in Christ" was all that is needed, then both sides should be welcomed into the arms of Christ for defending their faith, right?

Both sides are not Christian. You do not know who is Christian and who isn't. That is like saying all LDS are Christians and if there is a war, God is on the side of the LDS. Would God welcome only LDS into the Celestial Kingdom and relegate all non-LDS to other kingdoms?

Or are Crusaders working iniquity? That's what I am asking you. "Yes" and "No" are very useful here as it generally makes your answers more clear.

I'll answer my own question: "are Crusaders working iniquity?" Yes, I believe they are working iniquity, and I believe Christ is unhappy with them for attacking Orthodox Christians in Constantinople. Do you agree or disagree with my reasoning?

You chopped up my comment a little strange; this really tied in with the previous comment. To answer your question, Hindus are not Christians, and I believe I made that pretty clear when I said "most people clearly see that Hindus are unbelievers." I'm not sure where you're getting confused here, because I think that was pretty clear. Hindus do not believe in Christ and are not Christians.

Faith in Christ is very important, but it is not the "end-all" that New Dawn made it sound at first. New Dawn made a clarification, and I understand the position better now. I am glad that New Dawn doesn't think that someone can profess in Christ and then commit murder in a Crusade and be saved.

"And then be saved" is not the problem. The question is, "Would a saved person go out and murder someone?" The answer is, "No."

I agree with that position. I am still trying to understand New Dawn and your position on Hindus, and I still haven't received an answer saying "Hindus are all damned", or "some Hindus will get into heaven."

And I'm still trying to understand why LDS believe that accepting Christ isn't a requirement for salvation.

I am sure you understand that Mormons don't simply believe in only heaven and hell; we believe that honorable men (Hindu or not) will receive some sort of glory, perhaps more than a "faithful" Crusader who engaged in war crimes. I'd like to get a clearer understanding of New Dawn and Phoebe's position, but it seems like neither of you answer the question directly and make your position clear. I hope I have made my position clear.

QUIZ:

1. Does God punish sinners?
2. Does He have that right?
3. Which humans haven't sinned?
4. Did Jesus die for sinners or only for the righteous?
5. Who is condemned?

Why do LDS send missionaries to Hindu homes?

I'm surprised by the question, because I think you know the answer: to bring the Good News of the Gospel of Christ, and help them obtain salvation and eternal life.

Okay, is that why LDS send missionaries to my doorstep and my Mennonite neighbor's doorstep?

Here is another example of not addressing the issue directly. I'm not sure what you mean by Christian, so let me offer a few scenarios; hopefully one of them answers your question. If a Christian is defined as "someone who believes in Christ", then Catholics and Orthodox are both Christians. If a Christian is defined as a "true believer in Christ, who does not work iniquity", then I would say the aggressor Catholics are not Christians because they worked iniquity. The Orthodox Christians were merely defending themselves; I see them as defending themselves by a foreign invader. Is this what you are getting at? I believe so, because you said next,

It appears we are in agreement here. I am glad to see you do not believe "faith in Jesus" saves at all costs.

It is God who changes a person's heart and guides His adopted child in paths of righteousness for His name's sake. Just because someone professes faith in Christ does not mean he has been born again. Works are not a requirement for salvation. They are a result of salvation. My faith and works are not pulling the cart. The faith is pulling me to do good works.

This seems to contradict your statement that "If a Catholic is an unbeliever, he is not a Christian." I am confused again on your position.

So, can you please clarify you position on Hindus that do not have faith in Christ? I am not asking you to judge them, but I am asking what is your understanding of their state: salvation or damnation?

If you knew that faith in Christ is a requirement for salvation, you certainly would not ask the question.

Why do LDS send missionaries to Hindu homes?

I'm surprised by the question, because I think you know the answer: to bring the Good News of the Gospel of Christ, and help them obtain salvation and eternal life.

Remember the above question and answer?

As you know, Mormons believe that there are 3 degrees of Glory. Those who accept Christ fully will inherit the highest glory, but a good Hindu who does not fully accept Christ will not obtain the highest glory. However, the good Hindu does have an opportunity to receive a higher glory than a Christian that murders in God's name.

First of all, the Bible doesn't talk about partially or fully accepting Christ. See John 3:18. Second, glory is not promised to those who have not been justified and justification comes only through faith in Christ. See Romans 5:1. Third, a Christian would not murder. "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." Romans 8:9

If I understand your position correctly, you don't have this "gradient" scale. Either man goes to Heaven or Hell. Hindus have no shot at Heaven, because they do not believe in Christ. Plundering Christian Crusaders probably will go to Hell because they are not "true believers." If my understanding of your position is correct, then all Hindus are damned. Is this correct?

John 3:18 says that sinners are damned until they come to Christ, the Light. Christ came to save sinners; the requirement for salvation is faith in Christ. So we cannot single out Hindus. It is unbelievers who don't receive salvation. My family of origin are unbelievers. They have never been and are not Hindus. You, yourself, said that LDS missionaries visit Hindus "to bring the Good News of the Gospel of Christ, and help them obtain salvation and eternal life." You say, "Christ's blood grants eternal life only to those who have accepted him as a true believer. This gift is not available to Hindus or believers of another god."

Is it about being good apart from Christ? I'm getting confused about why you think Christ died on the cross. What did He actually accomplish by that? Does His blood save individuals who come to Him or does it save all people regardless of what god they serve?

As a former member, I am surprised that you are asking this question. Christ's resurrection is freely given to all men--Christian, Non-Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc. All receive this gift that Christ gave us by dying on the Cross and being resurrected the 3rd day.

Let me ask again, does His blood save individuals who come to Him or does it save all people regardless of what god they serve?

A bad Christian is most easily discerned by his fruits. "By their fruits ye shall know them." Those who use religious to swindle, and murder are some of the "baddest" Christians.

I disagree. "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." Romans 8:9

It depends how one defines Christian/non-Christian. A bad Christian could be considered a non-Christian, but not necessarily. Some people use the term Christian to exclude Mormons, so I need to know your definition before I can clearly answer the question.

If a person does not have the Spirit of Christ/has not been born again of the Spirit, he is not a Christian. If a person belongs to Christ, he/she is being led by the Holy Spirit. Churches don't save. Christ saves.

 

[Obiwan]

Obiwan, for all your hatred of the RLDS, the RLDS (at least, the RLDS that I participated with) hold to many of the same ecclesiastical beliefs that the LDS church does. I fully believed that the RLDS church was Christ's church, and that, being His church, serving and loving the church was the same as serving and loving Christ. But when God pulled me from the church, one of the first things He let me know to be wrong was my equation of the church with Him. He let me know, in no uncertain terms, that that was idolatry. It was something I needed to repent of. Giving a visible church (which is a man-made institution (all of them, including the LDS church)) the love, honor, respect and glory that we should be giving to Christ, alone, is idolatry, and God is not pleased with it. You would be wise to make note of this. God is a jealous god. The church is not Christ, neither is it Christ's church. Christ's church is the body of believers. In order to really know Christ, you need to put aside notions of needing to please a physical church. Only then will you know true joy, love and peace. And only then will you be able to worship Him in truth.

1. I have no "hate" for any religion. My only "hate" is for those who do evil and bear false witness of others. Not believing in and disagreeing with is not automatically "hate". If I hated religion I would be bashing them as you do to mormonism. But, I only bash contra-mormonism, liberalism, and those who do any other type of evil. I don't contend against the Light, no matter how "bright" or less so it is above the line between good and evil. I contend only against evil as the scriptures ACTUALLY teach us to do. When it concerns religion, I again follow the scriptures, I defend the faith, and I contend to "preserve" the the faith once delivered. No scriptures teaches to contend "against" Faith. In fact, Mark/Luke 9 Christ Himself is quite clear that we should give no offense to other believers not "with us", for they also are his children, though they not have his authority and truths in full, as little children tend not too.

2. In your opinion..... LDS know otherwise that if the Lords Church is on the earth, we can actually do BOTH. Love the Church AND Love Him..... Just because you think such is impossible, that all religions are man-made etc., doesn't mean that view is actually the "Truth". You only think mormonism is another man made because of how you have been decieved, but that perversion and deception is not mormonism nor the truth.

Anyway, feel free to believe what you wish, just don't assume that your intellectual views are the same as actually being Christ's Truths, and your relationship with Him. One is not necessarily the same as the other. Oddly, you seem to know that, since you supposudly think you don't embrace any religion, yet, you seem to be so "sure" of yourself on what the "truth" actually is that you contend against mormonism. Kinda a non-tenable hypocritical position, but, nothing new with contra-mo's, double standards are the rule, not the exception in your intellectual arguments and actions.

 

[Rescued One]

1. I have no "hate" for any religion. My only "hate" is for those who do evil and bear false witness of others. Not believing in and disagreeing with is not automatically "hate". If I hated religion I would be bashing them as you do to mormonism. But, I only bash contra-mormonism, liberalism, and those who do any other type of evil.

You try to justify your criticism of other teachings and condemn another person's criticism of other teachings.

I contend to "preserve" the the faith once delivered. No scriptures teaches to contend "against" Faith.

Who here, IYO, is doing otherwise? It must be the people who disagree with Mormonism.

Anyway, feel free to believe what you wish, just don't assume that your intellectual views are the same as actually being Christ's Truths

From your posts, it is apparent that you believe your intellectual views are actually Christ's Truths.

 

[bbbbbbb]

It's one thing to have a testimony of Christ, quite another to actually know what his doctrines actually are contrasted to the doctrines of men. I know you want to think you're all about Christ, Christ is the most important thing etc., but that's not really true, because you spend all your time here attacking things you once more or less believed in. You also shouldn't confuse your current testimony of Christ as being the same thing as you being accurate in what His Truths IN FULL actually are.

To many leave the Church and then find Jesus and then think that it was the Church that prevented you from finding Jesus. Problem with that is that many find Jesus before becoming mormon and still know Jesus, they just know HIS Truths better, as well most find Jesus while being mormon. Thus, the thing is, did you ever consider that it's a flaw in your own thinking and progress from not being able to "find Christ" in the Church, hence why it was so "easy" for you to believe the perversions of mormonism and scripture over what the truth actually is??? Food for thought.

Knowing the "truth" in full is not the same as feeling the Holy Spirit. Everyone has access to the Spirit, but not everyone has the Truth.



And you actually prove my point..... You had a different "intellectual" change in you at some point in which everything else rolled from that change, and such is separate from the Spirit of Christ. Further, you incorrectly assume that if Christ's Church is actually on the earth, that the Church is actually "separate" from Christ. It is not..... You are right concerning man-made religion, but you are wrong when it concerns Christ's Church. Finding His Church is finding Him...... Such is of both the intellect and the heart.

Obiwan, I regret to inform you that I doubt your ability to read minds, especially of those other than yourself. If you can prove to me that you are a god and are capable of reading NewDawn's mind and spirit, then I might believe the testimony your bore above concerning her. until such time, please forgive me if I consider you to be bearing false testimony against her.

 

[Obiwan]

Obiwan, I regret to inform you that I doubt your ability to read minds, especially of those other than yourself. If you can prove to me that you are a god and are capable of reading NewDawn's mind and spirit, then I might believe the testimony your bore above concerning her. until such time, please forgive me if I consider you to be bearing false testimony against her.

Uh, I don't have to "read minds" (nice false witnessing there), I just have to read peoples WORDS.....

I can tell quite easily when someone is being degrading or a group and/or the people within it. But, you have your view and I have mine.

 

[mormonheretic]

Phoebe, we still seem to have a communication problem. In my previous response, at least 3 times I asked you to use "yes" or "no" at the beginning of your answer so your answer is clear. Your first response was a series of questions to my questions. Perhaps people don't answer your questions, because your questions are ANSWERS.

My question:

Irish Catholics and Protestants have fought wars for years. They believe in Christ. Does Christ accept them, or do they work iniquity?

During the Crusades, Catholic Christians attacked Eastern Orthodox Christians in Constantinople. Does Christ accept Catholic and Orthodox warriors, or do they work iniquity?

Your answers did not use "yes" or "no". Really, if our goal is to avoid being misunderstood, we must answer questions clearly. I gave you a template to answer this specific question, yet you answered my question with a series of questions again. Please do not answer my question with a question.

I think the reason people don't answer your questions is because your questions aren't questions, they are ANSWERS. Nevertheless, in the spirit of building goodwill and communication, I will endeavor to answer your "answers."

Were there any Christians in Germany who belonged to the Nazi forces? Were there any Protestant Christians who killed Catholic Christians in Ireland? Were there any Catholic Christians who killed Protestants in Ireland? Do LDS belong to the CIA? Have LDS in the American armed forces killed anyone during the different wars?

Yes, there were probably Christians in Germany that belonged to the Nazi forces. Yes Protestants killed Catholics, and Catholics killed Protestants in Ireland (which is the central focus of my point, so I don't know why you are asking ME that question, since I asked you first.) Yes, the LDS belong to the CIA. Yes LDS in American armed forces have killed many people in conflicts.

There, 4 questions, 4 yes answers. See, it's not that hard. Nevertheless, you didn't answer my questions that proceeded your "answers". Please use "yes" or "no" when (or if) you answer my questions. Your persistent refusal to answer my questions clearly, seems to indicate an evasiveness that does not facilitate good communication. No wonder you call yourself misunderstood--you do not make yourself understood.

[/quote]Frequently my questions are never answered.

That's because most of your questions are answers. We didn't know we were supposed to answer your answers.

I believe that LDS may not always be justified in killing others and that when you are in a war, you do not know if the person you just killed was a Christian.

Yes, I agree, LDS are not always justified in killing others. When you go to war, you are killing an enemy. Generally the rules of war are "shoot first, ask questions later."

Every single question you asked me dealt with a non-religious war. I asked you about religious wars. If an LDS shoots a Nazi, it has no bearing on where the Nazi went to church. If a protestant kills a Catholic in Ireland, the purpose in killing is because of where the enemy went to church. This is a big difference. Religious wars are fought over religion. Other wars are fought for non-religious reasons. While all wars make God sorrow, I think he believes we have a right to defend ourselves.

The Book of Mormon clearly shows that defensive war is ok. The Bible actually seems to believe that offensive war is acceptable, as seen by Moses and Joshua's war of conquest in the Land of Canaan. (Subsequent biblical wars seemed to be more defensive in nature, as the Jews were defending their homeland that they forcefully took from the Canaanites.)

An LDS member killing a Nazi is defending Jews and freedom. If a Nazi is a Christian participating in the Holocaust, that Nazi doesn't sound like a good Christian to me. However, I don't think Nazi's believed in "conscientious objector" status, so the German Christian may have been coerced into joining the army. God will take that into account at judgment.

Once again, you seem to be missing the point of my question when you bring up WW2. Your "answers" are not addressing my point about religious wars. Religious wars are "defending" one's religion. If 2 Christians are fighting over Christ, how does Christ handle the situation? I ask again, Does Christ accept both sides in religious wars fought in his name, or do they work iniquity? (2 examples of religious wars are Crusades, and the Irish war we have been discussing. Please limit your comments to these 2 wars; introducing other wars is not relevant to my question. This will ensure better communication and will help me understand your position.)

This comment is long enough. I'll address your other issues in another post.

 

[mormonheretic]

Would God welcome only LDS into the Celestial Kingdom and relegate all non-LDS to other kingdoms?

This seems to be the point of your very first post here. I can't find it now, but I remember you said something to the effect that God does not care about denominations. I agree. Certainly Jesus, Peter, Paul, Moses, Adam, Noah, and Abraham were not LDS, so NO, God does not welcome only LDS into the Celestial Kingdom. I feel assured that all of these men will be in the Celestial Kingdom, and I believe that Esther, Ruth, Mary, Mary Magdalene, and Abish will be in the Celestial Kingdom as well.

"And then be saved" is not the problem. The question is, "Would a saved person go out and murder someone?" The answer is, "No."

I like this, and agree with it whole-heartedly.

And I'm still trying to understand why LDS believe that accepting Christ isn't a requirement for salvation.

Well, the LDS believe that accepting Christ is a requirement for salvation, so there's your problem. You believe something incorrect. Hopefully I have corrected your incorrect belief.

QUIZ:

1. Does God punish sinners?

Yes, but he doesn't always do it in this life.

2. Does He have that right?

Absolutely.

3. Which humans haven't sinned?

None. Romans 3:23"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

4. Did Jesus die for sinners or only for the righteous?

Jesus died for both.

5. Who is condemned?

I'm not sure I understand the point of the question. I think you are referring to Romans 14:23 "But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin." If this is what you are referring to, then all sinners are condemned.

However, those that partake of Jesus atonement are not condemned. As Jesus told the woman caught in adultery in John 8:10-11,

"When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? 11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Okay, is that why LDS send missionaries to my doorstep and my Mennonite neighbor's doorstep?

Maybe they thought you looked nice and wanted to talk to you! I think you know the answer to that question, but I'll oblige. They would like to help you become a better Christian. (It appears you think your version of Christianity is superior to the Missionaries version--am I wrong? "yes" or "no" please.)

It is God who changes a person's heart and guides His adopted child in paths of righteousness for His name's sake. Just because someone professes faith in Christ does not mean he has been born again. Works are not a requirement for salvation. They are a result of salvation. My faith and works are not pulling the cart. The faith is pulling me to do good works.

I have no qualms with what you just said. This whole grace/works argument is much ado about nothing. It seems to be a heated argument of which came first--the chicken or the egg, and I think the whole argument is silly and pointless. A person with true faith naturally wants to do the works of God. Too many Mormons argue this point and it is silly.

If you knew that faith in Christ is a requirement for salvation, you certainly would not ask the question. Remember the above question and answer?

Yes, I remember the above question and answer, and I hope I have answered clearly. I hope you will answer "yes" or "no" as well to my questions.

First of all, the Bible doesn't talk about partially or fully accepting Christ. See John 3:18. Second, glory is not promised to those who have not been justified and justification comes only through faith in Christ. See Romans 5:1. Third, a Christian would not murder. "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." Romans 8:9

I agree.

John 3:18 says that sinners are damned until they come to Christ, the Light. Christ came to save sinners; the requirement for salvation is faith in Christ. So we cannot single out Hindus. It is unbelievers who don't receive salvation. My family of origin are unbelievers. They have never been and are not Hindus. You, yourself, said that LDS missionaries visit Hindus "to bring the Good News of the Gospel of Christ, and help them obtain salvation and eternal life." You say, "Christ's blood grants eternal life only to those who have accepted him as a true believer. This gift is not available to Hindus or believers of another god."

Gosh, I feel like you've almost made it clear here, and I think I agree with everything you just said. Am I correct that you believe Hindus are damned?

This is long enough again. I'll address the rest in just a few minutes.

 

[RufustheRed]

Phoebe, we still seem to have a communication problem. In my previous response, at least 3 times I asked you to use "yes" or "no" at the beginning of your answer so your answer is clear.

I don't know about Phoebe Ann, but I abhor being told what to answer. This is not a court of law where the lawyer barks, "Just yes or no, please." Another problem I see is that your questions are not clear. Let me proceed.

<text omitted>​

My question:
Originally Posted by mormonheretic

Irish Catholics and Protestants have fought wars for years. They believe in Christ. Does Christ accept them, or do they work iniquity?

During the Crusades, Catholic Christians attacked Eastern Orthodox Christians in Constantinople. Does Christ accept Catholic and Orthodox warriors, or do they work iniquity?
​

​

When you can confirm which individuals in each of the above said groups have faith in the Lord, Jesus Christ, then perhaps you might get a yes or no answer. You are not talking about individuals - you are speaking of groups. That is like saying that the United States of America is a Christian nation. Well, there are many Jews here who would probably disagree. Is Utah a Mormon state? Not knowing the demographics, I would probably say no. To say that this country was founded on Christian principals would be accurate, but that doesn't save everyone with U.S. citizenship.

Your answers did not use "yes" or "no". Really, if our goal is to avoid being misunderstood, we must answer questions clearly. I gave you a template to answer this specific question, yet you answered my question with a series of questions again. Please do not answer my question with a question.

This is simply an attempt to dominate the interrogation and response, IMO. Your questions did not lead to yes or no answers as I pointed out. Now, can you answer the questions that you asked? Apparently, you at least have an opinion.

I think the reason people don't answer your questions is because your questions aren't questions, they are ANSWERS. Nevertheless, in the spirit of building goodwill and communication, I will endeavor to answer your "answers."

Originally Posted by Phoebe Ann

Were there any Christians in Germany who belonged to the Nazi forces? Were there any Protestant Christians who killed Catholic Christians in Ireland? Were there any Catholic Christians who killed Protestants in Ireland? Do LDS belong to the CIA? Have LDS in the American armed forces killed anyone during the different wars?
​

Yes, there were probably Christians in Germany that belonged to the Nazi forces. Yes Protestants killed Catholics, and Catholics killed Protestants in Ireland (which is the central focus of my point, so I don't know why you are asking ME that question, since I asked you first.) Yes, the LDS belong to the CIA. Yes LDS in American armed forces have killed many people in conflicts.

There, 4 questions, 4 yes answers. See, it's not that hard. Nevertheless, you didn't answer my questions that proceeded your "answers". Please use "yes" or "no" when (or if) you answer my questions. Your persistent refusal to answer my questions clearly, seems to indicate an evasiveness that does not facilitate good communication. No wonder you call yourself misunderstood--you do not make yourself understood.[/quote]

With all due respect, it seems that it is only some LDS claim to not understand her posts. I have no difficultly with comprehending her what she writes, or those of other non-LDS (nice term, hey? Much better than "contra-mo" I see one of your cohorts throwing around. Sorry - off topic)

<text omitted>​

[mormonheretic]quote=Yes, I agree, LDS are not always justified in killing others. When you go to war, you are killing an enemy. Generally the rules of war are "shoot first, ask questions later."

Every single question you asked me dealt with a non-religious war. I asked you about religious wars. If an LDS shoots a Nazi, it has no bearing on where the Nazi went to church. If a protestant kills a Catholic in Ireland, the purpose in killing is because of where the enemy went to church. This is a big difference. Religious wars are fought over religion. Other wars are fought for non-religious reasons. While all wars make God sorrow, I think he believes we have a right to defend ourselves.

The Book of Mormon clearly shows that defensive war is ok. The Bible actually seems to believe that offensive war is acceptable, as seen by Moses and Joshua's war of conquest in the Land of Canaan. (Subsequent biblical wars seemed to be more defensive in nature, as the Jews were defending their homeland that they forcefully took from the Canaanites.)

An LDS member killing a Nazi is defending Jews and freedom. If a Nazi is a Christian participating in the Holocaust, that Nazi doesn't sound like a good Christian to me. However, I don't think Nazi's believed in "conscientious objector" status, so the German Christian may have been coerced into joining the army. God will take that into account at judgment. [/quote]

In fact, they did - sort of. The German soldiers were allow to NOT participate in the death squads, but are we talking about individuals who have faith in Christ or just talking about Germans?

Once again, you seem to be missing the point of my question when you bring up WW2. Your "answers" are not addressing my point about religious wars. Religious wars are "defending" one's religion. If 2 Christians are fighting over Christ, how does Christ handle the situation? I ask again, Does Christ accept both sides in religious wars fought in his name, or do they work iniquity? (2 examples of religious wars are Crusades, and the Irish war we have been discussing.

The way you have framed that question still begs the yes-no question. Are these two people who have faith in Christ or are they Christians in name only? Are they Christians because their parents took them to church and had them baptized as infants, therefore making them "Christians." OR are they both individuals who have made a commitment to accept by faith the risen Savior? They they have both done this, I would argue that they would NOT be fighting over "religion." They would probably be praying together.

<text omitted>​

Rufus ​

 

[mormonheretic]

Let me ask again, does His blood save individuals who come to Him or does it save all people regardless of what god they serve?

Yes, Christ's blood saves individuals who come to Him. It does not save people regardless of what god they serve.

It sounds to me like you're getting confused with what I said earlier. I will quote it again here, with some additions in purple font to address your question above. I think you found my statement confusing when I said,

As you know, Mormons believe that there are 3 degrees of Glory. Those who accept Christ fully will inherit the highest glory, but a good Hindu who does not fully accept Christ will not obtain the highest glory. This means the person who fully accepts Christ is in the Celestial Kingdom. To be in the Celestial Kingdom means salvation. See D&C 76:50-70 for more information. The Hindu will be in either the Terrestrial or Telestial Kingdom. Terrestrial and Telestial Kingdoms do not equal salvation. See D&C 76:71-119--it is much too long to quote here.

Now you may be wondering about what I said when I said "Hindu who does not fully accept Christ".

Following Jesus death on the cross, many have wondered where he went, because he did not ascend to the Father. For example, we know that Jesus appeared to Mary after she discovered the empty tomb. Apparently Mary tried to embrace Jesus. (Who wouldn't?) The Gospel of John chapter 20 verse 17 records, Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father.

So if Jesus didn't go to the Father after he died, many have wondered where he went during this 3 day period? Paul in his Epistle to Peter tells us that Jesus visited those who were disobedient in the days of Noah. 1 Peter 3:18-20 says,

For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19 through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20 who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water,)

Furthermore, 1 Peter 4:6 expands on this topic further:

For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to men in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit.

Paul discusses this topic again in 1 Cor 15:22-31. I find verses 22 and 29 most interesting.

For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.

25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

29 Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them? 30 And as for us, why do we endanger ourselves every hour?

31 I die every day–I mean that, brothers–just as surely as I glory over you in Christ Jesus our Lord. 32 If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus for merely human reasons, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”

33 Do not be misled: “Bad company corrupts good character.”

Christ taught the dead who were disobedient in the days of Noah. Since Christianity didn't exist in Noah's day, these people were certainly non-Christians. More than likely, they were polytheistic. There is a good chance that they had some beliefs in common with our hypothetical Hindu. If a Hindu never hears of Christ in this life, would a loving god damn the Hindu who never heard of Christ? Mormon theology says no. If I understand your theology correctly, the Hindu is damned to Hell, because only true, faithful Christians will be saved.

Your quiz says all men are sinners, including Hindus. God condemns all sinners. Only those who accept Christ will not be condemned. If a Hindu does not accept Christ, the Hindu is condemned to damnation. Therefore, all Hindus are damned, because by definition they worship a different god, and have no faith in Christ. Does this accurately represent your beliefs? ("yes" or "no" would be very helpful here.)

Mormons, on the other hand, believe that Christ will teach to the Hindu as it says in 1 Peter chapter 3 and 4. If this Hindu accepts Christ, he will be baptized as it says in 1 Cor 15. Therefore, Mormons do not believe all Hindus will be damned to Hell.

So, the Celestial Kingdom will be full of people of MANY denominations, and it is not limited to LDS only. This belief fully refutes your erroneous point in your opening post that makes the assumption that non-LDS will obtain "wo" and damnation. It also answers your question,

Would God welcome only LDS into the Celestial Kingdom and relegate all non-LDS to other kingdoms?

I remind you that even if a Hindu chooses not to accept Christ, then the Hindu will not obtain the Celestial Kingdom. We believe that the same sociality exists in the next life as it does here. If people rejected Christ in Jerusalem 2000 years ago, they have the opportunity to reject him in the spirit prison as well. It is not a slam dunk that someone will accept Christ in spirit prison.

Even if the Hindu rejects Christ in spirit prison, the good Hindu does have an opportunity to receive a higher glory than a Christian that murders in God's name. This means that a good Hindu could potentially be in the Terrestrial Kingdom, while the Christian guilty of war crimes enters the lower glory Telestial Kingdom.

If I understand your position correctly, you don't have this "gradient" scale. Either man goes to Heaven or Hell. Hindus have no shot at Heaven, because they do not believe in Christ. Plundering Christian Crusaders probably will go to Hell because they are not "true believers." If my understanding of your position is correct, then all Hindus are damned. Is this correct?

As a former member, I am surprised that you are asking this question. (Perhaps you do not understand LDS theology as good as you think you do.) Christ's resurrection is freely given to all men--Christian, Non-Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc. All receive this gift that Christ gave us by dying on the Cross and being resurrected the 3rd day. (This gift of resurrection is given to all, but is not considered salvation. Hindus will be resurrected, along with Christians.)

The gift of Eternal life is another matter. Christ's blood grants eternal life only to those who have accepted him as a true believer. This gift is not available to Hindus or believers of another god. (Eternal life means salvation in the Celestial Kingdom.)

I hope that answers your question. Apostle Russell M Nelson gave an address on salvation and exaltation in April 2008 if you would like more information. See his talk titled Salvation and Exaltation. (I tried to post the link, but I can't yet.)

"But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." Romans 8:9

If a person does not have the Spirit of Christ/has not been born again of the Spirit, he is not a Christian. If a person belongs to Christ, he/she is being led by the Holy Spirit. Churches don't save. Christ saves.

I agree. Churches don't save. Christ saves.

 

[Rescued One]

Well, the LDS believe that accepting Christ is a requirement for salvation, so there's your problem. You believe something incorrect. Hopefully I have corrected your incorrect belief.

Hindus and Buddhists are people who haven't accepted Christ. I wasn't incorrect. LDS responses have been on both sides of the fence.

 

[mormonheretic]

I don't know about Phoebe Ann, but I abhor being told what to answer. This is not a court of law where the lawyer barks, "Just yes or no, please."

Rufus, I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on tv. I've been told several times that this is a debate forum. As such, I don't think it is inappropriate to answer questions clearly. Yes or No is very clear. Phoebe and you have complained about being misunderstood. Yes or No is very clear. If my questions are not clear, I'll be happy to clarify them. I have noted where Phoebe's question are not clear to by stating "if you mean....then yes/no" Phoebe is certainly welcome to do the same.

Another problem I see is that your questions are not clear. Let me proceed.

<text omitted>​

When you can confirm which individuals in each of the above said groups have faith in the Lord, Jesus Christ, then perhaps you might get a yes or no answer. You are not talking about individuals - you are speaking of groups. That is like saying that the United States of America is a Christian nation. Well, there are many Jews here who would probably disagree. Is Utah a Mormon state? Not knowing the demographics, I would probably say no. To say that this country was founded on Christian principals would be accurate, but that doesn't save everyone with U.S. citizenship.

This is a fair point, but Phoebe never attempted to ask for a clarification, did she? From her responses, it seemed she answered the question with question because she understood my intent. If she didn't understand, then she should have responded as you did. She did not.

[quote[This is simply an attempt to dominate the interrogation and response, IMO. Your questions did not lead to yes or no answers as I pointed out. Now, can you answer the questions that you asked? Apparently, you at least have an opinion.[/quote]

Yes, Rufus, I did answer my own questions. Let me quote myself. (It was a long response--perhaps you missed it.)

I'll answer my own question: "are Crusaders working iniquity?" Yes, I believe they are working iniquity, and I believe Christ is unhappy with them for attacking Orthodox Christians in Constantinople.

With all due respect, it seems that it is only some LDS claim to not understand her posts. I have no difficultly with comprehending her what she writes, or those of other non-LDS (nice term, hey? Much better than "contra-mo" I see one of your cohorts throwing around. Sorry - off topic)

Rufus, Phoeve was accused of misrepresenting and distorting LDS beliefs--not quite the same as "not understand her posts." She claims not to misrepresent or distort belief. Much of that can be attributed to her lack of clarity when answering questions. It almost feels like interviewing Bill Clinton, "Well, it depends on what the definition of is is...." Really, must we resort to defining IS? (rhetorical--no response needed or sought.)

In fact, they did - sort of. The German soldiers were allow to NOT participate in the death squads, but are we talking about individuals who have faith in Christ or just talking about Germans?

Wow, I did not know that. You have a better grasp of German WW2 history than me. I learned something. Yes, I believe Phoebe was talking about Germans with faith in Christ. I wasn't talking about Germans--I was talking about the Crusades and the Irish conflict. I've been trying to quit talking about Germans, because it is not relevant, but I was trying to answer Phoebe's question. So once again, it was Pheobe's point you are misunderstanding, not mine. I think this is another example to show she does not communicate well if you are attributing it to me.

The way you have framed that question still begs the yes-no question. Are these two people who have faith in Christ or are they Christians in name only? Are they Christians because their parents took them to church and had them baptized as infants, therefore making them "Christians." OR are they both individuals who have made a commitment to accept by faith the risen Savior? They they have both done this, I would argue that they would NOT be fighting over "religion." They would probably be praying together.

I didn't ask about Germans with faith in Christ--that was Phoebe. As I understand it, Phoebe frames Christians much more restrictively than anybody who went to a Christian church. She is framing a believer as "one who's heart has been changed and been born again." I have a hard time believing a Nazi Christian participating in the Holocaust would meet that definition, but perhaps one of you knows of a case you can share.

Once again, the question you point as confusing is Pheobe's not mine.

 

[mormonheretic]

Hindus and Buddhists are people who haven't accepted Christ. I wasn't incorrect. LDS responses have been on both sides of the fence.

Phoebe, please read my response with the Purple font. You are mis-characterizing again.

 

[A New Dawn]

Uh, I don't have to "read minds" (nice false witnessing there), I just have to read peoples WORDS.....

I can tell quite easily when someone is being degrading or a group and/or the people within it. But, you have your view and I have mine.

You chose to criticize my testimony, not any argument I made against mormonism. My testimony is that God told me it is wrong. It is not your place to tell me that what God told me is wrong.

 

[A New Dawn]

How's this...

Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye." (Mark 7:5-13)
​

I have presented evidence to support my claim that men have changed God's words and works. That evidence was spoken by the mouth of Jesus Christ. It is not conjecture. So when a boy says that Jesus Christ once again has said directly to him that men have changed his words and works, I already have cause to believe that the boy's witness may be true. Should I find more instances in which men have changed what God has given them, my confidence in the possibility that it has happened again will increase yet more. Should I find prophecies in sources already established in my mind and heart by spiritual means to be inspired, indicating that men would abandon or change truth for reasons whatever, my confidence in this possibility will increase still. And so on...

I was looking more for evidence concerning changing what Christ said, or the apostles, but this example is a prime reason why the church took great pains to make sure that they did not change the text when they copied the texts to distribute and preserve them.

So, could you provide examples of where plain and precious parts of the Bible were lost, added or changed? That is, after all, what Joseph Smith was talking about when he made the accusation.

bumping for softspoken.

 

[SoftSpoken]

I was looking more for evidence concerning changing what Christ said, or the apostles, but this example is a prime reason why the church took great pains to make sure that they did not change the text when they copied the texts to distribute and preserve them.

So, could you provide examples of where plain and precious parts of the Bible were lost, added or changed? That is, after all, what Joseph Smith was talking about when he made the accusation.

Sorry I missed this.

While I have no objection to the claim of preservation, the problem is that preservation doesn't reach back quite far enough. Bible manuscripts can be verified back to the 3rd Century A.D., but no further. And most, if not all, of the references by the early Church writers which indicate that corruption of the scriptures was taking place, describe those activities in the 2nd Century or before. So the evidence needed to verify that what has been preserved in existing manuscripts is actually what was originally written does not exist. So the evidence you request of me is the same evidence I would request of you, at least as pertaining to the original works.

However, John Gee has researched and written a good article highlighting the various evidences that do exist which support the claim that existing scriptures (including the earliest manuscripts) would not match (in some ways significantly) the original penned or oral works. Rather than regurgitate his work, you can read it here: Early Christians in Disarray: Contemporary LDS Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy - The Corruption of Scripture in Early Christianity

Let me know if this satisfies your request.

 

[Moodshadow]

I apologize for the length of this tome, SoftSpoken. I just could not condense it any more and cover what you asked of me.

I apologize for my earlier comments. Not, mind you, because I showed emotion in my words, nor because the conviction behind them was misplaced, but for the contemptuous tone of my words.

Your apology is accepted.

I suppose, then, that you have never expressed the slightest bit of emotion in any of your posts. I also suppose that if you have, you were 100% justified in so doing, and whoever got their feathers ruffeld by your justified expression of human nature was wrong for even taking note of it. This is what I suppose, since my post is not worth your response. [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Idea distorted.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] You are supposing incorrectly &#8211; and all of these suppositions are entirely beside the point in the first place and have zero to do with the substance of our discussion, so I'm not even going to pursue that at all.[/FONT]

So you can abandon it, or you could stick it out with me, and see if we can't endure the rough edges of one another's comportment, and come to where we understand one another. Regardless of how obvious it is to you&#8212;now that I'm fallen from your graces&#8212;that I am just a clone of the next LDS poster, my post was a sincere response to what I understand to be a sincere post&#8212;emotion or not.[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] Another idea distorted. [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Do you really believe me to be such a shallow-minded person that I'm whining because you're showing emotion? I have no problem with passion, my friend &#8211; in fact I will always applaud righteous indignation. But the calculated contortion of someone else's ideas &#8211; and the insidious intent behind it &#8211; are an altogether different, are far more serious, matter, and therein lies my justifiable complaint. [/FONT]If you can stomach composing one to such a cretin as myself, I'd appreciate a response.[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Another idea distorted.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] Since I neither called you a cretin nor even implied that I believe you anything remotely close to a cretin, I will thank you &#8211; once again &#8211; to refrain from contorting (or inventing) my ideas.[/FONT] You could start by showing me where I twisted your words, since as I review both your post and my response, I see no place where i Have engaged in take-it-and-torque-it dialogue.[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] I believe we began to bog down somewhere around your I-don't-have-a-checklist thing. In Post 159, you seemed to resent &#8211; mightily &#8211; my stating that Joseph Smith and his successors have added so many requirements to the ones Christ gave us for eternal life &#8211; to the point that you even called it &#8220;insanity&#8221; that I would list [some of] them. Here were your exact words: [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]I'll take Mormonsim any day over that insanity you describe. [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]But the truth is that what I had described IS Mormonism: normal, regular, everyday, run-of-the-mill life in an active LDS family &#8211; and you tried to make it look otherwise and even told me I had a &#8220;[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]seriously warped view of what it means to live the Restored Gospel.&#8221;[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] That [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]distortion of truth [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]doesn't work on someone lived Mormonism faithfully 24/7 for forty years. [/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Then later, in Post 175, you said [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]So what? This is a [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]burden [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]to me? If I say I love God then ought I not to be happy to keep his commandments? If I get sloppy because of the stresses of the world and the weaknesses of my flesh (which God himself gave me, and He knows this), I can repent and know that I'll be forgiven. Where, then, is the burden? Is it only in that God has seen fit to excat some specifics from me? That he expects lifelong dedication and continuous labor in his vineyard? If that is all, where is the burden? If you found it burdensome, why?[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]But here you are, a few posts later, acknowledging that &#8211; [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]voila![/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] - you do in fact have a working knowledge of that list after all, and in fact that you are happy to be keeping all those commandments. In spite of so many other distortions, I'm willing to give you then benefit of the doubt and believe you on this one. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]And this [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]distortion of truth[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif], from Post 167[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]-[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Let's ask them whether or not you have a clear understanding of the burden of Mormonsim.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]That term &#8220;burden of Mormonism&#8221; is yours &#8211; ALL yours. Not only did I [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]not[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]say or imply in any way[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] that I felt burdened by Mormonism, but if you will look back, I said the following (and meant it with all my heart): [/FONT] I never said your life could not be "fluid" within Mormonism, nor did I say or even imply that I hated mine at the time, and in fact I loved my very active LDS life and had zero problem with it and was grateful at the time for the whole of it.
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Here's a nice zinger, from your Post 181: So in my life, I do not consider the Restored Gospel, and what God through it requires of me, a burdensome list of spiritual busiwork. I understand both the doctrines of the Gospel, and their intended effect upon my soul. I understand the atonement of Christ, and how it affords me all that I am and can become. And I understand my Father, and can see in the Restored Gospel his love for me and all mankind, and the perfection with which he deals with us all. And so I enjoy serving God and laboring for Him in the Gospel. All I can do at this point is hope that you will see why I do not believe the Restoration is a burden. Here we have a perfect example of why I have now identified you with the other LDS posters, with whom I am now no longer communicating &#8211; for this very reason. &#8220;Iunderstand the atonement of Christ...&#8221; meaning, of course that your understanding of it is oh-so-inferior (and don't EVEN try to tell me I'm wrong, because in my own LDS thinking I had the same holier-than-thou mentality). &#8220;I understand my Father...&#8221; meaning, of course, that your own non-LDS understanding of Him is vastly inferior. &#8220;I enjoy serving God and laboring for Him...&#8221; meaning, of course, that you couldn't possibly, with your woefully inferior understanding. These are just a few examples of the hypocritical, sanctimonious attitude that generally pervades &#8211; and reeks &#8211; here. I really did think you were different for a while, and still do, to some extent. At least you're generally courteous, and that's more than can be said for some others. And you know what? I really don't even hold you personally responsible, because it's ingrained into you by the leaders and teachings in the LDS church &#8211; here comes that word you all hate so much &#8211; programmed into you by 170-something years of being told that the rest of the world doesn't have a clue but Mormons have it all. How could you not believe the way you do, and who could blame you, with that kind of 24/7 teaching being poured into your head?[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Okay, one last thing, and then I'll shut up (at long last). You asked me about why I was worried about you. You said...[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]You make it sound as though these things must occupy our thoughts incessantly&#8212;that we must verify from minute to minute that we are in harmony with all this. My oldest son is turning 12 in 7 months. Do you think I harp on him every day that if he doesn't receive the Aaronic Priesthood he'll be damned? My goodness! What a religion you lived! No thanks. I'll take Mormonsim any day over that insanity you describe. My life within Mormonsim is as fluid from day to day as yours is without it. I believe you have a seriously warped view of what it means to live the Restored Gospel. The reason this concerns me is that (a) once again, you totally misconstrued what I had said, and (b) in the LDS church, although &#8211; just to take the example you mentioned &#8211; you wouldn't harp on your son all day, every day about preparing himself to receive the priesthood, you certainly would encourage him and make certain that when the day came, he would be ready. Then you would encourage him to fulfill his priesthood duties regularly and faithfully, and eventually be ready to receive the Melchizedek priesthood and then serve a mission, and then be married in the temple and then serve in the church for the rest of his life, etc., etc., etc. - just like dear old Dad. All of the above, whether you want to admit it out loud or not, requires constant effort, on your part and his. If you are not feeling that obligation, then yes, I worry about you, because the church makes it abundantly clear that it is in fact your obligation and that there is no wiggle-room if you are going to be considered worthy. And WORTHY is the word that literally rules in the LDS church; it is the word with which they rule your life. Please tell me you'll think about that, long and hard.[/FONT]