LDS and evolution of "The Prophet"

[stinkyjoe]

First of all, one does not answer a question with a question. So, are you going to answer my question next time, or simply brush it aside? Second, there are no references in scripture which tell us what the Spirit of God "feels" like, and for good reason. The Holy Spirit is not an emotional experience, nor a positive "feeling" that we validate. The Holy Spirit is a person given only to the redeemed as a conscious guide into all truth, some of which does not necessarily make one "feel" good at all.

The problem with Mormonism is that it proposes that God's Spirit feels "good," and that if one senses a warm, positive sensation about something, then that "revelation" must be of the Spirit. Nothing could be farther from the truth, though, for there are spirits of deception that could just as easily be behind those sensations, or one's sin nature could be leading one astray as well. In short, there are no scriptures which tell us that through human feelings, the spirit of God reveals truth, for that is not how God operates when divulging either new revelation (which no longer occurs), or simply bringing to remembrance the things the Jesus has already said via the Spirit (Jn 16:13).



The point of those verses, though, was to show you that there is nothing inherently good that abides within the human being. And if there is nothing inherently good, due to the sin nature, then it is foolish to think that one's "feelings" are to be the arbiter and guide to determining what is, and what is not, true. Yet, Mormonism, as you've demonstrated previously, tells us just the opposite. It believes that there is something inherently good within humanity, and that all one has to do is "pray about" something, and that if the right "good feelings" are experienced, then that person has discovered what is necessarily true. And to add insult to injury, Mormonism twists and distorts terms like "faith" to vindicate such an erroneous approach to revelation and truth. Indeed, faith is a necessity of the Christian life, but faith is reliance upon someone else to do that which the Christian cannot do himself, which is the total opposite of what you just said above. Oh sure, you may be claiming that there is this so-called faith in God, but God has nothing to do with it, for the real faith is in your "feelings."

Until the Mormon comes to the realization of just how corrupt and inept he is, due to his unforgiven sin nature that rules his life, he will continue to be misled by his "feelings" as the guide to truth.

...

But, there is a great gulf fixed between what it means to be a biblical Christian, and a Mormon "Christian" (which is actually an oxymoron).

So, let me get this straight... You are saying that Mormons are corrupt, inept, and not Christian. Those remarks sound pretty bigoted. Honestly, I respected your opinon much more BEFORE reading that.

 

[Romans5:1]

So, let me get this straight... You are saying that Mormons are corrupt, inept, and not Christian. Those remarks sound pretty bigoted. Honestly, I respected your opinon much more BEFORE reading that.

No, what I'm saying is that Mormonism is corrupt, inept, and not Christian, as an objective analysis of its theology and history prove. And if one has taken the time to do the study on the subject, providing objective evidence along the way for the conclusions, then the final determination is not bigoted. It is true. As for the statements above to fb, in their context they are speaking of all people in their sin nature, which Mormonism adamantly denies. And since all people are corrupted by sin, then relying upon one's "feelings" as the arbiter of truth is fallacious thinking. Mormonism advocates such fallacious thinking.

Conversely, those unwilling to deal with the evidence (as the Mormons continually fail to do), and remain favorable towards Mormonism in spite of it, are bigoted. My suggestion to you is that you look more carefully at the evidence, which has been provided time and again, before you make an emotional leap in judgment. Otherwise, you'll end up being the very thing that you accuse others of, with the objective evidence to prove it as well.

 

[stinkyjoe]

No, what I'm saying is that Mormonism is corrupt, inept, and not Christian, as an objective analysis of its theology and history prove. And if one has taken the time to do the study on the subject, providing objective evidence along the way for the conclusions, then the final determination is not bigoted. It is true. As for the statements above to fb, in their context they are speaking of all people in their sin nature, which Mormonism adamantly denies. And since all people are corrupted by sin, then relying upon one's "feelings" as the arbiter of truth is fallacious thinking. Mormonism advocates such fallacious thinking.

Conversely, those unwilling to deal with the evidence (as the Mormons continually fail to do), and remain favorable towards Mormonism in spite of it, are bigoted. My suggestion to you is that you look more carefully at the evidence, which has been provided time and again, before you make an emotional leap in judgment. Otherwise, you'll end up being the very thing that you accuse others of, with the objective evidence to prove it as well.

Sorry if I misunderstood you, Romans. I based that opinion on the fact that you spoke of "the Mormon", leading me to believe that you were speaking of mormon people instead of the Mormon religion. I think it is unfair and, yes, bigoted, to speak of people that way. To speak of a religion is one thing, but to make remarks about the members of that religion is different. After all, who are we to judge another's heart and intentions? Once again, sorry if I misunderstood you.

 

[Fit4Christ]

I would like to see them answered.

Then start a thread or two or three and ask your questions, so as not to derail or hijack this thread.

 

[Romans5:1]

Sorry if I misunderstood you, Romans. I based that opinion on the fact that you spoke of "the Mormon", leading me to believe that you were speaking of mormon people instead of the Mormon religion. I think it is unfair and, yes, bigoted, to speak of people that way. To speak of a religion is one thing, but to make remarks about the members of that religion is different. After all, who are we to judge another's heart and intentions? Once again, sorry if I misunderstood you.

Apology accepted.

 

[disciple00]

Yeah, I know how you feel. I sometimes wish the Pope will come out and tell evryone the shows over, Joseph Smith was a Prophet and the CoJCoLDS is the restored Church of Jesus Christ. Time to take down the statues, doff the robes and line up for baptism.

agreed, I wish the catholic would leave their idols behind, perhaps even smashing them to powder and burning them too....

however i draw the line where you mentioned agent smith, he wasn't a prophet, and the things he taught were false.... though mosty of what he taught isn't taught anymore anyhow.

Of course, I do hope my reversal of the invective will illustrate an important point here: that just because people believe differently it doesn't mean they don't have the same level of faith, feeling and conviction that you do. In fact, it could be greater. To assume that because others believe differently that they must be knowlingly deceptive and deliberately perverting the teachings of Christ is a demonstration of arrogance and pride - both of which are sins in the sight of God and things that should be expunged from the heart of any disciple of Christ.

reversal? it kinda seemed to me like a summersault with a half twist....
the remark i made was about the current ''prophet'' in the lds church, not about it's millions of well meaning but decieved members. If Gordon B. were a prophet then he would know that what he is teaching, or even supporting by being the prophet, is contrary to scripture, and, ironically, contrary to what the churches founder , Mr. smith, taught as well.
and if he doesn't know those things, how can he in good conscience claim to be a prophet of God, or even let others call him that?

Of course, I don't for a moment assume that the Pope, The ArchBishop of Canterbury, the Dalai Lama or any other religious leader (except perhaps Rev Moon) isn't 100% convinced they are right and truly believe what they teach.

you know thats kinda funny, if they weren't sure about what they do then why in blazes are they leading so many folks? if any man doesn't believe what he teaches that makes him a liar of the worse sort.

could it be perhaps prideful of you to assume my motives in speaking against such things as i do?

disciple00

 

[Wrigley]

Here you go casi. post #36.

 

[Cassiopeia]

Here you go casi. post #36.

Thanks Wrigley. I see that he says

Actually God is a title given to a being with all knowledge and power.

Title not office. Much confusion have we on the forum.

 

[Wrigley]

Thanks Wrigley. I see that he says



Title not office. Much confusion have we on the forum.

And if you look further you'll see why what fatboys says is so terrible.

 

[A New Dawn]

And if you look further you'll see why what fatboys says is so terrible.

One doesn't have to agree with Fatboy's implications to agree that "God" is not God's name.

Did you show this to GWiT, she/he is the one questioning what was originally posted.

 

[Cassiopeia]

One doesn't have to agree with Fatboy's implications to agree that "God" is not God's name.

Did you show this to GWiT, she/he is the one questioning what was originally posted.

Actually I think it was me questioning them by asking who said God was an office.

 

[Cassiopeia]

And if you look further you'll see why what fatboys says is so terrible.

I have read it and I am wondering what Part of this is bothering you. I see him asking alot of questions. So what part are you referring to as so terrible. Again I hate to make assumptions.

Thanks for your patience Wrigley

Casi

 

[Wrigley]

I have read it and I am wondering what Part of this is bothering you. I see him asking alot of questions. So what part are you referring to as so terrible. Again I hate to make assumptions.

Thanks for your patience Wrigley

Casi

You can't see the clear implication that God wasn't always God?

Do I believe that God the Father was a being that has always been all knowing and powerful, and was always as he is now? No.

That's the problem. Its a huge one. It goes right to the problem mormonism has in regards to the very nature of God.

 

[Cassiopeia]

You can't see the clear implication that God wasn't always God?



That's the problem. Its a huge one. It goes right to the problem mormonism has in regards to the very nature of God.

Okay ..thanks for explaining what part of that was bothering you.

 

[Rescued One]

One doesn't have to agree with Fatboy's implications to agree that "God" is not God's name.

Did you show this to GWiT, she/he is the one questioning what was originally posted.

I was not the person questioning. But after you made your statement, I believed you were mistaken:

What was really said is that "God" is not God's name, that it is a title (not an office). Isn't YHWY, or JHVH, considered God's name?

That is not what was said, but feel free to prove me wrong.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=14228851#post14228851

FB said nothing about an office nor was he replying to anyone who said anything about an office.

 

[Cassiopeia]

I was not the person questioning. But after you made your statement, I believed you were mistaken:



http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=14228851#post14228851

FB said nothing about an office nor was he replying to anyone who said anything about an office.

Actually I am replying to Wrigley from that thread that is now closed in relationship to post # 76. That is what he and I are talking about.

You missed it. That very thing was said on this forum just this week. "god" is an office.

 

[A New Dawn]

OK, now that we have all seen the original post and know exactly what it says .....................

 

[Wrigley]

OK, now that we have all seen the original post and know exactly what it says .....................

And its just as bad now as it was then.

 

[Cassiopeia]

And its just as bad now as it was then.

But Wrigley you have to admit it doesn't say what you told me it did.

 

[Rescued One]

FB: Romans, the same could be said of mainstream Chrisitans when asked to explain the trinity from the bible. It is not there and many scriptures teach they are seperate beings. When asked for explanation, Trinitarians have tried to explain, and even though they may understand it in their own minds, but it still eludes me. So to me it is illogical that God would express himself in what I see as deception, that he calls himself God the Father, and then calls himself his own son. There are just to many things that you could not explain away in the bible that teaches differently. It does make perfect sense that God is the Father, as it says, and that Jesus Christ is his true Son. Seperate identities. Seperate beings. It makes sense to me that they are perfect, and perfectly work together so that they were of one mind in unity. That makes more sense that God saying he is the only one, and then sends himself to earth to call himself the Son.

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit existed eternally as God. The Father sent the Son. The Father didn't play the role of Son for a while.