This Kind of Thinking is Scary.

[Sir]

Because I don't want this thread to be removed on the basis of personal attacks I will refrain from citing the poster whose words these are. But this is the kind of thinking that makes LDS like me wonder why critics of the LDS think they have something better to offer the LDS:


"You still refuse to believe! You hold a foolish idea that a ,man must sin to be a sinner.. That isn't what the Bible teaches.. It says ALL have sinned.. ALL [name removed] not just adults with mature minds but ALL means the infants, the mentally handicapped, ALL"
1) Is it really foolish to think that one must actually do something in order to be called someone who does that thing? Can I call someone a rapist if he never committed rape? Can I call someone a thief if he has never stolen? etc.

2) How can someone claim to have a better news, the good news, to offer LDS, when they believe that infants and mentally handicapped people are sinners? I agree with the BoM that states people who believe an infant, a baby that has no comprehension of reality, let alone the ability to make a rational choice to choose between good and evil and consciously choose one or the other, is in the gall of bitterness.

[Billyray]

1) Is it really foolish to think that one must actually do something in order to be called someone who does that thing? Can I call someone a rapist if he never committed rape? Can I call someone a thief if he has never stolen? etc.

2) How can someone claim to have a better news, the good news, to offer LDS, when they believe that infants and mentally handicapped people are sinners? I agree with the BoM that states people who believe an infant, a baby that has no comprehension of reality, let alone the ability to make a rational choice to choose between good and evil and consciously choose one or the other, is in the gall of bitterness.

Why do you think this kind of thinking is scary? We are all sinners by nature and we all sin because of our sin nature. I think that you will find that this concept is not unique to a single poster but rather a commonly held Christian belief. If this were not so then you would expect to see sinless people but you don't. Now what I think that you are confusing is sin and accountability. For example a 4 year old can go into a store and steal a piece of candy. This act is breaking the law, but because of his age he would not be held accountable for that crime, but it is still a crime.

[B2M5L2]

Because I don't want this thread to be removed on the basis of personal attacks I will refrain from citing the poster whose words these are. But this is the kind of thinking that makes LDS like me wonder why critics of the LDS think they have something better to offer the LDS:


1) Is it really foolish to think that one must actually do something in order to be called someone who does that thing? Can I call someone a rapist if he never committed rape? Can I call someone a thief if he has never stolen? etc.

Since Mormons have obviously placed themselves under their own legalistic code in order to attain salvation, then as James wrote, "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all" (2:10). So, whether you've actually committed an act of rape, theft, murder, incest, or whatever other immoral act you can think of, since you, as a Mormon, have placed yourself under the Law, then the mere violation of one legalistic statute automatically makes you guilty of violating them all. Again, that is in God's judgment, not anyone else's.


2) How can someone claim to have a better news, the good news, to offer LDS, when they believe that infants and mentally handicapped people are sinners?

Because the good news preached and taught by those who subscribe to the biblical gospel understand that if it isn't all about God's saving grace, then it isn't good news at all. Moreover, God has the absolute right and prerogative to do with His creation as He deems fit. And that includes infants, the mentally handicapped, or the devious Mormon subversive, the latter of which seems to think that God should bow at his feet, rather than the other way around.


I agree with the BoM that states people who believe an infant, a baby that has no comprehension of reality, let alone the ability to make a rational choice to choose between good and evil and consciously choose one or the other, is in the gall of bitterness.

Who cares what you agree with, since your finite determination, lost in a sea of contradiction and perversion, is not even consulted in the grand scheme of God's judgment? Add to that the fact that Book of Mormon is nothing more than an extra-biblical piece of poorly written fiction, and it becomes even less significant what you think or agree with when it comes to trying to denounce the fact that God can do with His creation whatever He wishes to do, and it will always be perfect, just, and right.

[James Banta]

Because I don't want this thread to be removed on the basis of personal attacks I will refrain from citing the poster whose words these are. But this is the kind of thinking that makes LDS like me wonder why critics of the LDS think they have something better to offer the LDS:


1) Is it really foolish to think that one must actually do something in order to be called someone who does that thing? Can I call someone a rapist if he never committed rape? Can I call someone a thief if he has never stolen? etc.

2) How can someone claim to have a better news, the good news, to offer LDS, when they believe that infants and mentally handicapped people are sinners? I agree with the BoM that states people who believe an infant, a baby that has no comprehension of reality, let alone the ability to make a rational choice to choose between good and evil and consciously choose one or the other, is in the gall of bitterness.

I don't see a personal attack in this I will say that those are my words.. Yes it is proper to ***ign any sin your would like to a person even if they haven't committed it.. We are told that "ALL HAVE SINNED" (Romans 3:23) Then in the favorite book of most mormons, James teaches that "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." (James 2:10)..

So if you have ever sinned at all you are just as guilty as anyone of Murder, Rape, Theft, Blasphemy, Lying.. That authority to say that is given to us from God.. In our nature state we are NOT related to God any more than the cattle in the field. Creations not children John explains that we must become God's children:

John 1:12-13
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
So yes I think it is terrible foolish to disagree with God and see yourself in a better light than you actually are.. We have all sinned unless you have to to Jesus (God) confessing faith in Him, repenting of your sin (ALL OF IT). You can't be His child, you aren't saved and only the Lake of Fire is in your future.. Sin is serious and God will not permit it is His house.. If you are going to do the *** of having your sins remitted yourself you better not forget a single one.. Remember what James said: If you have sinned in any way you are guilty of all sin.. As for me I will trust Jesus to take care of my sin since I have repented turning to Him.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Why do you think this kind of thinking is scary? We are all sinners by nature and we all sin because of our sin nature. I think that you will find that this concept is not unique to a single poster but rather a commonly held Christian belief. If this were not so then you would expect to see sinless people but you don't. Now what I think that you are confusing is sin and accountability. For example a 4 year old can go into a store and steal a piece of candy. This act is breaking the law, but because of his age he would not be held accountable for that crime, but it is still a crime.

This proves that an understanding of sin and it gravity is NOT taught in mormonism.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Since Mormons have obviously placed themselves under their own legalistic code in order to attain salvation, then as James wrote, "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all" (2:10). So, whether you've actually committed an act of rape, theft, murder, incest, or whatever other immoral act you can think of, since you, as a Mormon, have placed yourself under the Law, then the mere violation of one legalistic statute automatically makes you guilty of violating them all. Again, that is in God's judgment, not anyone else's.



Because the good news preached and taught by those who subscribe to the biblical gospel understand that if it isn't all about God's saving grace, then it isn't good news at all. Moreover, God has the absolute right and prerogative to do with His creation as He deems fit. And that includes infants, the mentally handicapped, or the devious Mormon subversive, the latter of which seems to think that God should bow at his feet, rather than the other way around.



Who cares what you agree with, since your finite determination, lost in a sea of contradiction and perversion, is not even consulted in the grand scheme of God's judgment? Add to that the fact that Book of Mormon is nothing more than an extra-biblical piece of poorly written fiction, and it becomes even less significant what you think or agree with when it comes to trying to denounce the fact that God can do with His creation whatever He wishes to do, and it will always be perfect, just, and right.

I hope that Sir can now see that Christians, through separated by distance, and denominations, still hold the exact same Gospel.. We teach the same things about the Nature of God, man, sin , and forgiveness.. I pray that this unity will be seen as a strone evidence to them that e who believe the Bible are one in our Lord Jesus.. IHS jim

[Sir]

What sins does a newborn infant commit?

[James Banta]

What sins does a newborn infant commit?

Selfishness for one..

It's what a new born is, it's part of their nature they can't help it. We love then inspite of their crying and making a mess.. They are sinners born and raised..

Does a small child need to be taught to lie? NO!! they must be taught to tell the truth.. Lying is what they are, making them sinners by nature.. They know how to be evil without aid.. They must be taught to do good.. IHS jim

[Sir]

Selfishness for one..

It's what a new born is, it's part of their nature they can't help it. We love then inspite of their crying and making a mess.. They are sinners born and raised..

Does a small child need to be taught to lie? NO!! they must be taught to tell the truth.. Lying is what they are, making them sinners by nature.. They know how to be evil without aid.. They must be taught to do good.. IHS jim

So a newborn is selfish and thus a sinner by being selfish? Can you explain this?

[Billyray]

So a newborn is selfish and thus a sinner by being selfish? Can you explain this?

We are born with a sin nature. Thus we will sin because of this nature.

[Sir]

We are born with a sin nature. Thus we will sin because of this nature.

That is different than saying that we are already sinners when we emerge from the womb. You are saying that we are born with a nature that will make us commit sins, but James is saying we are born and right off the bat we are sinning. He uses the example of selfishness to support his opinion and I am waiting for him to expound on it furthur.

[Billyray]

That is different than saying that we are already sinners when we emerge from the womb.

We ARE born with that sin nature.

[Sir]

We ARE born with that sin nature.

You're dodging the issue that James speaks - that infants are committing sin right from the womb. Not that an infant is born with a nature to eventually commit sin, but to be in the act of sin upon birth.

Do you agree that a newborn infant is in the act of sinning? If so, what sins is he/she committing?

[Billyray]

Do you agree that a newborn infant is in the act of sinning? If so, what sins is he/she committing?
I am not sure which quote you are referring to, can you quote it for me.

[Sir]

I am not sure which quote you are referring to, can you quote it for me.

There are only 12 posts in this thread, only a handful from James, and you are posting in the line of conversation of the quote. Are you not reading the whole thread? :confused:

"What sins does a newborn infnat commit?"

ANSWER:

Selfishness for one..

It's what a new born is, it's part of their nature they can't help it. We love then inspite of their crying and making a mess.. They are sinners born and raised..

[Billyray]

"What sins does a newborn infnat commit?"


I don't know the answer to your question. But the Bible does say ALL men and ALL means ALL.

Romans 5
12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.


http://www.enduringword.com/commentaries/4505.htm
"d. Thus death spread to all men, because all sinned: Since death and sin are connected, we can know that all men are sinners - because all are subject to death. A sinless man is not subject to death but since every person is subject to death - even the smallest baby - it proves that all [mankind] sinned in Adam.

i. This sounds odd to our individualistic ears, but Paul clearly teaches that we all sinned “in” Adam. Adam is the common father of every person on the earth; every human who has ever lived was “in” Adam’s genetic makeup. Therefore, all mankind actually sinned in Adam."

[Sir]

I don't know the answer to your question. But the Bible does say ALL men and ALL means ALL.

Romans 5
12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.

Really? You don't know the answer nor take a position?

In this thread James said that you are all in agreement about this (sin). Yet you don't claim to know the answer as he does.

Since you have no answer, what is your opinion of James' idea that a newborn baby is a sinner from the womb, and using selfishness as evidence of at least one sin? Does a baby's need for a mother's care at birth cons***ute a sin being committed by the baby?

[Billyray]

Really? You don't know the answer nor take a position?

We are ALL sinners including infants. None are innocent.

[Billyray]

Sir, who gets into heaven based on his own righteousness?

[Sir]

We are ALL sinners including infants. None are innocent.

Then what sins do infants commit?

James says "selfishness for one". So that must mean there are others.

What other things do infants do that you would call sins?

[Billyray]

Then what sins do infants commit?


I already answered your question.

I don't know the answer to your question. But the Bible does say ALL men and ALL means ALL.

Romans 5
12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.

[Billyray]

Sir, who gets into heaven based on his own righteousness?

Can you answer my question?

[Sir]

I already answered your question.

So your position is newborn infants sin, but you do not know what they do to commit sins.

James' position is newborn infants sin, and one of the things they do that is sinful is they are selfish.

Do you agree or disagree with James?

[Sir]

Can you answer my question?

Your question is not relevant to the discussion we're having.

But the answer is no one.

[Billyray]

So your position is newborn infants sin, but you do not know what they do to commit sins.

James' position is newborn infants sin, and one of the things they do that is sinful is they are selfish.

Do you agree or disagree with James?
I agree with Jim on this point. Infants and small children sin by nature. They steal, they lie, they are selfish, they hit each other. You name it.

[Billyray]

James' position is newborn infants sin, and one of the things they do that is sinful is they are selfish.


Don't Mormon kids steal, hit, and lie?

[Sir]

Don't Mormon kids steal, hit, and lie?

Another dodge.

We aren't talking about kids. We are talking about newborn infants. Please stay on track here.

Do you agree with James that newborn infants are sinning simply by (as James says, being selfish) relying on the mother for their immediate sustenance?

[Sir]

I agree with Jim on this point. Infants and small children sin by nature. They steal, they lie, they are selfish, they hit each other. You name it.

How does a newborn infant steal and lie? Please do not argue a strwman. We are talking only about newborn infants here.

[Billyray]

Sir, who gets into heaven based on his own righteousness?



But the answer is no one.

That is correct Sir. This we agree. So if not one person gets to heaven based on his own righteousness this would also include infants correct?

[Sir]

That is correct Sir. This we agree. So if not one person gets to heaven based on his own righteousness this would also include infants correct?

Why the strawman?

We aren't discussing whether or not we need Jesus to be saved, this we all know is true.

We are discussing what sins newborn infants commit.

[Billyray]

Do you agree with James that newborn infants are sinning simply by (as James says, being selfish) relying on the mother for their immediate sustenance?
Disagree with Jim on this point.

[Billyray]

How does a newborn infant steal and lie?

Neonates IMO would not be able to lie and steal. That would be more consistent with older children.

[Billyray]

Why the strawman?

What strawman?

[Sir]

Disagree with Jim on this point.

Okay.

Jim says you are all in agreement, so we'll have to see what he says when he weighs in again.

[Billyray]

Jim says you are all in agreement, so we'll have to see what he says when he weighs in again.

We are all born with a sin nature. We all sin. No one is exempt from this. In this we are in agreement.

[Billyray]

Sir, do you think that you are getting anywhere with this thread?

[Billyray]

Why the strawman?


Do you know what a straw man argument (or fallacy) really is?

[Sir]

Sir, do you think that you are getting anywhere with this thread?

Absolutely. I am learning from you guys. Isn't that the point? I have learned that there are those who believe that since the Bible claims we are all sinners that babies born into this world are actually in the process of sinning. I've learned that some Christians even claim that a newborn infant that relys on its mother for sustenance is committing an act of sin.

That one made me wonder. Wouldn't Jesus Christ have relied on Mary as a newborn infant for his sustenance? According to this Christian, I am supposed to believe that Jesus must have been a sinner by committing the act of 'selfishness' as a newborn.

This thread is to enlighten and understand positions better. What's wrong with that? If you are done contributing to it that is okay.

[Billyray]

This thread is to enlighten and understand positions better. What's wrong with that? If you are done contributing to it that is okay.

Do you think that a LDS kid that is one or two years old who steals something is committing a sin?

[Billyray]

Absolutely. I am learning from you guys. Isn't that the point? I have learned that there are those who believe that since the Bible claims we are all sinners that babies born into this world are actually in the process of sinning.

When the Bible says that we ALL sin do you think that this excludes infants?

[Billyray]

How can someone claim to have a better news, the good news, to offer LDS, when they believe that infants and mentally handicapped people are sinners?
Because the good news is that Jesus came to earth, lived a perfect life, died for us so that despite the fact that we ALL sin we can live with God in heaven. This is not based on our own righteousness like the LDS teach but on Christ's righteousness by placing our faith in him.

1 Cor 15:3 "For what I received I p***ed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures. . ."

[Billyray]

That one made me wonder. Wouldn't Jesus Christ have relied on Mary as a newborn infant for his sustenance? According to this Christian, I am supposed to believe that Jesus must have been a sinner by committing the act of 'selfishness' as a newborn.

Christ was perfect and thus did not commit sin.

[Sir]

Christ was perfect and thus did not commit sin.

I agree. So when a Christian tells me that a newborn infant is sinning by being selfish (relying on mom for life) that would logically include Jesus Christ. So I am glad to see you disagree with James on this point.

[Sir]

When the Bible says that we ALL sin do you think that this excludes infants?

James 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

It is not sinning when you do something without having a knowledge that it is right/ wrong, good/ bad. Since an infant does not have that ability or capability, infants cannot sin. If an infant and an adult both took something from someone without permission (***uming an infant could physically do that), to the adult it would be sinning but not the infant.

[Billyray]

I agree. So when a Christian tells me that a newborn infant is sinning by being selfish (relying on mom for life) that would logically include Jesus Christ. So I am glad to see you disagree with James on this point.

But you and I both know that Christ is unique. He is God, we are not. He is perfect, we are not. So it is not fair to compare Christ with any of us at any stage of our lives.

[Billyray]

It is not sinning when you do something without having a knowledge that it is right/ wrong, good/ bad.

I think this is at the heart of our disagreement. Breaking a commandment is a sin whether you know about it or not. You may not be accountable for breaking the commandment but you are still breaking the commandment and this is a sin.

Let me give you a real world example. A 4 year old child goes into the store and steals a piece of candy. What he did was against the law. However because of his age he will not be held liable for breaking this law.

[Billyray]

If an infant and an adult both took something from someone without permission (***uming an infant could physically do that), to the adult it would be sinning but not the infant.

Disagree with you on this point. Stealing is a sin, period. The adult presumably knew better and thus would be liable but the child likely would not. Lets look at a LDS scenario. You have a 7 year old who steals a piece of candy from the store. At this age he should know right from wrong. Is this kid committing sin according to the LDS church?

[Sir]

I think this is at the heart of our disagreement. Breaking a commandment is a sin whether you know about it or not. You may not be accountable for breaking the commandment but you are still breaking the commandment and this is a sin.

Let me give you a real world example. A 4 year old child goes into the store and steals a piece of candy. What he did was against the law. However because of his age he will not be held liable for breaking this law.

Your disagreement is with the Bible, not me.

I showed you the verse that says what sin is. You have translated it to mean a sin is any breaking of a commandment regardless of your knowledge and understanding of it. The Bible disagrees with you on that.

[Sir]

But you and I both know that Christ is unique. He is God, we are not. He is perfect, we are not. So it is not fair to compare Christ with any of us at any stage of our lives.

You are forced to take that position. The only comparison here is that James said an infant is committing sin by being selfish as a newborn. If that is committing sin, then regardless of the difference between us and Christ, logically Christ was committing sin as well. You can't say that man can do something and it is sin and Christ does the exact same thing but since he is Christ it isn't sin.

[Billyray]

Your disagreement is with the Bible, not me.

I showed you the verse that says what sin is. You have translated it to mean a sin is any breaking of a commandment regardless of your knowledge and understanding of it. The Bible disagrees with you on that.

Leviticus 4:13 " 'If the whole Israelite community sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the LORD's commands, even though the community is unaware of the matter, they are guilty.


Your prooftext
James 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

1. Know to do good and do not = sin (This is true as written and I agree with this)

2. But what about the reverse? If you don't know that you are breaking a commandment but break it anyway is this sin? The verse in Leviticus says it is. Your verse does not address this issue but the opposite of this.

[Billyray]

You are forced to take that position. The only comparison here is that James said an infant is committing sin by being selfish as a newborn. If that is committing sin, then regardless of the difference between us and Christ, logically Christ was committing sin as well. You can't say that man can do something and it is sin and Christ does the exact same thing but since he is Christ it isn't sin.

Christ is completely unique to any person who walked on the face of the earth because he is God. His life is completely different in that he did not sin, period. Not when he was an infant, not as a child, and not as an adult.

[Sir]

Christ is completely unique to any person who walked on the face of the earth because he is God. His life is completely different in that he did not sin, period. Not when he was an infant, not as a child, and not as an adult.

But again, you cannot say Christ and a man both do the same thing, and to the man it is sin and to Christ it isn't just because he is Christ. Just like people say that Christ can't lie or do anything that goes against his nature. So if Christ and a man both said the same thing, and you accuse the man of lying but Christ as not lying, there would be obvious disconnect there. That's the point here.

[Billyray]

But again, you cannot say Christ and a man both do the same thing, and to the man it is sin and to Christ it isn't just because he is Christ. Just like people say that Christ can't lie or do anything that goes against his nature. So if Christ and a man both said the same thing, and you accuse the man of lying but Christ as not lying, there would be obvious disconnect there. That's the point here.

I am not sure exactly what you are trying to say. I'll just reiterate that Christ is completely unique in that he did not sin.

[James Banta]

So a newborn is selfish and thus a sinner by being selfish? Can you explain this?

Selfishness is based in Exodus 20:17.. A baby is owed nothing, yet wants what isn't his/hers.. That is serious sin.. If that child's desires go unmet the scream and make life a living hell for everyone around them.. IHS jim

[Sir]

I am not sure exactly what you are trying to say. I'll just reiterate that Christ is completely unique in that he did not sin.

I am not sure why you are having a hard time understanding me, except I believe that it is so obvious that you have to dis***ociate yourself with it in order to try and make sense of it.

In a nutshell, your only recourse is to claim that since Jesus never sinned, no matter what he did was not a sin. So in the case James banta makes, ***ume that both you and Jesus were 'selfish' as newborns and cried for your mother's attention. To state that it is a serious sin for you to do it but not a sin for Jesus to do it makes no logical sense. Either both are guilty of the 'serious sin' or neither one is. But it can't be that one is right and one is wrong when doing the same thing.

[Billyray]

.
In a nutshell, your only recourse is to claim that since Jesus never sinned, no matter what he did was not a sin. So in the case James banta makes, ***ume that both you and Jesus were 'selfish' as newborns and cried for your mother's attention. To state that it is a serious sin for you to do it but not a sin for Jesus to do it makes no logical sense. Either both are guilty of the 'serious sin' or neither one is. But it can't be that one is right and one is wrong when doing the same thing.

No recourse at all. Jesus did not sin. Are you going to claim otherwise?

[Sir]

No recourse at all. Jesus did not sin. Are you going to claim otherwise?

No. But I see you are refusing to engage in the logical conclusion of this whole argument. For you, Jesus never sinned and that's the bottom line. I agree he didn't. But that leaves som 'splainin to do when someone claims that men are committing serious sins when they do natural things that even Jesus did.

But since you didn't make the comment, you don't have to continue trying to defend it. Feel free to move on.

[Billyray]

But that leaves som 'splainin to do when someone claims that men are committing serious sins when they do natural things that even Jesus did.

It is natural for kids to lie and hit and steal. Are you saying that Jesus did the same?

[Sir]

It is natural for kids to lie and hit and steal. Are you saying that Jesus did the same?

oops...you did it again. We're not talking about kids, we're talking about infants crying for their mommies. It's natural for infants to do this. And yes Jesus did this. ANd no that isn't a sin. And yes one of your brothers in Christ said that crying for mommies is a "serious sin".

[Billyray]

oops...you did it again. .
No I didn't do anything again. You said "someone claims that men are committing serious sins when they do natural things that even Jesus did."

You said MEN not neonates. BTW are we really arguing about whether or not Jesus committed sin? Certainly you can find something a little bit more productive than this, don't you think? You can go on page after page after page and you will not get any traction on this one. But do as you please and keep it up if you like.

[Sir]

No I didn't do anything again. You said "someone claims that men are committing serious sins when they do natural things that even Jesus did."

You said MEN not neonates. BTW are we really arguing about whether or not Jesus committed sin? Certainly you can find something a little bit more productive than this, don't you think? You can go on page after page after page and you will not get any traction on this one. But do as you please and keep it up if you like.

I'm sorry you took "men" to mean literal men. I used "men" to differentiate between the perfect holy Christ and mortals. But the context was about infants, so I apologize it wasn't clear.

If you don't find it productive you don't have to respond. You are right that is hasn't been prodictive since nobody has been able to reconcile how mortal infants that cry for mommy are committing serious sin by doing so but Jesus crying for mommy is not a serious sin. The issue is as simple as that.

[Billyray]

You are right that is hasn't been prodictive since nobody has been able to reconcile how mortal infants that cry for mommy are committing serious sin by doing so but Jesus crying for mommy is not a serious sin. The issue is as simple as that.

Have you ever thought that crying is not a sin and that you have pick out this one example from another poster and ran with it? But at the same time it still does not change the fact that ALL men including infants are sinners and that Christ is not, which is exactly where we were at the start of this whole discussion.

[Sir]

Have you ever thought that crying is not a sin and that you have pick out this one example from another poster and ran with it? But at the same time it still does not change the fact that ALL men including infants are sinners and that Christ is not, which is exactly where we were at the start of this whole discussion.

Sure I think crying is not a sin. But when you have one guy who attacks LDS doctrines make this claim, and then claims that all other christians on this board agree with him, it isn't a crime to investigate this furthur and find out how someone can hold on to such paradoxical conclusions.

And no, it is not a fact that infants are sinners. That is a debateable issue, not a fact.

[Billyray]

And no, it is not a fact that infants are sinners. That is a debateable issue, not a fact.

When the Bible says that ALL have sinned you believe this exempts a certain group of people?

[James Banta]

I am not sure which quote you are referring to, can you quote it for me.

We sin because we are sinners.. that i what I was saying to Him.. He asked what sins a baby could commit.. I told there there are no age restrictions on any of the commandments.. A baby demands to be feed clothed and served.. That is selfishness and covetousness.. It doesn't matter that we agree to give them these things the nature desire of that infant is to have their needs met even at the expense of others.. Therefore babies are in sin just like the rest of us.. I do believe that Jesus Holds them in His grace until they become self aware, but that has nothing to do with them still being sinners and sinning.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

I am not sure why you are having a hard time understanding me, except I believe that it is so obvious that you have to dis***ociate yourself with it in order to try and make sense of it.

In a nutshell, your only recourse is to claim that since Jesus never sinned, no matter what he did was not a sin. So in the case James banta makes, ***ume that both you and Jesus were 'selfish' as newborns and cried for your mother's attention. To state that it is a serious sin for you to do it but not a sin for Jesus to do it makes no logical sense. Either both are guilty of the 'serious sin' or neither one is. But it can't be that one is right and one is wrong when doing the same thing.

being given care as was the case for Jesus is not the same thing as demanding care as we did as infants.. Jesus is said had no sin.. Because of that He never demanded anything even as a infant.. I claim the Bible in this matter you can claim your own thought if you wish Scripture in more authoritative..

2 Cor 5:21
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
There seems to be a lot about the scripture that you just can't, or won't, accept.. IHS jim

[TheSword99]

Because I don't want this thread to be removed on the basis of personal attacks I will refrain from citing the poster whose words these are. But this is the kind of thinking that makes LDS like me wonder why critics of the LDS think they have something better to offer the LDS:


1) Is it really foolish to think that one must actually do something in order to be called someone who does that thing? Can I call someone a rapist if he never committed rape? Can I call someone a thief if he has never stolen? etc.

2) How can someone claim to have a better news, the good news, to offer LDS, when they believe that infants and mentally handicapped people are sinners? I agree with the BoM that states people who believe an infant, a baby that has no comprehension of reality, let alone the ability to make a rational choice to choose between good and evil and consciously choose one or the other, is in the gall of bitterness.



God Himself said in his Word, that all have sinned. All have fallen short. There's no one righteous. All our righteous acts are filthy rags before God. However, a baby does not sin the day he is born, but he is born with a sin capacity. A sin nature. He cannot escape it and yes, this is the result of the Fall.

The "Good News" is that Christ has overcome the sins of the world. He paid our sin debt in full, set us free and reconciled us to God the Father. The death and punishment we deserve, He took upon Himself at Calvary. We don't have to try to earn it or work for it through church rites, rituals, ordinances, laws, Temple work, marriage sealing. We only need to come to Christ in sincere humility acknowledging that we are lost sinners and that Christ alone saves and offers eternal life. Its a free gift. if you are working for it through obedience to a myriad of ordinances and laws and church works, then you are denying that its a free gift.

[glm1978]

Has anyone following this considered the age of accountability in this matter? A newborn or very young child does have the capacity to sin but do they understand that what they are doing is sin? With infants that have cannot speak or express with a known language how they feel, crying is their only form of communication. Yes, babies are selfish but as an adult we understand that they need food, diaper changes, get tired and cranky, get sick and are in pain, but they can't tell us what's wrong except by crying. Sometimes babies and little children just want to be held (yes that is selfish on their part) but that is one way they can feel the love of their parents and others so that the babies bond with people.

[James Banta]

Has anyone following this considered the age of accountability in this matter? A newborn or very young child does have the capacity to sin but do they understand that what they are doing is sin? With infants that have cannot speak or express with a known language how they feel, crying is their only form of communication. Yes, babies are selfish but as an adult we understand that they need food, diaper changes, get tired and cranky, get sick and are in pain, but they can't tell us what's wrong except by crying. Sometimes babies and little children just want to be held (yes that is selfish on their part) but that is one way they can feel the love of their parents and others so that the babies bond with people.

I agree, I just was pointing out that we sin because we are sinners not because we sin.. It is our nature to sin so from birth we follow that nature..We hold to that until we are reborn from above, BORN AGAIN..

Even the BofM agrees with this point saying "The natural man is am enemy of God" (Mosiah 3: 19).. Yet they deny even this their own scripture saying that "a person comes into this world clean and pure.." They deny their own "scripture" in that doctrine.. IHS jim

[Billyray]

And no, it is not a fact that infants are sinners. That is a debateable issue, not a fact.

When the Bible says that ALL have sinned you believe this exempts a certain group of people?

[James Banta]

When the Bible says that ALL have sinned you believe this exempts a certain group of people?

I can only ***ume that to mormons ALL means SOME.. IHS jim

[B2M5L2]

Has anyone following this considered the age of accountability in this matter?

Where is "the age of accountability" found in the Bible?

[TheSword99]

Where is "the age of accountability" found in the Bible?

It isn't in the Bible and that's the point. The lds however, places the age of accountability at 8.

Moroni 8:8 in the BoM states that "little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin, wherefore the curse of Adam istaken from them in me."

Walter Martin, in his book: The Kingdom of the Cults says regarding this: "Anyone who thinks that children under age 8 cannot sin has not visited the cl***rooms of today's schools."

[ErikErik]

There are more than a few quotes from the early church fathers that confirm humans are born in sin which came from Adam's transgression. Tertullian wrote: " Every soul by reason of its birth, has a nature in Adam until it is born-again in Christ. Moreover, it is unclean all the while that it remains without this regeneration, and because it is unclean, it is actively sinful."

Psalms 58:3 says: The wicked are estranged from the womb. They go astray as soon as they are born."

Origen said of this verse: "They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies."

Origen also wrote: "It is evident that no one is pure either by essence or nature..in the Trinity alone does goodness exist."

Ps. 51:5 says: "Behold I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceived me." nrajeff thinks this means that it was David's mother who sinned. However, David was conceived in chaste wedlock.

[nrajeff]

When the Bible says that ALL have sinned you believe this exempts a certain group of people?

---Of course. If you think it was intended to mean literally all beings in existence, then you believe it says that God and Jesus sinned.

LDS have the sense to realize that it's foolish to take it in an absolutely literal way, just like "In Jerusalem there were Jews from every nation under heaven." I guess YOU believe it's saying that even Jews from ancient, precolumbian America were there...right?

[Billyray]

---Of course. If you think it was intended to mean literally all beings in existence, then you believe it says that God and Jesus sinned.

LDS have the sense to realize that it's foolish to take it in an absolutely literal way, just like "In Jerusalem there were Jews from every nation under heaven." I guess YOU believe it's saying that even Jews from ancient, precolumbian America were there...right?

So besides Jesus what group of people are exempt?

[B2M5L2]

---Of course. If you think it was intended to mean literally all beings in existence, then you believe it says that God and Jesus sinned.

Well, we certainly know that the "God" and "Jesus" of Mormonism had to have sinned, if what the Mormons have to say about them is true.

As for ***erting that because the Bible says that "all have sinned" implies a confession from God that He sinned as well, that would either implicate God in an absurdity or a lie, neither of which is possible, otherwise we would not be here at all. Therefore, context must rule the day when interpreting the verse, otherwise the Bible is worthless as a valid source of objectivity when dealing with such questions.


LDS have the sense to realize that it's foolish to take it in an absolutely literal way, just like "In Jerusalem there were Jews from every nation under heaven."

It's just too bad that the LDS don't have the sense to realize that they're all under a curse because the solution they propose to cleanse from sin is not the same one that God recommends.


I guess YOU believe it's saying that even Jews from ancient, precolumbian America were there...right?

Hey Jeff, lets go another one of your infamous diversionary excursions that have nothing to do with the original question, okay?

[TheSword99]

---Of course. If you think it was intended to mean literally all beings in existence, then you believe it says that God and Jesus sinned.

LDS have the sense to realize that it's foolish to take it in an absolutely literal way, just like "In Jerusalem there were Jews from every nation under heaven." I guess YOU believe it's saying that even Jews from ancient, precolumbian America were there...right?

While its true that some parts of the Bible speaks in metaphors, such as God having wings or feathers, it is an entirely different thing altogether when the Bible speaks of true doctrines such as the doctrine of God and Salvation.The Bible says that all have sinned. All have fallen short. There is no one righteous, no not one, this is God speaking. There is not a single human being who is without sin.
It does not say all beings in existence and you are cunning to even suggest that. God is speaking very clearly here and we all need to listen.

[TheSword99]

Well, we certainly know that the "God" and "Jesus" of Mormonism had to have sinned, if what the Mormons have to say about them is true.

As for ***erting that because the Bible says that "all have sinned" implies a confession from God that He sinned as well, that would either implicate God in an absurdity or a lie, neither of which is possible, otherwise we would not be here at all. Therefore, context must rule the day when interpreting the verse, otherwise the Bible is worthless as a valid source of objectivity when dealing with such questions.



It's just too bad that the LDS don't have the sense to realize that they're all under a curse because the solution they propose to cleanse from sin is not the same one that God recommends.



Hey Jeff, lets go another one of your infamous diversionary excursions that have nothing to do with the original question, okay?

I have said all along that according to mormonism's view of God and Christ being once like us, that it certainly has to mean that God and Christ must have sinned while they were men. Then Erik said the same thing and this lead to a poll by Jeff and a thread started by Sir.

[nrajeff]

And that poll showed that you are making a false statement when you accuse the LDS of believing that Jesus, His Father in Heaven and the Holy Spirit were all once sinful men. And now you have suckered Brian into following your false preaching. Congrats. Billy, Libs, and Jim Banta were honest enough and BRAVE enough to stand up and put their names to their refutation of your accusation.

What can you really say about that? You gonna accuse THEM of having finite, carnal minds that are unable to understand the Bible, and THAT explains why they say you are wrong?

Just keep on digging. Maybe you can get to China and emerge from your self-made hole THERE. Meanwhile, the rest of us get to watch you self-destruct.

[B2M5L2]

And that poll showed that you are making a false statement when you accuse the LDS of believing that Jesus, His Father in Heaven and the Holy Spirit were all once sinful men. And now you have suckered Brian into following your false preaching. Congrats. Billy, Libs, and Jim Banta were honest enough and BRAVE enough to stand up and put their names to their refutation of your accusation.

Hey Jeff, why shouldn't a person believe that the Mormon "God" and "Jesus" sinned, when both lived the same kinds of lives that all humans do and neither were gods when doing it?


What can you really say about that? You gonna accuse THEM of having finite, carnal minds that are unable to understand the Bible, and THAT explains why they say you are wrong?

I'm going to say that I think that the Mormons are afraid to be consistent with their prophets and doctrine. Are you going to demonstrate otherwise by providing a cogent line of thinking which shows that "Heavenly Father" and "Jesus" were not sinners, and how they managed to escape sinning as mere human beings?


Just keep on digging. Maybe you can get to China and emerge from your self-made hole THERE. Meanwhile, the rest of us get to watch you self-destruct.

There's nothing to dig for when Mormon teaching keeps providing conflicted statements originating out of the pit itself.

[nrajeff]

Hey Jeff, why shouldn't a person believe that the Mormon "God" and "Jesus" sinned, when both lived the same kinds of lives that all humans do and neither were gods when doing it?

--Why should a person think you are truthfully characterizing LDS theology?
Answer: They shouldn't, obviously. Especially if they know that LDS teach that Jesus was the DEITY Jehovah before His incarnation. Especially if they know that LDS teach that Jesus' Father is just like Him, and since LDS TEACH THAT JESUS NEVER SINNED, it means that His Father didn't either.

Why should anyone think that you'd get away with saying things about LDS doctrine that are false?

[B2M5L2]

--Why should a person think you are truthfully characterizing LDS theology?

Why shouldn't they?


Answer: They shouldn't, obviously. Especially if they know that LDS teach that Jesus was the DEITY Jehovah before His incarnation. Especially if they know that LDS teach that Jesus' Father is just like Him, and since LDS TEACH THAT JESUS NEVER SINNED, it means that His Father didn't either.

So, how did Jesus become God without ever going through all the Eternal Progression prerequisites? Moreover, how did he do something he never saw his father do, since he was nothing but a mere man, who did sin, prior to becoming something which is logically absurd to do, namely go from a finite "intelligence" to an infinitely contingent "God" (if the latter makes any sense at all)?


Why should anyone think that you'd get away with saying things about LDS doctrine that are false?

You haven't demonstrated anywhere that what I've written is false. In fact, all you keep doing is dancing around the questions like your Mormon cohorts keep doing.

[nrajeff]

Why shouldn't they?

--They should not think that you are truthfully characterizing LDS theology because it's so obvious that you aren't. Even a majority of your fellow Evangelical Christians here say so. Next question.


So, how did Jesus become God without ever going through all the Eternal Progression prerequisites?
---Go here

http://jesuschrist.lds.org/SonOfGod/eng/?cid=wpats1

and educate yourself regarding Jesus.

Specific answer to your question is here:

http://broadcast.lds.org/Handheld/Curriculum/jesus_the_christ/jesusthechrist04.mp3


You haven't demonstrated anywhere that what I've written is false.
---You made the ***ertion, the burden of making anyone believe your ***ertion is valid rests on you.

[ErikErik]

--Why should a person think you are truthfully characterizing LDS theology?
Answer: They shouldn't, obviously. Especially if they know that LDS teach that Jesus was the DEITY Jehovah before His incarnation. Especially if they know that LDS teach that Jesus' Father is just like Him, and since LDS TEACH THAT JESUS NEVER SINNED, it means that His Father didn't either.

Why should anyone think that you'd get away with saying things about LDS doctrine that are false?

Oh, but, nra, who was Jesus before he was Jehovah? Wasn't he a man like you?

[ErikErik]

--They should not think that you are truthfully characterizing LDS theology because it's so obvious that you aren't. Even a majority of your fellow Evangelical Christians here say so. Next question.





I think you need to go back and read some of the posts by the Christians on here. They have told you that God and Christ, while still mortal men must have been capable of sinning. And they told you your poll was meaningless the way you set it up.

The very fact that you give us links goes to show that you are incapable of discussing lds theology.

By the way, where are your lds comrades? Looks like they abandoned the ship because they realize its nearly sunk.

[nrajeff]

Oh, but, nra, who was Jesus before he was Jehovah? Wasn't he a man like you?

---Who told you THAT is LDS doctrine? LOL. How could Jesus have been a mortal man BEFORE He was incarnated as a mortal about 2010 years ago? Do you really think that LDS doctrine is that Jesus was mortal more than once?

Where are you GETTING such patently false ideas about LDS doctrines? I really want to know, because although I have seen some wacky claims about what LDS believe, your claims are pushing the envelope.

What will you ***ert next--that LDS have an exact replica of the Oval Office in their temple so they can run the USA after they take over? That is no more wacky than what you have been claiming.

[nrajeff]

I think you need to go back and read some of the posts by the Christians on here. They have told you that God and Christ, while still mortal men must have been capable of sinning.
---They said that? And you call them CHRISTIANS?


And they told you your poll was meaningless the way you set it up.
--Really? So Sword says "the lds teaching (is) that these three, The Father, the Word, (Jesus Christ) and the Holy Spirit were once sinful men."

And I ask everyone "Is what he said true--is that REALLY LDS doctrine ?"

And YOU claim that's an INVALID poll? LOL. What makes it invalid, pray tell.
Next you'll be saying that if Sword had said "2+2=99" and I asked you whether his statement is correct, THAT would be an invalid poll, too.

HELLO? Is your illogic not obvious?


The very fact that you give us links goes to show that you are incapable of discussing lds theology.
---Oh. So to you extremist Evangelical cultists, if a person provides references to support an argument, it means they are incapable of discussion? You are really out of your Communistic Christians comfort zone when you come here, aren't you? Tell Bob he needs to do a better *** of preparing his disciples for the real world before he sends them out of the commune.

[B2M5L2]

--They should not think that you are truthfully characterizing LDS theology because it's so obvious that you aren't. Even a majority of your fellow Evangelical Christians here say so. Next question.

Sure it's obvious, Jeff. It's so obvious that you either cannot remember anything that was untruthful or you simply don't have the stones to mention anything out of fear of being shown otherwise.



---Go here

and educate yourself regarding Jesus.

What's wrong with going to the Bible to educate oneself about Jesus? Mormons do believe the Bible, don't they?


Specific answer to your question is here:

In other words, you don't have an answer. You do realize that with enough confessions, you just might stumble upon reality itself?


[COLOR="Purple"]---You made the ***ertion, the burden of making anyone believe your ***ertion is valid rests on you.

Actually, it was you making the ***ertion, and we have yet to see anything of substance which would lead anyone to believe you were telling the truth.

[ErikErik]

---Who told you THAT is LDS doctrine? LOL. How could Jesus have been a mortal man BEFORE He was incarnated as a mortal about 2010 years ago? Do you really think that LDS doctrine is that Jesus was mortal more than once?

Where are you GETTING such patently false ideas about LDS doctrines? I really want to know, because although I have seen some wacky claims about what LDS believe, your claims are pushing the envelope.

What will you ***ert next--that LDS have an exact replica of the Oval Office in their temple so they can run the USA after they take over? That is no more wacky than what you have been claiming.

Oh my nra, are you confused. Now you are saying that Jesus did not become a man until Mary gave birth to him. But then you say he was Jehovah in the OT. So was he always Jehovah? Who's lying here, you or your church when its said that all gods were once men who had to progress to be the gods they are now? If Jesus was always Jehovah God, then by your own admission he was never a man who progressed to godhood. If he didn't become a man until Mary gave birth to him, and was Jehovah before that, then how can you say all gods were once men?? When did Jesus progress? Before he became Jehovah, or after Mary gave birth to him?

Sounds like you need to find another church, a Christian one.

[nrajeff]

Sure it's obvious, Jeff.
--Correct. My poll made it obvious that what YOU 'feeel' to be LDS doctrine, it NOT. Which means, OBVIOUSLY, that when you claim it IS, you are making a false statement. A false claim. A false accusation or ***ertion. Why are you fighting against the statements from Libs, Jim Banta, and Billy Ray? AT least they were honest enough to say that LDS DO NOT teach that Jesus, His Father, and the Holy SPIRIT were once sinful men. Why is it so hard for you and your kindred spirit Sword99 to admit that you are wrong even according to other Evangelical Christians?


It's so obvious that you either cannot remember anything that was untruthful or you simply don't have the stones to mention anything out of fear of being shown otherwise.
--Do you remember the poll from 6 days ago? Do you remember the results? Do YOU have the stones to admit that although you made false statements regarding LDS doctrine, you were shown otherwise?
Do you intend to maintain your false accusations, even when your fellow Evangelical Christians stated that your accusations are false?


What's wrong with going to the Bible to educate oneself about Jesus?
---You wouldn't have been satisfied with just the Bible. You asked:

"how did Jesus become God without ever going through all the Eternal Progression prerequisites?"

and the Bible would not have given you an answer you would be happy with.


Actually, it was you making the ***ertion
--Really? Was it ME who ***erted that LDS doctrine is that Jesus, His Faher, and the Holy SPIRIT were once sinful men? I thought it was one of you extremist Westboro types. I thought I was DENYING the validity of the ***ertion. Are you having trouble keeping the players in the game sorted out in your mind?

YOU attacked. WE ask you to back up your attack with evidence. It's not really that hard to understand how it works.

And when it comes to your backing up your ***ertion that LDS doctrine is that Jesus, His Faher, and the Holy SPIRIT were once sinful men.....

we have yet to see anything of substance which would lead anyone to believe you were telling the truth.

[B2M5L2]

--Correct. My poll made it obvious that what YOU 'feeel' to be LDS doctrine, it NOT.

Your poll doesn't mean squat. And since it's your leaders that I allude to when making a statement, then my feelings about the subject are as irrelevant as your poll.


[COLOR="Purple"]--Do you remember the poll from 6 days ago? Do you remember the results? Do YOU have the stones to admit that although you made false statements regarding LDS doctrine, you were shown otherwise?
Do you intend to maintain your false accusations, even when your fellow Evangelical Christians stated that your accusations are false?

One more time, your poll doesn't mean squat, and you have yet to prove that anything I've asked about was false.


---You wouldn't have been satisfied with just the Bible. You asked:

"how did Jesus become God without ever going through all the Eternal Progression prerequisites?"

and the Bible would not have given you an answer you would be happy with.

And you never answered the question. Now, just why was that? It's because there is no such thing as eternally progressing unto godhood found in the Bible.


--Really? Was it ME who ***erted that LDS doctrine is that Jesus, His Faher, and the Holy SPIRIT were once sinful men? I thought it was one of you extremist Westboro types. I thought I was DENYING the validity of the ***ertion. Are you having trouble keeping the players in the game sorted out in your mind?

No need to deny Mormon doctrine, given that you're a Mormon. Unless, of course, you're simply trying to be deceitful; then we understand, since that is an intentional or non-intentional part of being a Mormon.


YOU attacked. WE ask you to back up your attack with evidence. It's not really that hard to understand how it works.

Are you now denying that the little "god" you worship was once a man who "progressed" into becoming a god? If not, then you have your proof, just as I have that he by necessity had to sin, since he was not a god prior to becoming one. It's called the effects that sin has had upon all creation, which now groans for redemption (Rom. 8:22).


And when it comes to your backing up your ***ertion that LDS doctrine is that Jesus, His Faher, and the Holy SPIRIT were once sinful men.....

How did Jesus manage to become a god, if what the Mormon leadership has to say about the father is true, namely that he did what he saw his father do? And as for the Holy Spirit, just how did he become a god without going through all the prerequisites necessarily laid out in the Mormon doctrine of Eternal Progression? In fact, since Mormon cosmology is cyclical, then somewhere in the universe the HS' parents had to have sinned in order that they might have joy, meaning that he was born with a sin nature as well.

What a tangled web we weave, when we set out to form doctrine apart from the Bible.


we have yet to see anything of substance which would lead anyone to believe you were telling the truth.

And you've provided nothing to refute the reality of just where your doctrine leads when thought out to its logical conclusion.

[ErikErik]

Your poll doesn't mean squat. And since it's your leaders that I allude to when making a statement, then my feelings about the subject are as irrelevant as your poll.



.

Poor nra. That poll was a joke and proved nothing.

[B2M5L2]

Poor nra. That poll was a joke and proved nothing.

Yeah, it's kind of sad that Jeff seems to think that his impromptu poll carries more authority than what his church leaders have been saying for quite some time now. It makes one wonder why Jeff would even want to claim to be a Mormon. Why doesn't he just set out and start his own splinter cult of Mormonism like so many Mormons already have done?

[TheSword99]

--Correct. My poll made it obvious that what YOU 'feeel' to be LDS doctrine, it NOT. Which means, OBVIOUSLY, that when you claim it IS, you are making a false statement. A false claim. A false accusation or ***ertion. Why are you fighting against the statements from Libs, Jim Banta, and Billy Ray? AT least they were honest enough to say that LDS DO NOT teach that Jesus, His Father, and the Holy SPIRIT were once sinful men. Why is it so hard for you and your kindred spirit Sword99 to admit that you are wrong even according to other Evangelical Christians?




Jeff, your church does not have the courage to say that it was possible that God and Jesus Christ sinned when they were in their mortal stage because if they did, they would be guilty of blasphemy and many lds would leave the church. But the fact is your church insinuates it by claiming that gods were once men like you and me. How can one teach that God was once a man like you, but turn around and say He never sinned, was not even capable of sinning? I guess your founder and subsequent leaders didn't look ahead to the future and see the complications and consequences of trying to establish blasphemous doctrines.

Its just more denials and cover-ups.

[nrajeff]

Ah. So you're saying that the church does NOT in fact teach what you claimed it teaches, but if it DID teach it, then your accusation would not have been a dishonest one?

I can agree with that.

[TheSword99]

Ah. So you're saying that the church does NOT in fact teach what you claimed it teaches, but if it DID teach it, then your accusation would not have been a dishonest one?

I can agree with that.

Your church dug themselves a huge hole that they can't get out of. They cannot dispute the very real possibility that if gods were once men, which includes God and Jesus Christ, then they too must have sinned,

[nrajeff]

Your church dug themselves a huge hole that they can't get out of. They cannot dispute the very real possibility that if gods were once men, which includes God and Jesus Christ, then they too must have sinned,

----And your claim is a fairly good example of fallacious reasoning, because it is entirely possible that a deity could have one mortal offspring who never sinned, even if all the others did sin. Becoming mortal does not guarantee that a person will sin, and Jesus is proof of that.

In other words: The fact that YOU are a sinner does not necessarily mean that JESUS has to be a sinner.

I wonder how long it will take before you see the illogic of your position.

[Billyray]

The fact that YOU are a sinner does not necessarily mean that JESUS has to be a sinner.

But both can become a god. In fact the vast majority of gods out there were former sinners on another planet if you extrapolate LDS
theology.

[nrajeff]

But both can become a god. In fact the vast majority of gods out there were former sinners on another planet if you extrapolate LDS
theology.

---Even if that is true, it STILL does not validate your claim that "since other mortals sinned, it means that JESUS must have sinned."

Your claim is invalid. It is like saying, "Since I and most other students in this cl*** got a C or D or F, then it's impossible that the super-smart kid could have gotten an A."

You are still lost in Fallacy Land, Billy.

[TheSword99]

---Even if that is true, it STILL does not validate your claim that "since other mortals sinned, it means that JESUS must have sinned."

Your claim is invalid. It is like saying, "Since I and most other students in this cl*** got a C or D or F, then it's impossible that the super-smart kid could have gotten an A."

You are still lost in Fallacy Land, Billy.

Wrong again Jeff, Since YOU believe Jesus was once a mortal, then he must have sinned since all mortals do. This isn't rocket science.

Your ****ogy doesn't even come close to what we're talking about. All men sin.

Seems the ld wants us to believe that some mortals don't sin.

[Billyray]

---Even if that is true, it STILL does not validate your claim that "since other mortals sinned, it means that JESUS must have sinned."


Jeff, quote me where I said that Jesus sinned. I think you are confused on this one.

[Richard]

Why do you think this kind of thinking is scary? We are all sinners by nature and we all sin because of our sin nature. I think that you will find that this concept is not unique to a single poster but rather a commonly held Christian belief. If this were not so then you would expect to see sinless people but you don't. Now what I think that you are confusing is sin and accountability. For example a 4 year old can go into a store and steal a piece of candy. This act is breaking the law, but because of his age he would not be held accountable for that crime, but it is still a crime.

In Gods eyes it is not a sin, since the innocent cannot be held accountable.
God will judge the infant as innocent of sin, since the sin can only be judged as sin if the person willingly disobeys and recognizes it's a sin.

[ErikErik]

In Gods eyes it is not a sin, since the innocent cannot be held accountable.
God will judge the infant as innocent of sin, since the sin can only be judged as sin if the person willingly disobeys and recognizes it's a sin.


Oh but "innocent" Adam and Eve were indeed held accountable.

And according to nrajeff, Adam and Eve were infants.

[Billyray]

since the sin can only be judged as sin if the person willingly disobeys and recognizes it's a sin.

So a person can kill and commit adultery etc. and this is not sin as long as he does not recognize that he is breaking God's laws such as would be the case for an atheist?

[ErikErik]

In Gods eyes it is not a sin, since the innocent cannot be held accountable.
God will judge the infant as innocent of sin, since the sin can only be judged as sin if the person willingly disobeys and recognizes it's a sin.

Did Eve recognize that she was disobeying God? Bible says she was deceived. Yet God meted out punishment.

[Richard]

Oh but "innocent" Adam and Eve were indeed held accountable.

And according to nrajeff, Adam and Eve were infants.

Innocent no, because they were told what they could and could not do.
Accountable for being disobedient, do you not know the scriptures? dude.

[Richard]

So a person can kill and commit adultery etc. and this is not sin as long as he does not recognize that he is breaking God's laws such as would be the case for an atheist?

Hmmm, thought we were discussing those not old enough to be accountable, when did you decide to deflect from this issue?

[Richard]

Did Eve recognize that she was disobeying God? Bible says she was deceived. Yet God meted out punishment.

Did not God the Father tell her not to eat the Apple? did she not make a choice? did Satin force her to disobey? did she not know the consequences of her action? She understood obedience and disobedience. Yes or no, right or wrong.

Mormons believe Adam's fall was part of the Lord's plan for His children.

[ErikErik]

Did not God the Father tell her not to eat the Apple? did she not make a choice? did Satin force her to disobey? did she not know the consequences of her action? She understood obedience and disobedience. Yes or no, right or wrong.

Mormons believe Adam's fall was part of the Lord's plan for His children.

According to your fellow mormon, nrajeff, Adam and Eve were babies and not capable of understanding right from wrong.

According to the bible, nowhere does it say that God told Eve not to eat of the fruit. He commanded Adam not to. This is why Eve was deceived, but Adam deliberately disobeyed.

Mormons believe that Adam and Eve's transgression against God was a blessing. That's satan's lie. What is the definition of transgression? Look it up in a bible dictionary.

[Jean Chauvin]

You lost me with the word "because."

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

[B2M5L2]

Did not God the Father tell her not to eat the Apple? did she not make a choice? did Satin force her to disobey? did she not know the consequences of her action? She understood obedience and disobedience. Yes or no, right or wrong.

Mormons believe Adam's fall was part of the Lord's plan for His children.

And who said that the Mormon "God" never sinned? Here Chuck has out-and-out implicated his "God" in sin, and this was after he became a god. Thanks Chuck for another admission, but it really wasn't necessary, since we already deduced that your "God" sinned from statements that your leaders have made about him being a human being at some point in his existence.

[Sir]

we already deduced that your "God" sinned from statements that your leaders have made about him being a human being at some point in his existence.

So, logically, since Jesus was a human at some point in His existence, we are to deduce that he was a sinner?

Your logic just blew up like an atomic hand grenade.

[Billyray]

Hmmm, thought we were discussing those not old enough to be accountable, when did you decide to deflect from this issue?
When you made the following statement


God will judge the infant as innocent of sin, since the sin can only be judged as sin if the person willingly disobeys and recognizes it's a sin.

[B2M5L2]

So, logically, since Jesus was a human at some point in His existence, we are to deduce that he was a sinner?

Following the LDS line of thinking, absolutely. Following the Bible's line of thought, absolutely not.


Your logic just blew up like an atomic hand grenade.

That's what will happen if one follows the LDS line of thinking. So, why do you persist to follow something that by your own admittance will **** up on you?

[ErikErik]

I don't think most lds have examined some of their beliefs very closely. They just accept what they are taught. Thus the implications of God and Christ having once been mortal men could also mean they had sinned, has never really occurred to the lds. Many get appalled when others suggest this very real possibility. Just like when you tell the lds that their leaders have taught that God had sex with Mary, the mother of Jesus, they try to deny this because its shocking.

By the same token, when you ask them where the first man got his body and if Heavenly Father has a father, why then does he say in the Scriptures that he knows of no other gods, the lds cannot answer. However, the Bible tells us God is a spirit. He was never a man. So for the Christian, we know the answers to these questions because God revealed them to us in His Word..

[ErikErik]

In Gods eyes it is not a sin, since the innocent cannot be held accountable.
God will judge the infant as innocent of sin, since the sin can only be judged as sin if the person willingly disobeys and recognizes it's a sin.

I'm not so sure that the Bible says God will judge infants as innocent, but rather, because of God's grace they will be declared forgiven. The Bible says all have sinned. It doesn't make any exceptions. It is because of what Jesus Christ did at Calvary that makes forgiveness possible.

[Richard]

According to your fellow mormon, nrajeff, Adam and Eve were babies and not capable of understanding right from wrong.

According to the bible, nowhere does it say that God told Eve not to eat of the fruit. He commanded Adam not to. This is why Eve was deceived, but Adam deliberately disobeyed.

Mormons believe that Adam and Eve's transgression against God was a blessing. That's satan's lie. What is the definition of transgression? Look it up in a bible dictionary.

Adam and Eve did not comprehend just yet what the consequences were by being disobedient. They understood that they could make a choice, just like any infant eventually learns. The result of using our agency is the consequences of our choices; good choices produce good consequences, bad consequences produce wrong choices. Adam and Eve understood they faced two conflicting set of instructions-to avoid the fruit of the tree and to go forth and multiply.



Lehi, the first prophet of the Book of Mormon, explained it this way:

If Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.

Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall.” (2 Nephi 2:22-26)


The act that produced the Fall was not a sin-inherently wrong-but a transgression-wrong because it was formally prohibited. These words are not always used to denote something different, but this distinction seems meaningful in the circumstances of the Fall.” (Dallin H. Oaks, “‘The Great Plan of Happiness‘,” Ensign, Nov 1993, 72)

[Richard]

When you made the following statement



Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard
God will judge the infant as innocent of sin, since the sin can only be judged as sin if the person willingly disobeys and recognizes it's a sin.




Your quote:
"So a person can kill and commit adultery etc. and this is not sin as long as he does not recognize that he is breaking God's laws such as would be the case for an atheist?"

How can that relate to a infant? Youere way out in left field, good buddy.

[Richard]

And who said that the Mormon "God" never sinned? Here Chuck has out-and-out implicated his "God" in sin, and this was after he became a god. Thanks Chuck for another admission, but it really wasn't necessary, since we already deduced that your "God" sinned from statements that your leaders have made about him being a human being at some point in his existence.

Sadly you can't even answer the question, who created sin? MY, my BS, the **** that you come up with staggers the mind.

[Richard]

I don't think most lds have examined some of their beliefs very closely. They just accept what they are taught. Thus the implications of God and Christ having once been mortal men could also mean they had sinned, has never really occurred to the lds. Many get appalled when others suggest this very real possibility. Just like when you tell the lds that their leaders have taught that God had sex with Mary, the mother of Jesus, they try to deny this because its shocking.

By the same token, when you ask them where the first man got his body and if Heavenly Father has a father, why then does he say in the Scriptures that he knows of no other gods, the lds cannot answer. However, the Bible tells us God is a spirit. He was never a man. So for the Christian, we know the answers to these questions because God revealed them to us in His Word..

LOL, the scriptures never stated that God was not once a man, it is silent on this. So you add to the scriptures an opinion, your opinion and conclusion.
Yes God is Spirit, as much as is His Son and also you and I. Who created sex, who says sex is not eternal. Just wondering where you get your theories from, surely not from the scriptures.

[Richard]

I'm not so sure that the Bible says God will judge infants as innocent, but rather, because of God's grace they will be declared forgiven. The Bible says all have sinned. It doesn't make any exceptions. It is because of what Jesus Christ did at Calvary that makes forgiveness possible.

So you believe that infants can sin, amazing. But then again so are the Christian Creeds.

[B2M5L2]

Sadly you can't even answer the question, who created sin?

Sin wasn't created. Otherwise, please cite a reference in Genesis where it says, "Then God said, let there be sin…"


MY, my BS, the **** that you come up with staggers the mind.

And you think that some sinful human being evolving into your "Heavenly Father" isn't staggering to the mind?

[B2M5L2]

So you believe that infants can sin, amazing. But then again so are the Christian Creeds.

Psalm 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb; These who speak lies go astray from birth.

Just in case you didn't know, Chuck, the Psalms are in the Bible.

[Richard]

Sin wasn't created. Otherwise, please cite a reference in Genesis where it says, "Then God said, let there be sin…"



And you think that some sinful human being evolving into your "Heavenly Father" isn't staggering to the mind?

Thanks BS, I agree sin was not created, God did not make Satan evil, and evil has always existed or otherwise someone must have created it.

Very astute my Calvin friend. So since God is from everlasting to everlasting, and man is created innocent, who then brought evil in to the world? Never mind, it obviously would be deflected any way. Just some food for thought BS.

[Richard]

Psalm 58:3 The wicked are estranged (alienated) from the womb; These who speak lies go astray from birth.

Just in case you didn't know, Chuck, the Psalms are in the Bible.


“The wicked are estranged from the womb: They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies. Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: They are like the deaf adder that stops up her ear, who listens not to the voice of charmers, charming ever so wisely. Break their teeth, O God, in their mouth: Break out the great teeth of the young lions, O Jehovah.”


Hmmm, obviously one of your erroneous views about the Bible, BS. I thought you were big on discernment? You see BS there is a big difference in literal and figurative expressions.


Psalm 51:5 would teach that the child is a sinner from the moment of his conception, whereas Psalm 58:3 would suggest that the infant does not “go astray” until he is born – nine months later. Which is it – if the text is strictly literal?


Gosh, dude, I don't know, "I just thought I was being intellectual", wrong. :D

[B2M5L2]

Hmmm, obviously one of your erroneous views about the Bible, BS. I thought you were big on discernment? You see BS there is a big difference in literal and figurative expressions.

So now you're under the false ***umption that Psalm 58:3 is not in the Bible? Wow! And here I thought exalted human beings having sex with the rest of the gods and goddesses was strange. Mormonism and its followers just keep getting weirder and weirder all the time.


Psalm 51:5 would teach that the child is a sinner from the moment of his conception, whereas Psalm 58:3 would suggest that the infant does not “go astray” until he is born – nine months later. Which is it – if the text is strictly literal?

Oh Chuck, you're not that naive, are you? The first reference speaks to everyone's sin nature, while the latter demonstrates just how long it takes after arriving in the world for the sinner to start acting upon his/her sin nature. Kind of puts a cramp in the silly notion that Mormons have that a person doesn't sin until he/she is eight years-old, doesn't it Chuck?;)



Gosh, dude, I don't know, "I just thought I was being intellectual", wrong. :D

Oh, I agree, Chuck, you probably thought you were being intellectual, until the Word of God exposed your silliness once again as being in error.

[B2M5L2]

Thanks BS, I agree sin was not created, God did not make Satan evil, and evil has always existed or otherwise someone must have created it.

Sorry, but you still don't get it. Sin is not a creation at all. Sin is breaking of God's commandment. Big difference.


Very astute my Calvin friend. So since God is from everlasting to everlasting, and man is created innocent, who then brought evil in to the world?

What do you mean that God is from everlasting to everlasting, when that is something that ever Joseph Smith didn't believe? He said God became God. So, how can God be both from everlasting to everlasting and becoming at the same time?

As for your silly question, Satan was the first to rebel against God, and then showed up in the Garden and tempted with success both Adam and Eve to follow suit. Don't you ever read your Bible, Chuck?


Never mind, it obviously would be deflected any way. Just some food for thought BS.

Better find a better grocery store to shop at. What you've been consuming has left you theologically anemic.

[Richard]

Sorry, but you still don't get it. Sin is not a creation at all. Sin is breaking of God's commandment. Big difference.

REALLY, so it was man who invented sin? LOL, Does that mean that man is not predestined or preordained and has choice and was not chosen by God to be Saved?? after all if he can choose to break God's commandments he surely can choose too not accept Christ. But how do you handle the following? Westminster Confession of Faith, God "freely and unchangeably ordained whatsoever comes to p***.

Calvinism:
Original sin we mean the evil quality which characterizes man's natural disposition and will. We call this sin of nature original, because each fallen man is born with it.

Hmm, so now we see that you're saying sin is breaking of Gods commandments but your "Five Points of Calvinism" says each man is born with it! So which one is it BS?






What do you mean that God is from everlasting to everlasting, when that is something that ever Joseph Smith didn't believe? He said God became God. So, how can God be both from everlasting to everlasting and becoming at the same time?

President Joseph Fielding Smith explained that "from eternity to eternity means from the spirit existence through the probation which we are in, and then back again to the eternal existence which will follow. Surely this is everlasting, for when we receive the resurrection, we will never die. We all existed in the first eternity. I think I can say of myself and others, we are from eternity; and we will be to eternity everlasting, if we receive the exaltation."



As for your silly question, Satan was the first to rebel against God, and then showed up in the Garden and tempted with success both Adam and Eve to follow suit. Don't you ever read your Bible, Chuck?

Did I say that Satan was the first to rebel, I guess you don't really know our doctrine that well BS.
For Satan said to God, "I'm only doing what has been done in other worlds" :D




Better find a better grocery store to shop at. What you've been consuming has left you theologically anemic.

Brian is back, thanks good buddy, we missed you. :cool:

[Richard]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard
Hmmm, obviously one of your erroneous views about the Bible, BS. I thought you were big on discernment? You see BS there is a big difference in literal and figurative expressions.
So now you're under the false ***umption that Psalm 58:3 is not in the Bible? Wow! And here I thought exalted human beings having sex with the rest of the gods and goddesses was strange. Mormonism and its followers just keep getting weirder and weirder all the time.

Excuse me, but I'm having my usual difficulty in grasping the above hyperbole. :confused:



[QUOTE]Quote:
Psalm 51:5 would teach that the child is a sinner from the moment of his conception, whereas Psalm 58:3 would suggest that the infant does not “go astray” until he is born – nine months later. Which is it – if the text is strictly literal?
Oh Chuck, you're not that naive, are you? The first reference speaks to everyone's sin nature, while the latter demonstrates just how long it takes after arriving in the world for the sinner to start acting upon his/her sin nature. Kind of puts a cramp in the silly notion that Mormons have that a person doesn't sin until he/she is eight years-old, doesn't it Chuck?

Really, Genesis 8:21: "I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth." I don't see infant here.
8 sounds like a good age to begin his accountability. :rolleyes:

Calvinism: :D
Limited atonement
Christ did not die for all men but only those on the "saved list"

[TheSword99]

Adam and Eve did not comprehend just yet what the consequences were by being disobedient. They understood that they could make a choice, just like any infant eventually learns. The result of using our agency is the consequences of our choices; good choices produce good consequences, bad consequences produce wrong choices. Adam and Eve understood they faced two conflicting set of instructions-to avoid the fruit of the tree and to go forth and multiply.





Richard, God gave Adam the command to be fruitful and multiply before he and Eve partook of the fruit. Transgressions against God is always wrong. . Both transgressions and sins are violations against God's law. What the lds have done is redefine transgression and say it isn't a sin even if its committed against God. . You can transgress against me and its not a sin against God. But if you transgress against a command of God it is sin and has consequences and God punished Adam and Eve by throwing them out of Eden where they began to die that very day, with sickness, age and death. To rebel against God is sin.

Adam and Eve did not receive 2 sets of conflicting instructions. God never contradicts Himself, nor does he tempt anyone. Adam received the command to be fruitful and multiply and also to not partake of that particular tree. One did not have anything to do with the other.

You have it backwards when you say disobeying God was a good thing; a blessing. That is satan's lie. Adam and Eve listened to that lie and they paid the ultimate price, banishment from paradise and from immortality to mortality.

You also have a warped view of God if you believe He deliberately created a beautiful world and put two perfect people on it, for the sole purpose of wanting man to transgress against Him. For sin to taint the world and for God to have to come in the flesh and suffer a horrible and brutal degradation of Crucifixion. You do not understand the Holy One True God that Christianity has believed in for over 2,000 years and the God of the Jews. Your god was a man like you so you view him as no different than you except he's exalted. The problem is you have all these doctrines of men that you need to support, so you read the Bible and import your beliefs into the p***ages rather than letting God speak for himself. You need the Fall to be a good thing in order to support some of your unscriptual beliefs.

[TheSword99]

REALLY, so it was man who invented sin? LOL, Does that mean that man is not predestined or preordained and has choice and was not chosen by God to be Saved?? after all if he can choose to break God's commandments he surely can choose too not accept Christ. But how do you handle the following? Westminster Confession of Faith, God "freely and unchangeably ordained whatsoever comes to p***.

Calvinism:
Original sin we mean the evil quality which characterizes man's natural disposition and will. We call this sin of nature original, because each fallen man is born with it.

Hmm, so now we see that you're saying sin is breaking of Gods commandments but your "Five Points of Calvinism" says each man is born with it! So which one is it BS?



Of course man did not invent sin. God is a Holy God. His very nature does not allow Him to look the other way when someone transgresses against Him. When we break one of His commands. God's nature requires that He deal with this sinful act. The Bible says we are all born with a sin nature, the capacity to sin. None of us can ever escape it. David was fully aware of this and he said in sin did his mother conceive him. This does not mean his mother sinned. She was the Lord's handmaid and conceived David in chaste wedlock. What David was saying is that we all have this sin nature brought on by Adam's disobeying God and violating His command. No one needs to teach a young child to lie or steal. Its in his nature. Why else does everyone sin and continue to do so? The apostle Paul said he had no confidence in his flesh.The very thing he should be doing, he wasn't. The thing he should not do, was the thing he was doing. He saw the hopelessness of trying to be perfect and sinless. But he also saw the wonderful grace of God and that Christ's blood cleanses us of all sin. (I John 1:7)

The doctrine of original sin was not invented by Calvin, but is traced to the Apostle Paul's description of human sinfulness, especially in the Epistle to the Romans, as a universal condition inherited from Adam.

If man isn't born with a sin nature, then why can't we be free of sins?

[B2M5L2]

REALLY, so it was man who invented sin?

Sin is not an invention. Are you not paying attention yet, Chuck?


[COLOR="green"][B][I]Hmm, so now we see that you're saying sin is breaking of Gods commandments but your "Five Points of Calvinism" says each man is born with it! So which one is it BS?

Where was it written that I'm Calvin?


President Joseph Fielding Smith explained that "from eternity to eternity means from the spirit existence through the probation which we are in, and then back again to the eternal existence which will follow. Surely this is everlasting, for when we receive the resurrection, we will never die. We all existed in the first eternity. I think I can say of myself and others, we are from eternity; and we will be to eternity everlasting, if we receive the exaltation."

And how does this answer the questions you were asked, namely, What do you mean that God is from everlasting to everlasting, when that is something that ever Joseph Smith didn't believe? He said God became God. So, how can God be both from everlasting to everlasting and becoming at the same time? Are you admitting to some kind of monistic cosmology?


Did I say that Satan was the first to rebel, I guess you don't really know our doctrine that well BS.

You asked a question, and was given a biblical answer, because it is quite obvious that "really don't know [the Bible] that well," Chuck.


For Satan said to God, "I'm only doing what has been done in other worlds" :D

CFR

[B2M5L2]

Excuse me, but I'm having my usual difficulty in grasping the above hyperbole. :confused:

Now what you're writing is so hyperbolic that even you can't grasped it? In fact, you're confused by it? Yet, you think you've got an answer to the mountainous number of criticisms against Mormonism which clearly show it to be a false religion?

[ErikErik]

President Joseph Fielding Smith explained that "from eternity to eternity means from the spirit existence through the probation which we are in, and then back again to the eternal existence which will follow. Surely this is everlasting, for when we receive the resurrection, we will never die. We all existed in the first eternity. I think I can say of myself and others, we are from eternity; and we will be to eternity everlasting, if we receive the exaltation."


:

Is Joseph fielding Smith God? Let God speak for Himself. You have absolutely no support from God's Word. Just the ramblings of men. Mormonism is founded upon the doctrines of man.

You are out of bounds here.

God Himself said we had a beginning. Read Genesis again..."In the beginning". You can't go further back than that. If you want to try, then please explain how the first man got his body>

[Richard]

Richard, God gave Adam the command to be fruitful and multiply before he and Eve partook of the fruit. Transgressions against God is always wrong. . Both transgressions and sins are violations against God's law. What the lds have done is redefine transgression and say it isn't a sin even if its committed against God. . You can transgress against me and its not a sin against God. But if you transgress against a command of God it is sin and has consequences and God punished Adam and Eve by throwing them out of Eden where they began to die that very day, with sickness, age and death. To rebel against God is sin.

Adam and Eve did not receive 2 sets of conflicting instructions. God never contradicts Himself, nor does he tempt anyone. Adam received the command to be fruitful and multiply and also to not partake of that particular tree. One did not have anything to do with the other.

You have it backwards when you say disobeying God was a good thing; a blessing. That is satan's lie. Adam and Eve listened to that lie and they paid the ultimate price, banishment from paradise and from immortality to mortality.

You also have a warped view of God if you believe He deliberately created a beautiful world and put two perfect people on it, for the sole purpose of wanting man to transgress against Him. For sin to taint the world and for God to have to come in the flesh and suffer a horrible and brutal degradation of Crucifixion. You do not understand the Holy One True God that Christianity has believed in for over 2,000 years and the God of the Jews. Your god was a man like you so you view him as no different than you except he's exalted. The problem is you have all these doctrines of men that you need to support, so you read the Bible and import your beliefs into the p***ages rather than letting God speak for himself. You need the Fall to be a good thing in order to support some of your unscriptual beliefs.

He did not create a world of paradise, he created a GARDEN wherein he placed ADAM and EVE. The Scriptures are silent on the what, how and why of ADAM and EVE if they had remained there. WE know that they would have stayed innocent, not knowing good and evil.

"For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

So, tell me, what do the Scriptures tell us, would Adam and Eve remain in the GARDEN forever, would they be innocent forever, would then never have known evil or good? Tell me what you know??? Please.

[TheSword99]

He did not create a world of paradise, he created a GARDEN wherein he placed ADAM and EVE. The Scriptures are silent on the what, how and why of ADAM and EVE if they had remained there. WE know that they would have stayed innocent, not knowing good and evil.

"For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

So, tell me, what do the Scriptures tell us, would Adam and Eve remain in the GARDEN forever, would they be innocent forever, would then never have known evil or good? Tell me what you know??? Please.

"Paradise" (Hebrew פרדס PaRDeS) used as a synonym for the Garden of Eden.

If the Scriptures are silent about something, than so too should we be and not try and make a doctrine based on presuppositions and speculations.

[Richard]

Sin is not an invention. Are you not paying attention yet, Chuck?

Of course it's not as I so stated. But you fail to answer how sin came about.
If man was created by God, yes I believe you teach this.
Did God also create sin?
If man never existed and there is only God, how then did evil ever become part of mans nature? Please enlighten us with your doctrine which so far
has been limited to something about ---- quote TheSword99
"The Bible says we are all born with a sin nature, the capacity to sin. None of us can ever escape it."

Confused, how can you teach something from nothing, ex nihilo, and yet state man was born with a sin nature, where did that sin nature originate? Out of nothing? And if so, did God understand prior to his creation anything about Sin? Please enlighten us with your doctrine some more.

"For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

Bingo, knowing good and evil, so again good buddy, where did sin come from? seems to say in the scriptures that the God already knew all about sin.


Where was it written that I'm Calvin?

Maybe because you frequent the Calvin Forum, CARM. BS.


And how does this answer the questions you were asked, namely, What do you mean that God is from everlasting to everlasting, when that is something that ever Joseph Smith didn't believe? He said God became God. So, how can God be both from everlasting to everlasting and becoming at the same time? Are you admitting to some kind of monistic cosmology?



READ my reply again. "from eternity to eternity means from the spirit existence through the probation which we are in, and then back again to the eternal existence which will follow. Surely this is everlasting, for when we receive the resurrection, we will never die. We all existed in the first eternity. I think I can say of myself and others, we are from eternity; and we will be to eternity everlasting, if we receive the exaltation."



You asked a question, and was given a biblical answer, because it is quite obvious that "really don't know [the Bible] that well," Chuck.
CFR


What biblical answer? "As for your silly question, Satan was the first to rebel against God, and then showed up in the Garden and tempted with success both Adam and Eve to follow suit. Don't you ever read your Bible, Chuck?"

That was Biblical, please educate us with that scripture or chapter, take your pick, that shows Satan was the first to ever rebel? Oh, yea, now you will have to include ex nihilo which isn't biblical.

[B2M5L2]

He did not create a world of paradise, he created a GARDEN wherein he placed ADAM and EVE.

That is, unless one happens to be Brigham Young, and then God and Adam are the same person. But, I digress. And while you may want to mince words, clearly the Garden of Eden was a paradise, as even your own writers and leaders have alluded to it as.


Men grow strong and powerful as they learn to do things for themselves. The administration at Washington seemed cold and unsympathetic in its answers to our appeal for help when it said, "Your cause is just, but I can do nothing for you." Yet that is similar to the at***ude of the Creator, out on the border of time, when he drove man from the Garden of Eden and set him to work in the spirit of self reliance and conquest. The fiat of Eden, "Go forth and multiply and replenish the earth, conquer it, and subdue it and have dominion," as well as the sentence which soon followed it, viz: "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread," seemed very severe and harsh. Time and accomplishment have taught men that those were kind words, in the light of the blessings which came from the results of their being chosen by the Deity for the training of the human race in the beginning. And that there might be no retreat back into Eden's Elysian bowers, a Cherubim, with flaming sword, was placed at the Gates of Paradise. So, God apparently intended that we should be outside of Paradise.—Elder Nephi L. Morris


I sometimes think of this world and compare it with what it was before the curse of the Almighty came upon it in the Garden of Eden, where everything was beautiful and everything was peace and tranquility, the lion and the lamb lying down together, and all was harmony. It must have been beautiful indeed. It is referred to in the scripture as "the garden of the Lord." Isaiah tells us: "For the Lord shall comfort Zion; he will comfort all her waste places; and he will make her wilderness like Eden, and her desert like the garden of the Lord; joy and gladness shall be found therein, thanksgiving, and the voice of melody." (Isaiah 51:3.) Surely then the Garden of Eden must have been beautiful, a little heaven on earth. It was Paradise.—Elder Rulon S. Wells


Brother George A. Smith has said, very truly, that we are not told in the revelations that we shall not wear good and handsome clothes; no, we are not; we are authorized to make them as beautiful as we please, and also to make the earth as beautiful as the Garden of Eden, to gather around us every variety of the comforts of life, to endeavor to produce joy, peace, life and health, and to strive to make everything around us, if possible, as glorious as the paradise of our first parents.—Brigham Young


It is proposed that the `high way cast up' between the two cities of our God, be decorated with fruit and shade trees between the cities and villages, (which are only eighty furlongs apart,) for the accommodation of `wayfaring men of Israel.' Gabriel has brought from Paradise, some seeds of fruit and grain, which were originally in the Garden of Eden, and will greatly add to the comfort and convenience of man."—Parley P. Pratt


The Scriptures are silent on the what, how and why of ADAM and EVE if they had remained there. WE know that they would have stayed innocent, not knowing good and evil.

We also know that they would have obeyed God, had children, and carried out the dominion that God gave them in when he instructed them to "Be fruitful and multiply…"


"For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

Way to quote Satan as your authority, Chuck.


So, tell me, what do the Scriptures tell us, would Adam and Eve remain in the GARDEN forever, would they be innocent forever, would then never have known evil or good? Tell me what you know??? Please.

What is your point? That good and evil are locked in an eternally never ending dualistic battle? That evil and sin are necessary? That Adam and Eve could only obey God by first disobeying him? Just what serpentine bit of wisdom are you going to thrust upon us this time, Chuck, which stems from those first those first notorious words that extended from his lips when he asked "Has God said?"

[TheSword99]

Of course it's not as I so stated. But you fail to answer how sin came about.
If man was created by God, yes I believe you teach this.
Did God also create sin?
If man never existed and there is only God, how then did evil ever become part of mans nature? Please enlighten us with your doctrine which so far
has been limited to something about ---- quote TheSword99
"The Bible says we are all born with a sin nature, the capacity to sin. None of us can ever escape it."

Confused, how can you teach something from nothing, ex nihilo, and yet state man was born with a sin nature, where did that sin nature originate? Out of nothing? And if so, did God understand prior to his creation anything about Sin? Please enlighten us with your doctrine some more.





Maybe because you frequent the Calvin Forum, CARM. BS.





READ my reply again. "from eternity to eternity means from the spirit existence through the probation which we are in, and then back again to the eternal existence which will follow. Surely this is everlasting, for when we receive the resurrection, we will never die. We all existed in the first eternity. I think I can say of myself and others, we are from eternity; and we will be to eternity everlasting, if we receive the exaltation."




What biblical answer? "As for your silly question, Satan was the first to rebel against God, and then showed up in the Garden and tempted with success both Adam and Eve to follow suit. Don't you ever read your Bible, Chuck?"

That was Biblical, please educate us with that scripture or chapter, take your pick, that shows Satan was the first to ever rebel? Oh, yea, now you will have to include ex nihilo which isn't biblical.

God told you how sin came about. Through the disobedience of Adam and Eve. But the lds refuses to believe this because it would **** their other doctrines to smithereens.

Frequenting the CARMS forum does not mean one subscribes to Calvinism. I see quite a few mormons there. ;)

[TheSword99]

That is, unless one happens to be Brigham Young, and then God and Adam are the same person. But, I digress. And while you may want to mince words, clearly the Garden of Eden was a paradise, as even your own writers and leaders have alluded to it as.


Men grow strong and powerful as they learn to do things for themselves. The administration at Washington seemed cold and unsympathetic in its answers to our appeal for help when it said, "Your cause is just, but I can do nothing for you." Yet that is similar to the at***ude of the Creator, out on the border of time, when he drove man from the Garden of Eden and set him to work in the spirit of self reliance and conquest. The fiat of Eden, "Go forth and multiply and replenish the earth, conquer it, and subdue it and have dominion," as well as the sentence which soon followed it, viz: "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread," seemed very severe and harsh. Time and accomplishment have taught men that those were kind words, in the light of the blessings which came from the results of their being chosen by the Deity for the training of the human race in the beginning. And that there might be no retreat back into Eden's Elysian bowers, a Cherubim, with flaming sword, was placed at the Gates of Paradise. So, God apparently intended that we should be outside of Paradise.—Elder Nephi L. Morris


I sometimes think of this world and compare it with what it was before the curse of the Almighty came upon it in the Garden of Eden, where everything was beautiful and everything was peace and tranquility, the lion and the lamb lying down together, and all was harmony. It must have been beautiful indeed. It is referred to in the scripture as "the garden of the Lord." Isaiah tells us: "For the Lord shall comfort Zion; he will comfort all her waste places; and he will make her wilderness like Eden, and her desert like the garden of the Lord; joy and gladness shall be found therein, thanksgiving, and the voice of melody." (Isaiah 51:3.) Surely then the Garden of Eden must have been beautiful, a little heaven on earth. It was Paradise.—Elder Rulon S. Wells


Brother George A. Smith has said, very truly, that we are not told in the revelations that we shall not wear good and handsome clothes; no, we are not; we are authorized to make them as beautiful as we please, and also to make the earth as beautiful as the Garden of Eden, to gather around us every variety of the comforts of life, to endeavor to produce joy, peace, life and health, and to strive to make everything around us, if possible, as glorious as the paradise of our first parents.—Brigham Young


It is proposed that the `high way cast up' between the two cities of our God, be decorated with fruit and shade trees between the cities and villages, (which are only eighty furlongs apart,) for the accommodation of `wayfaring men of Israel.' Gabriel has brought from Paradise, some seeds of fruit and grain, which were originally in the Garden of Eden, and will greatly add to the comfort and convenience of man."—Parley P. Pratt



We also know that they would have obeyed God, had children, and carried out the dominion that God gave them in when he instructed them to "Be fruitful and multiply…"



Way to quote Satan as your authority, Chuck.



What is your point? That good and evil are locked in an eternally never ending dualistic battle? That evil and sin are necessary? That Adam and Eve could only obey God by first disobeying him? Just what serpentine bit of wisdom are you going to thrust upon us this time, Chuck, which stems from those first those first notorious words that extended from his lips when he asked "Has God said?"

AMEN! Excellent post.

[Richard]

Is Joseph fielding Smith God? Let God speak for Himself. You have absolutely no support from God's Word. Just the ramblings of men. Mormonism is founded upon the doctrines of man.

You are out of bounds here.

God Himself said we had a beginning. Read Genesis again..."In the beginning". You can't go further back than that. If you want to try, then please explain how the first man got his body>

Yes, lets let God speak for himself shall we. So I guess then that the Christian Creeds need to be cast out, for man is telling us who God is.

Man tells us that the creation took six days, man is telling us that God creates something out of nothing, man is telling us that God does not reveal himself anymore, hence only the Bible. Really? You believe this?

[Richard]

Now what you're writing is so hyperbolic that even you can't grasped it? In fact, you're confused by it? Yet, you think you've got an answer to the mountainous number of criticisms against Mormonism which clearly show it to be a false religion?

Nice deflection, answers the question by making a blanket statement, really good point, did your talking points book run out of creditable replies.
Just wondering?

[Richard]

"Paradise" (Hebrew פרדס PaRDeS) used as a synonym for the Garden of Eden.

If the Scriptures are silent about something, than so too should we be and not try and make a doctrine based on presuppositions and speculations.

I can buy that, so quit speculating. WE have additional scripture, our light and knowledge is continuing to reveal all of Gods Plan of Salvation.

[B2M5L2]

AMEN! Excellent post.

Thank you TS99. Praise be to the Lord.

[B2M5L2]

Nice deflection, answers the question by making a blanket statement, really good point, did your talking points book run out of creditable replies.
Just wondering?

Just responding to your comments. So, there was no deflection. Now, since you've avoided answering the questions I asked of you, who's the one doing the deflecting?

[TheSword99]

Yes, lets let God speak for himself shall we. So I guess then that the Christian Creeds need to be cast out, for man is telling us who God is.

Man tells us that the creation took six days, man is telling us that God creates something out of nothing, man is telling us that God does not reveal himself anymore, hence only the Bible. Really? You believe this?

Christ's church recognizes the ancient creeds as accurate expressions of Biblical teaching. They came straight from God's Word. The lds on the other hand has 1,000's of writings over 100 years that lack support from the Holy Scriptures.

Therein lies the difference.

[B2M5L2]

I can buy that, so quit speculating. WE have additional scripture, our light and knowledge is continuing to reveal all of Gods Plan of Salvation.

What exactly are you alluding to when you say, "additional scripture"? And why should anyone who knows anything about the canonization process of Scripture ***ume that anything beyond what is found within the 66 books of the Bible is Scripture?

[TheSword99]

I can buy that, so quit speculating. WE have additional scripture, our light and knowledge is continuing to reveal all of Gods Plan of Salvation.


That's it in a nutshell. You have additional, unscriptual, unbiblical teachings which you can't prove inspiration. You claim that the lds church is a "restoration" of original Christianity, yet what your church has actually done is added and subs***uted, forging ahead unchecked. With leaders who have sometimes contradicted each other or even had their teaching tossed out. But God's Word endures forever!

The JWs have additional scriptures. They too, like Joseph Smith, rewrote God's word, they too change John 1 from Jesus being GOD, to being a god. They too claim to receive new "Light" (revelations)

But God showed us in His Word that we are to be like the noble Bereans in the Book of Acts who searched the Scriptures daily for truth, not to men.

The Apostle Paul said that he had fully preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Jesus Himself told us what we must do to be saved. There is no need for additional revelation concerning God's plan of salvation. It has never changed. Salvation is through Christ alone; not through church and church rules and rituals.

[Richard]

That is, unless one happens to be Brigham Young, and then God and Adam are the same person. But, I digress. And while you may want to mince words, clearly the Garden of Eden was a paradise, as even your own writers and leaders have alluded to it as.

Even though I don't teach it, I kind of like the Adam God THEORY, still waiting to find out what BY would say in full context. :cool:


We also know that they would have obeyed God, had children, and carried out the dominion that God gave them in when he instructed them to "Be fruitful and multiply…"

Really, then why was it that after she and Adam ate the fruit the following was stated.

“I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.

“The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.

After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.



Way to quote Satan as your authority, Chuck.


Thank you, it goes along with all the other versus in the Bible that include preexistence. Something you guys are still in denial about.



What is your point? That good and evil are locked in an eternally never ending dualistic battle? That evil and sin are necessary? That Adam and Eve could only obey God by first disobeying him? Just what serpentine bit of wisdom are you going to thrust upon us this time, Chuck, which stems from those first those first notorious words that extended from his lips when he asked "Has God said?"

Oh maybe something you still ignore in the Scriptures: “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.

Oh my, there we have it, Adam now understood good and evil just like God the Father. So good buddy, where did evil come from?? please try to give a meaningful answer and not to the typical deflect.

[Richard]

What exactly are you alluding to when you say, "additional scripture"? And why should anyone who knows anything about the canonization process of Scripture ***ume that anything beyond what is found within the 66 books of the Bible is Scripture?

There you go, man not allowing God to continue to reveal Himself, we have a bible, a bible and need no more.

II Nephi 29:6 states “Thou fool, that shall say a Bible, we have got a Bible and we need no more Bible. Have ye obtained a Bible save it were by the Jews?” Can you note the FOOLS are the only ones who trust in the Bible? Read verse 10. Here, the Book of Mormon declares the need for more revelation and makes way for its own existence!

A point of interest - turn to I Nephi 13:26: “a great and abominable church - has taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away.”

[Richard]

[QUOTE=TheSword99;72559]That's it in a nutshell. You have additional, unscriptual, unbiblical teachings which you can't prove inspiration. You claim that the lds church is a "restoration" of original Christianity, yet what your church has actually done is added and subs***uted, forging ahead unchecked. With leaders who have sometimes contradicted each other or even had their teaching tossed out. But God's Word endures forever!

Hmmm, and how do you come to believe that the Bible is inspired? With men who wrote Creeds which added and subs***uted unchecked, and leaders who argued and contradicted each other and even has some killed for their beliefs, yes the Christian have a very unique history and interesting evolution.

[TheSword99]

Even though I don't teach it, I kind of like the Adam God THEORY, still waiting to find out what BY would say in full context. :cool:



Really, then why was it that after she and Adam ate the fruit the following was stated.

“I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.

“The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.

After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.




Thank you, it goes along with all the other versus in the Bible that include preexistence. Something you guys are still in denial about.


Oh maybe something you still ignore in the Scriptures: “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.

Oh my, there we have it, Adam now understood good and evil just like God the Father. So good buddy, where did evil come from?? please try to give a meaningful answer and not to the typical deflect.

So you see Adam as the redemptive hero because he transgressed God's command?

“I tell you, when you see your Father in heaven, you will see Adam . . .” (M****cript Addresses of B.Y., Oct. 8, 1854)

Can Adam be the God of Scripture?...:eek:

“When our Father Adam came into the Garden of Eden . . . He is Michael, the archangel, the Ancient Of Days. . . he is our Father and our God, and the Only God with whom we have to do” (Gen. Conf., Journal of Discourses, 1:50-51, 1854).

Can Michael be Adam who is the God of Scripture? If Adam is an angel (Michael) and the Father of Jesus then Jesus is the offspring of an angel which would make him an angel...:eek:

McConkie wrote in "Mormon Doctrine" that Adam in his proper place was the preexistence Michael..:eek:

Is Noah the arch angel Gabriel ?

BTW, Brigham Young did not see the Adam-God teaching as a "theory." He taught it as doctrine. Young said he never sent out a sermon to the children of men that they could not call scripture. Most lds today totally reject this teaching.

[TheSword99]

[QUOTE]

Hmmm, and how do you come to believe that the Bible is inspired? With men who wrote Creeds which added and subs***uted unchecked, and leaders who argued and contradicted each other and even has some killed for their beliefs, yes the Christian have a very unique history and interesting evolution.

The creeds neither adds nor subs***utes what God has revealed in His Word.

You are mimicking the falsity of Joseph Smith when he said all christian churches, creeds and leaders are corrupt. We know this to be a lie because Smith never saw God. GOD SAID that no man can see His face and Live. How conveniently Smith changes the Bible verse to: No one can see my face and live except him that believes. This is tampering with the Holy Word of God and it will not go unpunished. God will deal with this perversion of His Word.

[B2M5L2]

There you go, man not allowing God to continue to reveal Himself, we have a bible, a bible and need no more.

You didn't answer the questions. Why? Too difficult? If not, here they are again.

What exactly are you alluding to when you say, "additional scripture"? And why should anyone who knows anything about the canonization process of Scripture ***ume that anything beyond what is found within the 66 books of the Bible is Scripture?

[B2M5L2]

[QUOTE]Hmmm, and how do you come to believe that the Bible is inspired?

Uh, duh, maybe because it, first of all, claims to be?


2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;


2 Peter 3:16 as also in all his [Paul's] letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.


With men who wrote Creeds which added and subs***uted unchecked, and leaders who argued and contradicted each other and even has some killed for their beliefs, yes the Christian have a very unique history and interesting evolution.

What exactly is in the Creeds that are not supported by the Bible? For example, what is biblical erroneous about the following creed?


I believe in one God the Father Almighty; Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds [God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance [essence] with the Father; by whom all things were made; who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried; and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; and he shall come again, with glory, to judge both the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And [I believe] in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceedeth from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified; who spake by the Prophets. And [I believe] one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge on Baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Or are you simply talking through your seer stone embossed hat again?

[Richard]

You didn't answer the questions. Why? Too difficult? If not, here they are again.

What exactly are you alluding to when you say, "additional scripture"? And why should anyone who knows anything about the canonization process of Scripture ***ume that anything beyond what is found within the 66 books of the Bible is Scripture?

Thanks for the opportunity to share with our friends and visitors.

Isaiah 29:4
And thou shalt be brought down, [and] shalt speak out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust.

Perceiving how this would take place, Nephi1, the first writer in the Book of Mormon, wrote about 570 B.C. to unborn generations: "My beloved brethren, all those who are of the house of Israel, and all ye ends of the earth, I speak unto you as the voice of one crying from the dust" (2 Ne. 33:13). Similarly, the last writer in the Book of Mormon, Moroni2, wrote about A.D. 400: "I speak unto you as though I spake from the dead; for I know that ye shall have my words" (Morm. 9:30; cf. Moro. 10:27). As he was about to bury the records, he wrote: "No one need say [the records] shall not come, for they surely shall, for the Lord hath spoken it; for out of the earth shall they come, by the hand of the Lord, and none can stay it" (Morm. 8:26; cf. TPJS, p. 98).


TWO RECORDS. Ezekiel also prophesied concerning the two records—that of Joseph or Ephraim (i.e., the Book of Mormon) and that of Judah (i.e., the Bible)—that would be joined in the last days as an instrument provided by the Lord to gather his people back to himself (Ezek. 37:15-22; cf. 2 Ne. 3:11-12; see Ezekiel, Prophecies of; Israel: Gathering of Israel).


Again, thanks for the great opportunity to teach the truth. :D

[Richard]

[
QUOTE=TheSword99;72567]


The creeds neither adds nor subs***utes what God has revealed in His Word.

Really? amazing, and you really believe this? So why the need for clarification?


You are mimicking the falsity of Joseph Smith when he said all christian churches, creeds and leaders are corrupt. We know this to be a lie because Smith never saw God. GOD SAID that no man can see His face and Live. How conveniently Smith changes the Bible verse to: No one can see my face and live except him that believes. This is tampering with the Holy Word of God and it will not go unpunished. God will deal with this perversion of His Word.

Ok, beyond this perversion you dwell on, what proof can you provide that the BOM is fiction, did you ever read it from first verse to last verse? We know the Bible is not inerrant.

[TheSword99]

[

Ok, beyond this perversion you dwell on, what proof can you provide that the BOM is fiction, did you ever read it from first verse to last verse? We know the Bible is not inerrant.

Ok so please tell me what are the errors/contradictions in the Bible? Many have claimed its corrupted, such as Muslims for one, but fall flat on their face when it comes time to prove it.

Is the JST inerrant? Why don't you use it exclusively, or even in church on sunday?

If the BoM is supposed to be the most correct book of any on earth, then why does Mormonism disagree with it concerning doctrines?

The BoM is clearly a 19th century work.

[B2M5L2]

Thanks for the opportunity to share with our friends and visitors.

You still haven't answered the questions. So, why not share an answer with "our friends and visitors" as to What exactly are you alluding to when you say, "additional scripture"? And why should anyone who knows anything about the canonization process of Scripture ***ume that anything beyond what is found within the 66 books of the Bible is Scripture?

Because the longer you keep delaying or obfuscating the questions, the more you look to "our friends and visitors" like someone who doesn't want to be friendly and honest.

Btw, just to let you know, spam is poor subs***ute for providing a well thought-out response. And worse yet, when you claim credit for it, it really makes you look deceitful, especially when you arrogantly think you're teaching it as well.

[Richard]

Uh, duh, maybe because it, first of all, claims to be?


2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;


2 Peter 3:16 as also in all his [Paul's] letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.


Interesting you never mention personal revelation and the witness of the HG.
So again, how do you know it's inspired?



[QUOTE]What exactly is in the Creeds that are not supported by the Bible? For example, what is biblical erroneous about the following creed?

Well it seems even the Christians have their doubts, there are the Trinity believers and then the Oneness Doctrine, and then the Calvinist, none seem to agree on much.





I believe in one God the Father Almighty; Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds [God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance [essence] with the Father; by whom all things were made; who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried; and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; and he shall come again, with glory, to judge both the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And [I believe] in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceedeth from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified; who spake by the Prophets. And [I believe] one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge on Baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Or are you simply talking through your seer stone embossed hat again?



Very good, and can you explain that to a fifth grader let alone many of your own Christian members who have no clue to it's meaning or are able to understand this doctrine.

April 10, 2009
A new nationwide survey of adults’ spiritual beliefs, conducted by The Barna Group, suggests that Americans who consider themselves to be Christian have a diverse set of beliefs – but many of those beliefs are contradictory or, at least, inconsistent.
The survey explored beliefs about spiritual beings, the influence of faith on their life, views of the Bible, and reactions to faiths other than their own.

Hmmm, where is the unity of faith talked about in the scriptures.

The Barna survey asked questions about God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, Satan, and demons.

All 1,871 self-described Christians were asked about their perception of God. In total, three-quarters (78%) said he is the “all-powerful, all-knowing Creator of the universe who rules the world today.” The remaining one-quarter chose other descriptions of God – depictions that are not consistent with biblical teaching (e.g., everyone is god, god refers to the realization of human potential, etc.).

[Richard]

[QUOTE=B2M5L2;72578]You still haven't answered the questions. So, why not share an answer with "our friends and visitors" as to What exactly are you alluding to when you say, "additional scripture"? And why should anyone who knows anything about the canonization process of Scripture ***ume that anything beyond what is found within the 66 books of the Bible is Scripture?

Because the longer you keep delaying or obfuscating the questions, the more you look to "our friends and visitors" like someone who doesn't want to be friendly and honest.

Isaiah 29:4
And thou shalt be brought down, [and] shalt speak out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust.





Btw, just to let you know, spam is poor subs***ute for providing a well thought-out response. And worse yet, when you claim credit for it, it really makes you look deceitful, especially when you arrogantly think you're teaching it as well.

I'm not teaching at all, just sharing as I stated, and then followed up with having taught truth by providing information one can research for themselves.

[Richard]

Ok so please tell me what are the errors/contradictions in the Bible? Many have claimed its corrupted, such as Muslims for one, but fall flat on their face when it comes time to prove it.

Is the JST inerrant? Why don't you use it exclusively, or even in church on sunday?

If the BoM is supposed to be the most correct book of any on earth, then why does Mormonism disagree with it concerning doctrines?

The BoM is clearly a 19th century work.

We do teach from the JST, when we want to cross reference the errors in interpretation or missing scripture.



President Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr., wrote:
"We are all aware that there are errors in the Bible due to faulty translations and ignorance on the part of the translators, but the hand of the Lord has been over this volume of Scripture nevertheless, and it is remarkable that it has come down to us in the excellent condition in which we find it." (Doctrines of Salvation, 3:191)
There is no question that some parts of the text have been corrupted. Of the thousands of early Greek and Hebrews m****cripts and fragments that scholars have to work with, there are many small and some serious differences that make it impossible to propose one single, standard text that one might hope to be free from errors. In fact, Leon Vaganay and Christian-Bernard Amphoux, two non-LDS writers, say that there are over 5,000 Greek m****cripts or fragments to work with, containing roughly 250,000 variants among them. They say that "it would be difficult to find a sentence, even part of a sentence, for which the rendering is consistent in every single m****cript. That certainly gives plenty of food for thought." (Leon Vaganay and Christian-Bernard Amphoux, Initiation a la critique textuelle du Nouveau Testament [An Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism], translated by J. Heimerdinger, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991, p.2, as cited by Kerry A. Shirts, Journal of Mormon Apologetics, Vol. 1, 1999, p. 94.)

[B2M5L2]

[QUOTE=B2M5L2;72578]You still haven't answered the questions. So, why not share an answer with "our friends and visitors" as to What exactly are you alluding to when you say, "additional scripture"? And why should anyone who knows anything about the canonization process of Scripture ***ume that anything beyond what is found within the 66 books of the Bible is Scripture?

Because the longer you keep delaying or obfuscating the questions, the more you look to "our friends and visitors" like someone who doesn't want to be friendly and honest.

Isaiah 29:4
And thou shalt be brought down, [and] shalt speak out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust.





Btw, just to let you know, spam is poor subs***ute for providing a well thought-out response. And worse yet, when you claim credit for it, it really makes you look deceitful, especially when you arrogantly think you're teaching it as well.

You still haven't answered the questions, Chuck. What seems to be the problem?

What exactly are you alluding to when you say, "additional scripture"? And why should anyone who knows anything about the canonization process of Scripture ***ume that anything beyond what is found within the 66 books of the Bible is Scripture?


I'm not teaching at all, just sharing as I stated, and then followed up with having taught truth by providing information one can research for themselves.

So, now you're not teaching at all, even though previously you said you were. Strange mental world you live in, Chuck? Don't you ever tire of contradicting yourself?

[Richard]

So you see Adam as the redemptive hero because he transgressed God's command?

“I tell you, when you see your Father in heaven, you will see Adam . . .” (M****cript Addresses of B.Y., Oct. 8, 1854)

Can Adam be the God of Scripture?...:eek:

“When our Father Adam came into the Garden of Eden . . . He is Michael, the archangel, the Ancient Of Days. . . he is our Father and our God, and the Only God with whom we have to do” (Gen. Conf., Journal of Discourses, 1:50-51, 1854).

Can Michael be Adam who is the God of Scripture? If Adam is an angel (Michael) and the Father of Jesus then Jesus is the offspring of an angel which would make him an angel...:eek:

McConkie wrote in "Mormon Doctrine" that Adam in his proper place was the preexistence Michael..:eek:

Is Noah the arch angel Gabriel ?

BTW, Brigham Young did not see the Adam-God teaching as a "theory." He taught it as doctrine. Young said he never sent out a sermon to the children of men that they could not call scripture. Most lds today totally reject this teaching.


I said I like the THEORY and would look forward to the day when BY can give it to us in full context. So for now I have to consider it a unteachable theory.
But I can think outside the box and not get excommunicated. Again, I don't teach it in Church or parade it around as doctrine.

[Richard]

Just responding to your comments. So, there was no deflection. Now, since you've avoided answering the questions I asked of you, who's the one doing the deflecting?

As usual it's you BS. I have stated in the past, you make accusations and never provide the verification. So what is one to think other then you have lots of opinions and conclusions based on BS.

[B2M5L2]

We do teach from the JST, when we want to cross reference the errors in interpretation or missing scripture.

Why refer to the JST? Is it an early m****cript that textual critics like Bruce Metzger, Matthew Black, or Barbara Aland would refer to when comparing texts to grade their integrity? If not, then just what gives the JST textual credence over the thousands of m****cripts, from both the Hebrew and Greek, that anyone with the slightest amount textual critical savvy should pay attention to?

[Richard]

[QUOTE=Richard;72581]

You still haven't answered the questions, Chuck. What seems to be the problem?

What exactly are you alluding to when you say, "additional scripture"? And why should anyone who knows anything about the canonization process of Scripture ***ume that anything beyond what is found within the 66 books of the Bible is Scripture?



So, now you're not teaching at all, even though previously you said you were. Strange mental world you live in, Chuck? Don't you ever tire of contradicting yourself?

Who decided the Cannon of Scripture contain all of Gods words, or that some books may not actually be that inspired, hmmm, seems you put your faith in man and not personal revelation.

[Richard]

Why refer to the JST? Is it an early m****cript that textual critics like Bruce Metzger, Matthew Black, or Barbara Aland would refer to when comparing texts to grade their integrity? If not, then just what gives the JST textual credence over the thousands of m****cripts, from both the Hebrew and Greek, that anyone with the slightest amount textual critical savvy should pay attention to?

Hmm, how about being a Prophet of God and having the authority to speak in His name. Wherein you put your faith in man and his lame wisdom to talk for God. Seems you might think God is Dead, for man does not allow God to speak anymore. Just some food for thought, good buddy.

[B2M5L2]

As usual it's you BS. I have stated in the past, you make accusations and never provide the verification. So what is one to think other then you have lots of opinions and conclusions based on BS.

Have you answered these questions? You know, the ones I've now asked four times, and all you've done is avoid them?


What exactly are you alluding to when you say, "additional scripture"? And why should anyone who knows anything about the canonization process of Scripture ***ume that anything beyond what is found within the 66 books of the Bible is Scripture?

Since obviously you haven't, then why make silly accusations that you should know are easily re****ed by simply referring to what you've avoided?

[B2M5L2]

[QUOTE=B2M5L2;72584]

Who decided the Cannon of Scripture contain all of Gods words, or that some books may not actually be that inspired, hmmm, seems you put your faith in man and not personal revelation.

God decided. Now, one more time, What exactly are you alluding to when you say, "additional scripture"? And why should anyone who knows anything about the canonization process of Scripture ***ume that anything beyond what is found within the 66 books of the Bible is Scripture?

[Richard]

God told you how sin came about. Through the disobedience of Adam and Eve. But the lds refuses to believe this because it would **** their other doctrines to smithereens.

Frequenting the CARMS forum does not mean one subscribes to Calvinism. I see quite a few mormons there. ;)

So how do you explain, "For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."


You say disobedience, God tells us Adam and Eve can now know like the Gods and understand what Good and Evil is. So, good and evil were here before the Creations, right or wrong, what do the scriptures say or are you want to twist them some more?

[B2M5L2]

Hmm, how about being a Prophet of God and having the authority to speak in His name.

Who would that be? Sure you jest if you mean Joe Smith, given that he never offered a prophecy that ever came to p*** and his theology was so abhorrent as to lead people into the idolatrous worship of a human being. So, just are you referring to?


Wherein you put your faith in man and his lame wisdom to talk for God.

What man would that be?


Seems you might think God is Dead, for man does not allow God to speak anymore.

Sorry, but the Holy Spirit is alive and well, and speaks quite clearly to those who haven't decided to ignore the very vehicle God has chosen to speak through, namely the Bible.


Just some food for thought, good buddy.

Again, you really should change grocers, Chuck, given the anemia of the thought put into your posts.

[TheSword99]

[QUOTE=B2M5L2;72571]


Very good, and can you explain that to a fifth grader let alone many of your own Christian members who have no clue to it's meaning or are able to understand this doctrine.

April 10, 2009
A new nationwide survey of adults’ spiritual beliefs, conducted by The Barna Group, suggests that Americans who consider themselves to be Christian have a diverse set of beliefs – but many of those beliefs are contradictory or, at least, inconsistent.
The survey explored beliefs about spiritual beings, the influence of faith on their life, views of the Bible, and reactions to faiths other than their own.

Hmmm, where is the unity of faith talked about in the scriptures.

The Barna survey asked questions about God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, Satan, and demons.

All 1,871 self-described Christians were asked about their perception of God. In total, three-quarters (78%) said he is the “all-powerful, all-knowing Creator of the universe who rules the world today.” The remaining one-quarter chose other descriptions of God – depictions that are not consistent with biblical teaching (e.g., everyone is god, god refers to the realization of human potential, etc.).

Anyone can label themselves Christian. Doesn't mean that they are truly born-again. Some people think if they go to church occasionally then that makes them a christian.

Then there's the pseudo christians and those that belong to a cult that claims to be christian but when you take a look at their beliefs/doctrines, its very clear that they teach a false gospel.

There is no unity among the mormons . They have splintered into more than 100 different groups. All claiming Joseph Smith as their founder and professing faith in the BoM. if the BoM is truly the most correct book, then why don't all these splinter groups agree?

[TheSword99]

We do teach from the JST, when we want to cross reference the errors in interpretation or missing scripture.

Its interesting but the apostle John recognized the deity of Jesus Christ. That he was with God and was God. His gospel testifies of this true deity. Yet, Joseph Smith took it upon himself to change John 1. Traditional Christianity has always understood that Jesus is God. Smith is in error here and you have no support anywhere to claim otherwise.

You stand on a very shaky, perilous foundation, that of one man.

[TheSword99]

Hmm, how about being a Prophet of God and having the authority to speak in His name. Wherein you put your faith in man and his lame wisdom to talk for God. Seems you might think God is Dead, for man does not allow God to speak anymore. Just some food for thought, good buddy.

The Christian church has Christ as its head..not a man. Jesus Christ gave all true believers in him the authority. The power to become sons of God. True believers are part of the" royal priesthood" that Peter talks about. The church Christ founded is not a building or organization. Its a body...a body of born-again believers everywhere.

[Jean Chauvin]

Hello,

This view came up during the Reformation. The answer is very colorful and very Biblical.

"Nobody knows."

The Bible was NOT written to babies. It was intended for adults. And, since the Bible does not universally address this issue, then logically:

"We are not to go beyond what is written." (I Corinthians 4:6).

So, perhaps we may know someday, but any thinking on this subject is purely in the realm of arguing from silence.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

[Richard]

[QUOTE=Richard;72588]

God decided. Now, one more time, What exactly are you alluding to when you say, "additional scripture"? And why should anyone who knows anything about the canonization process of Scripture ***ume that anything beyond what is found within the 66 books of the Bible is Scripture?

God decided?? God decided? wow, I do believe that God inspired men to write as they were directed by the spirit, but do you really believe that God decided what was to be the final version and final book contained in the Bible?


The word “canon” comes from the rule of law that was used to determine if a book measured up to a standard.

Also Christian believe in a closed cannon while LDS believe that it is open cannon of scriptures. We like to think that God is in control, not visa versa where man claims the scriptures are close and by the way there is nothing you can point to that states God has finished speaking.

I rest my point, when will the Christian ever come to the unity of Faith.

After nearly nineteen centuries the canon of Scripture still remains an issue of debate. Protestants, Catholics and the Orthodox all have slightly differing collections of documents in their Bibles. Martin Luther, one of the early leaders of the Reformation, questioned the inclusion of the book of James in the canon. And many Christians today, while confessing the authority of all of Scripture, tend to rely on only a few books and particular themes while ignoring the rest.http://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/book.pl/code=1258

[Richard]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard
Hmm, how about being a Prophet of God and having the authority to speak in His name.
Who would that be? Sure you jest if you mean Joe Smith, given that he never offered a prophecy that ever came to p*** and his theology was so abhorrent as to lead people into the idolatrous worship of a human being. So, just are you referring to?



Quote:
Wherein you put your faith in man and his lame wisdom to talk for God.
What man would that be?

Last time I looked this was the Mormon FORUM, so I guess it's not the Pope.



Quote:
Seems you might think God is Dead, for man does not allow God to speak anymore.
Sorry, but the Holy Spirit is alive and well, and speaks quite clearly to those who haven't decided to ignore the very vehicle God has chosen to speak through, namely the Bible.

Nothing to be sorry about:


After nearly nineteen centuries the canon of Scripture still remains an issue of debate. Protestants, Catholics and the Orthodox all have slightly differing collections of documents in their Bibles. Martin Luther, one of the early leaders of the Reformation, questioned the inclusion of the book of James in the canon. And many Christians today, while confessing the authority of all of Scripture, tend to rely on only a few books and particular themes while ignoring the rest. http://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/book.pl/code=1258



Quote:
Just some food for thought, good buddy.
Again, you really should change grocers, Chuck, given the anemia of the thought put into your posts.

Really? so you suggest that --- my body does not have enough healthy
red blood cells?? :D:):rolleyes:

[Richard]

The Christian church has Christ as its head..not a man. Jesus Christ gave all true believers in him the authority. The power to become sons of God. True believers are part of the" royal priesthood" that Peter talks about. The church Christ founded is not a building or organization. Its a body...a body of born-again believers everywhere.

When's the last time Christ spoke to the body of the Church?? And what Church would he speak through?? Most interesting concept.

[Richard]

Its interesting but the apostle John recognized the deity of Jesus Christ. That he was with God and was God. His gospel testifies of this true deity. Yet, Joseph Smith took it upon himself to change John 1. Traditional Christianity has always understood that Jesus is God. Smith is in error here and you have no support anywhere to claim otherwise.

You stand on a very shaky, perilous foundation, that of one man.

We stand in good company, Prophets and Apostles with the keys of the Kingdom. Now we know the keys were given to Peter, wonder who he p***ed them onto?? The Catholics maybe, or maybe they were taken back when the Apostles were killed and not replaced.

[Richard]

I doubt you will have the guts to answer this, but here goes, and what particular denomination do you belong too. If you are in the least embarr***ed or in doubt of your own denomination and doctrine, then I will understand why you choose not to answer, Peace. :D

[Richard]

1 Samuel 1:8-2:21; Jeremiah 1:5; Luke 1:15).

This certainly affirms the salvation of some infants and repudiates the view that only baptized babies are ***ured of heaven.

Abraham said, “Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?” Genesis 18:25

[Richard]

What exactly are you alluding to when you say, "additional scripture"?

Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, D&C, Book of Abraham, Dead Sea Scrolls, Apocalyptic literature.





And why should anyone who knows anything about the canonization process of Scripture ***ume that anything beyond what is found within the 66 books of the Bible is Scripture?[/indent]

Because you can't find anything in the scriptures that state the Bible is completed and no further revelation will be forthcoming.



Since obviously you haven't, then why make silly accusations that you should know are easily re****ed by simply referring to what you've avoided?

Well, since no one has yet proven the BOM to be fiction and not the word of God, you loose.

[Richard]

Baptist: "We have tended to avoid embracing prepared creeds or other statements that might compromise our obligation to interpret Scripture as individuals within the community of faith under the guidance of the Holy Spirit."

First Christian Church: The Bible is our sole authority. Christian churches have rejected man-made creeds, doctrinal statements, and hierarchies. We use the Bible alone for guidance in matters of doctrine, structure, and practice. Many Christian churches have as a slogan, "No book but the Bible, no creed but Christ."

No Creed But Christ --- Disciples of Christ, Church of Christ, and Independent Christian Churches.

[James Banta]

Baptist: "We have tended to avoid embracing prepared creeds or other statements that might compromise our obligation to interpret Scripture as individuals within the community of faith under the guidance of the Holy Spirit."

First Christian Church: The Bible is our sole authority. Christian churches have rejected man-made creeds, doctrinal statements, and hierarchies. We use the Bible alone for guidance in matters of doctrine, structure, and practice. Many Christian churches have as a slogan, "No book but the Bible, no creed but Christ."

No Creed But Christ --- Disciples of Christ, Church of Christ, and Independent Christian Churches.

Time to find out if they conform to the teachings of the Bible that are imprinted into the meaning of the creeds. Do they teach that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God in three Persons? Do they teach that God has been God from everlastings and will continued into eternity future as the Only GOD? That Jesus was born of a virgin by the Holy Spirit. That He lived a sinless life died on the cross and rose the third day. That He ascended into heaven taking His rightful place at the right hand of the Father.

That is what the creeds teach so which part of that are you saying that any Christian church is rejecting? I hadn't even read the creeds until I came online to start a witnessing ministry. It was the Mormons I met here that forced me to read it.. I had be saying the same thing as these churches, that the Bible is my creed.. Then I read them. God spoke to me of their purpose. I see the Gospel taught within them..

The mormon creed doesn't address the real teaching about who the church believes God to be just a statement that they believe in a God they call the Father.. It also says they believe in a Jesus, and a Holy Ghost but never address who or what they are.. To find that out you have to delve into LDS History:


I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit, and these three cons***ute three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural: and who can contradict it? (http://www.boap.org/LDS/History/History_of_the_Church/Vol_VI)
Who can contradict it.. Jesus can:

Mark 12:29
And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord
The LORD our God is one Lord.. that does the *** of showing that Smith was a polytheistic false teacher..

So show were the Creeds are outside what the modern Church teaches and I will agree with you that the creeds are the teachings of men.. As I said when I first read them I saw the Gospel embedded within them.. the same Gospel I found in the Bible.. IHS jim

[ErikErik]

What exactly are you alluding to when you say, "additional scripture"?

Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, D&C, Book of Abraham, Dead Sea Scrolls, Apocalyptic literature.





And why should anyone who knows anything about the canonization process of Scripture ***ume that anything beyond what is found within the 66 books of the Bible is Scripture?[/indent]

Because you can't find anything in the scriptures that state the Bible is completed and no further revelation will be forthcoming.



Since obviously you haven't, then why make silly accusations that you should know are easily re****ed by simply referring to what you've avoided?

Well, since no one has yet proven the BOM to be fiction and not the word of God, you loose.

Those writings you call "scripture" are not inspired. What your church has done is add to God's Holy Word. You have self proclaimed prophets who never even studied theology. Mr. Smith was a young man who claimed that God saddled him with this enormous responsibility to restore Christ's church which he said was lost. In other words, Smith was given the sole task of doing what Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit and the original Apostles failed to do. It is impossible for Christ to fail and insinuating that he did is calling God a liar.

The Bible makes it very clear that a total apostasy is impossible. From these things alone we know Smith was a false prophet.

[TheSword99]

We stand in good company, Prophets and Apostles with the keys of the Kingdom. Now we know the keys were given to Peter, wonder who he p***ed them onto?? The Catholics maybe, or maybe they were taken back when the Apostles were killed and not replaced.


Neither you nor the catholics have any understanding about the "keys". They do not belong to a single church or organization. All born again believers in Jesus Christ are part of the Royal Priesthood. WE have the keys. What your church has done is resurrect a dead priesthood, (the Aaronic) and claim the right to the Melchizedek which was NEVER p***ed on because Christ alone holds this priesthood forever. No man even qualifies for this priesthood. Read the qualifications in Hebrews: without mother or father, without beginning or ending.

[TheSword99]

When's the last time Christ spoke to the body of the Church?? And what Church would he speak through?? Most interesting concept.


What church? Again, you need to understand that "church" is NOT a building or religious organization. Its a body of believers, the bride of Christ. We find true born-again believers in Jesus Christ everywhere in every faith. Its not a singe church as in, lds, Catholic, Episcopalian, etc etc. It consists of the "called out one", those who are Christ's sheep. His sheep hear their Master voice. The unregenerate knows nothing about this.

When has Christ ever spoke to the body of the church? Jesus said before he ascended to heaven that he would not leave us comfortless, but would send the Comforter, the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit, who is God, teaches, guides, convicts, confirms, clarifies God's will for our lives and illuminates the Scriptures. God speaks to us through His Spirit. God speaks to us in His Word, in a still small voice and sometimes even in dreams. God uses others to speak to us.

The lds has men that claim to do all these things. Therein lies the difference. If your church understood the Holy Scriptures, you would see there's no need for additional "scriptures." All we need to know pertaining to salvation and the Gospel of Jesus Christ is in there.

[Richard]

What church? Again, you need to understand that "church" is NOT a building or religious organization. Its a body of believers, the bride of Christ. We find true born-again believers in Jesus Christ everywhere in every faith. Its not a singe church as in, lds, Catholic, Episcopalian, etc etc. It consists of the "called out one", those who are Christ's sheep. His sheep hear their Master voice. The unregenerate knows nothing about this.

When has Christ ever spoke to the body of the church? Jesus said before he ascended to heaven that he would not leave us comfortless, but would send the Comforter, the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit, who is God, teaches, guides, convicts, confirms, clarifies God's will for our lives and illuminates the Scriptures. God speaks to us through His Spirit. God speaks to us in His Word, in a still small voice and sometimes even in dreams. God uses others to speak to us.

The lds has men that claim to do all these things. Therein lies the difference. If your church understood the Holy Scriptures, you would see there's no need for additional "scriptures." All we need to know pertaining to salvation and the Gospel of Jesus Christ is in there.

Interesting, you ought to read the scriptures and how Christ Church was set up in the New Testament, way before the Creeds were issued and man decided God was dead.

[Richard]

Neither you nor the catholics have any understanding about the "keys". They do not belong to a single church or organization. All born again believers in Jesus Christ are part of the Royal Priesthood. WE have the keys. What your church has done is resurrect a dead priesthood, (the Aaronic) and claim the right to the Melchizedek which was NEVER p***ed on because Christ alone holds this priesthood forever. No man even qualifies for this priesthood. Read the qualifications in Hebrews: without mother or father, without beginning or ending.

So the keys are given to Peter, James and John and the apostles and you have no idea what became of them, this is what I'm hearing.

[Richard]

[QUOTE=James Banta;72627]Time to find out if they conform to the teachings of the Bible that are imprinted into the meaning of the creeds. Do they teach that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God in three Persons? Do they teach that God has been God from everlastings and will continued into eternity future as the Only GOD? That Jesus was born of a virgin by the Holy Spirit. That He lived a sinless life died on the cross and rose the third day. That He ascended into heaven taking His rightful place at the right hand of the Father.

That is what the creeds teach so which part of that are you saying that any Christian church is rejecting? I hadn't even read the creeds until I came online to start a witnessing ministry. It was the Mormons I met here that forced me to read it.. I had be saying the same thing as these churches, that the Bible is my creed.. Then I read them. God spoke to me of their purpose. I see the Gospel taught within them..





No contradiction, these are two separate issues which you want to ignore.

[Richard]

Those writings you call "scripture" are not inspired. What your church has done is add to God's Holy Word. You have self proclaimed prophets who never even studied theology. Mr. Smith was a young man who claimed that God saddled him with this enormous responsibility to restore Christ's church which he said was lost. In other words, Smith was given the sole task of doing what Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit and the original Apostles failed to do. It is impossible for Christ to fail and insinuating that he did is calling God a liar.

The Bible makes it very clear that a total apostasy is impossible. From these things alone we know Smith was a false prophet.

Interesting, you claim the dead sea scrolls and maybe some of the Apocalyptic literature is not inspired, wow, I'm stunned.

Those who find the Rapture in the Bible read many of its diverse apocalyptic p***ages together without recognizing the different circumstances of the believers to whom each was addressed. Instead, what should be understood as separate apocalyptic books are seen as a single work of prophecy in which future events are clearly and specifically predicted.

[James Banta]

[QUOTE] No contradiction, these are two separate issues which you want to ignore.

What is separate issue about saying that the creeds are just restatement of the Gospel of Jesus that is found in the Bible..

Christian churches today can say they don't need the creeds because a large percent of people today are literate. The Bible says everything the creeds say and we get it as it was given by God (the Holy Spirit).. Yes the creeds are outmoded but that doesn't removed the fact they they told the truth of the Gospel . Giving the people the ability to have the Gospel and the true God filling their hearts and minds because of the Creeds. The people who couldn't read and couldn't afford books. Foe the purpose the Creeds were they have been a Godsend to the Church..

Why is it that you as an example ignore the 13th article of the mormon creed?

AofF 13
We believe in being honest...
IHS jim

[Richard]

[QUOTE=Richard;72662]

What is separate issue about saying that the creeds are just restatement of the Gospel of Jesus that is found in the Bible..

Christian churches today can say they don't need the creeds because a large percent of people today are literate. The Bible says everything the creeds say and we get it as it was given by God (the Holy Spirit).. Yes the creeds are outmoded but that doesn't removed the fact they they told the truth of the Gospel . Giving the people the ability to have the Gospel and the true God filling their hearts and minds because of the Creeds. The people who couldn't read and couldn't afford books. Foe the purpose the Creeds were they have been a Godsend to the Church..

Why is it that you as an example ignore the 13th article of the mormon creed?

AofF 13
We believe in being honest...
IHS jim

Interesting statement: "Yes the creeds are outmoded but that doesn't removed the fact they they told the truth of the Gospel."

No longer acceptable: outmoded.

You said it not me. Thanks for unwittingly admitting they are not longer acceptable. :D

[TheSword99]

The reason why councils were set up was to combat heresy and also to more clearly define the True doctrines of Christianity, lest some be swayed by the heretics. Creeds are the outcome of some of these councils. Its a statement of Faith. So Joseph Smith was just reinforcing his dislike of the Christian church and the creeds when he said they were all wrong. It certainly did not come from God because the creeds reaffirm His Word.

The lds have their creed: the articles of faith.

[James Banta]

[QUOTE=James Banta;72667]

Interesting statement: "Yes the creeds are outmoded but that doesn't removed the fact they they told the truth of the Gospel."

No longer acceptable: outmoded.

You said it not me. Thanks for unwittingly admitting they are not longer acceptable. :D

And they are outmoded.. OLD fashion.. Today people read and the truth of the creeds come though the Bible.. One is One Lord! God is the ONLY GOD that has ever or will ever exist.. That He is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.. Three separate person in One eternal God.. Salvation is a gift of His grace through faith in Jesus plus NOTHING..

All doctrines of the creed that were taken direct from the Bible.. For a population where well over 90% are literate, a creed that is set in memory is no longer required. It is OUTMODED.. You speak as if you though we taught that the creeds were inerrant as the Bible is..The CREEDS were never scripture. Not like the creeds of mormonism that are included in your scripture.. IHS jim

[TheSword99]

[QUOTE=Richard;72679]

And they are outmoded.. OLD fashion.. Today people read and the truth of the creeds come though the Bible.. One is One Lord! God is the ONLY GOD that has ever or will ever exist.. That He is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.. Three separate person in One eternal God.. Salvation is a gift of His grace through faith in Jesus plus NOTHING..

All doctrines of the creed that were taken direct from the Bible.. For a population where well over 90% are literate, a creed that is set in memory is no longer required. It is OUTMODED.. You speak as if you though we taught that the creeds were inerrant as the Bible is..The CREEDS were never scripture. Not like the creeds of mormonism that are included in your scripture.. IHS jim

The creeds were written up in the early history of Christianity to clearly define Christian doctrines. We no longer need them per se, because we have the Bible and true Christians understand the true doctrines.

For the same reason we no longer need Apostles today because it was a one time mission at the start of Christianity. Once the foundation had been laid and True Doctrines clearly defined, we no longer need to repeat such things.

[B2M5L2]

[QUOTE=Richard;72679]

And they are outmoded.. OLD fashion.. Today people read and the truth of the creeds come though the Bible.. One is One Lord! God is the ONLY GOD that has ever or will ever exist.. That He is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.. Three separate person in One eternal God.. Salvation is a gift of His grace through faith in Jesus plus NOTHING..

All doctrines of the creed that were taken direct from the Bible.. For a population where well over 90% are literate, a creed that is set in memory is no longer required. It is OUTMODED.. You speak as if you though we taught that the creeds were inerrant as the Bible is..The CREEDS were never scripture. Not like the creeds of mormonism that are included in your scripture.. IHS jim

So, if all the doctrines of the creeds were taken directly from the Bible, yet the creeds are "outmoded..OLD fashion," then by deduction the Bible must be "outmoded..OLD fashion" as well. Nice. Way to play right into the hands of Bible critics, skeptics, and cultists everywhere.

[TheSword99]

[QUOTE=James Banta;72692]

So, if all the doctrines of the creeds were taken directly from the Bible, yet the creeds are "outmoded..OLD fashion," then by deduction the Bible must be "outmoded..OLD fashion" as well. Nice. Way to play right into the hands of Bible critics, skeptics, and cultists everywhere.

I think "outmoded" isn't the correct word, but in a sense we don't rely on the creeds to define doctrines as we have the Holy Scriptures.

Back then when creeds were first written up, not everyone could read nor owned a Bible. Lots of heresies crept in. The Catholic church wanted the bible to remain in Latin and thus a lot of people were bible illiterate.

[James Banta]

[QUOTE=B2M5L2;72695]

I think "outmoded" isn't the correct word, but in a sense we don't rely on the creeds to define doctrines as we have the Holy Scriptures.

Back then when creeds were first written up, not everyone could read nor owned a Bible. Lots of heresies crept in. The Catholic church wanted the bible to remain in Latin and thus a lot of people were bible illiterate.

I am sorry that no one likes the way I put this.. The creeds were needed badly when they were first penned.. Now we have the bible in it's complete form and having the creeds is unnecessary.. Their place is filled by the Bible .. I used the word outmoded because a mormon seemed to understand that it's the creeds that are not needed, not the doctrines they confess. We all have the full Bible now. Having a creed meant to be memorized and therefore taken with a believe is no longer needed.. Are the doctrines outmoded? NO!! That will never be.. IHS jim

[TheSword99]

So the keys are given to Peter, James and John and the apostles and you have no idea what became of them, this is what I'm hearing.

The original Apostles were given a one time mission: to lay the foundation of Christ's church. Nowhere else after that in the NT history do we read of a need for ongoing Apostles. We have elders and deacon and evangelists. Not the elaborate hierarchy that we see in mormonism and catholicism. Peter tells us of the royal priesthood of all believers. The keys do not belong to a specific religious group or cl***. The doctrine of the priesthood of all believers opposes the unbiblical doctrine of the existence of a Brahman-like priestly cl*** within the church. All who believe in Christ are priests.

[TheSword99]

We stand in good company, Prophets and Apostles with the keys of the Kingdom. Now we know the keys were given to Peter, wonder who he p***ed them onto?? The Catholics maybe, or maybe they were taken back when the Apostles were killed and not replaced.

If you read the rest of the NT you will see that the keys were also given to the other apostles and then to all believers. You seem not to understand that thanks to Christ, we now have access to Heavenly Father and need no human mediators.

There was no need to replace the Apostles, there's was a one time mission.

[B2M5L2]

[QUOTE=TheSword99;72696]

I am sorry that no one likes the way I put this.. The creeds were needed badly when they were first penned.. Now we have the bible in it's complete form and having the creeds is unnecessary.. Their place is filled by the Bible .. I used the word outmoded because a mormon seemed to understand that it's the creeds that are not needed, not the doctrines they confess. We all have the full Bible now. Having a creed meant to be memorized and therefore taken with a believe is no longer needed.. Are the doctrines outmoded? NO!! That will never be.. IHS jim

Jim, when the creeds were developed, they already had the Bible. And the way you made your comment previously, which you're repeating here, is to make both the Bible and the creeds "outmoded." In fact, what you're doing here is with "outmoded" and "creed" is what you did with the word "cult," and that is to misuse it. And instead of admitting your error, you try and gloss it over. Why can't you simply admit that you're wrong? Is your heart swelling with so much pride that you honestly believe that whatever rolls off your keyboard is the absolute truth and that you cannot be corrected when you in the wrong?

[Russianwolfe]

The reason why councils were set up was to combat heresy and also to more clearly define the True doctrines of Christianity, lest some be swayed by the heretics. Creeds are the outcome of some of these councils. Its a statement of Faith. So Joseph Smith was just reinforcing his dislike of the Christian church and the creeds when he said they were all wrong. It certainly did not come from God because the creeds reaffirm His Word.

The lds have their creed: the articles of faith.

Sorry but you are wrong on this. For you the creeds are the limit of your faith. For us, the articles of faith are just the beginning.



The 9th of Article of Faith: 9 We believe all that God has arevealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet breveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

That is the greatest difference between the two. In the past the creeds were used to divide the orothodox sheep from the heretical goats. And the goats were sacrificed to the God of orthodoxy by burning at the stake or hanging.

Marvin

[B2M5L2]

Sorry but you are wrong on this. For you the creeds are the limit of your faith. For us, the articles of faith are just the beginning.

No, you're wrong on this, not understanding what the creeds are from a Christian perspective. As for your articles of faith, you guys violate them so often around here, one has to wonder why you even bring them up.


That is the greatest difference between the two. In the past the creeds were used to divide the orothodox sheep from the heretical goats. And the goats were sacrificed to the God of orthodoxy by burning at the stake or hanging.

Marvin

Once again, your ignorance of just what the creeds are, much less their content, only proves that you don't know what you're talking about. Otherwise, please share with us just exactly what is wrong with the follow creedal statement:


I believe in one God the Father Almighty; Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds [God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance [essence] with the Father; by whom all things were made; who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried; and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; and he shall come again, with glory, to judge both the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And [I believe] in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceedeth from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified; who spake by the Prophets. And [I believe] one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge on Baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

[Russianwolfe]

No, you're wrong on this, not understanding what the creeds are from a Christian perspective. As for your articles of faith, you guys violate them so often around here, one has to wonder why you even bring them up.



Once again, your ignorance of just what the creeds are, much less their content, only proves that you don't know what you're talking about.


For the first 19 years of my life, I recited the Apostles Creed in the Presbyterian Church my parents took me to. I guess I know something about at least one of the creeds.




Otherwise, please share with us just exactly what is wrong with the follow creedal statement:


I believe in one God the Father Almighty; Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds [God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance [essence] with the Father; by whom all things were made; who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried; and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; and he shall come again, with glory, to judge both the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And [I believe] in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceedeth from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified; who spake by the Prophets. And [I believe] one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge on Baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Like I said, this is the limit of your faith. The creeds were used to divide the believers from those who believed differently. If anyone attempt to believe any more than what the creed dictated, they were cl***ified with the unbelievers. That is quite different from the Articles of Faith which is just the beginning of our faith. And the Articles of Faith were never used to cast out unbelievers.

Marvin

[TheSword99]

Sorry but you are wrong on this. For you the creeds are the limit of your faith. For us, the articles of faith are just the beginning.



That is the greatest difference between the two. In the past the creeds were used to divide the orothodox sheep from the heretical goats. And the goats were sacrificed to the God of orthodoxy by burning at the stake or hanging.

Marvin



I can see why you think the creeds are a limit to the Christian faith. Because its vastly different from what the lds church has taught you. As an lds you have been taught there are ongoing revelations. By claiming that the canon is still open, it allows a religious group to introduce more and more unbiblical teachings. But the Apostle Paul said not to go beyond what is written. Jesus said: "It is finished." Believers now have direct access to the throne of God. Thanks to Christ we are reconciled to God. We do not need priests or any human mediator. if you truly have done the research in christian history, you will see that the creeds were written up to clearly define doctrines. This was defending the Christan faith from those who introduced false teachings. All Christians are commanded by Christ to contend for the faith. To preach His Gospel to the world.

The lds have their 13 articles of faith yet deny its a creed. Mostly the lds will not make teachings official doctrines, as they are always changing at the whim of so many leaders. How may I ask can the doctrine of God, Jesus Christ and Salvation keep changing? God said he is unchangeable, immutable, the same yesterday today and forever. Your BoM also says that. There is only one plan of salvation and that's through Christ alone. Not church rules, rituals, and a myriad of ordinances and laws.

It is always the non christian, the unbeliever who goes back to the "burning at the stake." Always the finger pointing. Yet the lds has a violent, bloody history. Mountain Meadows and blood atonement.

Unfortunately, you believe Smith when he said all christian churches, creeds and professors were corrupt and an abomination. Yet Orthodox Christianity has fought to remain faithful to the teachings of Christ and the holy bible. Mormonism is a 19th century religion among many others who's founder is a man and not Christ.

[James Banta]

[QUOTE=James Banta;72701]

Jim, when the creeds were developed, they already had the Bible. And the way you made your comment previously, which you're repeating here, is to make both the Bible and the creeds "outmoded." In fact, what you're doing here is with "outmoded" and "creed" is what you did with the word "cult," and that is to misuse it. And instead of admitting your error, you try and gloss it over. Why can't you simply admit that you're wrong? Is your heart swelling with so much pride that you honestly believe that whatever rolls off your keyboard is the absolute truth and that you cannot be corrected when you in the wrong?

Unless you are ready to tell me now that the m*** of the people were educated to the extent that they could read the Bible that was available I am still saying that the creeds were there to give the people away to take the Gospel message with them everywhere though committing the creed to memory.. Not Being able to read the creeds were a great tool of that era for putting the message of the gospel in the hearts of the people.. Do we need this today.. No.. The creeds are served their purpose.. IHS jim

[Russianwolfe]

I can see why you think the creeds are a limit to the Christian faith. Because its vastly different from what the lds church has taught


The LDS church has taught me very little about the creeds and nothing of what I have said here. This I have learned on my own by reading history.




As an lds you have been taught there are ongoing


Without on going revelation just like in the Bible, you can't have the Church of Jesus Christ. Subs***utes are not acceptable.





By claiming that the canon is still open, it allows a religious group to introduce more and more unbiblical teachings.


And by unbiblical you mean something different than what you already believe. this is what the Pharisees also said and Christ told them they did not the scripture.



But the Apostle Paul said not to go beyond what is written.


The why did Paul so often go beyond what was written?



Jesus said: "It is finished."

And what did he mean? And don't even try to tell me that he was saying that the age of prophets was over.



Believers now have direct access to the throne of God.

When was the last time you saw the throne, like Isaiah did? And why would that negate the need for a prophet? Isaiah was still a prophet even though he saw the Throne of God.




Thanks to Christ we are reconciled to God.

Really? You might have the possibility but just because you read something in a book doesn't mean that you have it.




We do not need priests or any human mediator.

Christ was human! Does that mean you don't need him since the Bible calls him the mediator between God and man?




if you truly have done the research in christian history, you will see that the creeds were written up to clearly define doctrines.

And to limit what the true believer could believe and still be called a Christian. Funny how Christ never needed a creed to define who was a Christian! Or to teach or define the doctrines of the Gospel.



This was defending the Christan faith from those who introduced false teachings.

And those who failed to believe the creeds were sacrificed to the God of orthodoxy.




All Christians are commanded by Christ to contend for the faith. To preach His Gospel to the world.


They were told by Paul or Peter to always be ready to give a reason for the faith that they had not to contend against another's faith. But I never read anything that told them to kill other nonbelievers. But that is what they did, all in the name of God and Christ.



The lds have their 13 articles of faith yet deny its a creed.

They are not for the reason I explained.




Mostly the lds will not make teachings official doctrines, as they are always changing at the whim of so many leaders.

Just because you are ****n about by every wind that comes by doesn't mean we haw to be. There is a difference in our belief between doctrine and teaching. That is our belief. Your beliefs may not distinguish as we do but that is your belief, not ours.



How may I ask can the doctrine of God, Jesus Christ and Salvation keep changing?

The doctrines don't change but the teaching may.




God said he is unchangeable, immutable, the same yesterday today and forever. Your BoM also says that. There is only one plan of salvation and that's through Christ alone. Not church rules, rituals, and a myriad of ordinances and laws.

It is always the non christian, the unbeliever who goes back to the "burning at the stake." Always the finger pointing. Yet the lds has a violent, bloody history. Mountain Meadows and blood atonement.

So now you are trying to deny your history? These burning at the stake are historical facts.

Can you cite any real documentation that any people were killed by the doctrine of blood atonement? And don't cite any 18th century sensational books or novels. Give me real historical facts not sensational yellow journalism.




Unfortunately, you believe Smith when he said all christian churches, creeds and professors were corrupt and an abomination. Yet Orthodox Christianity has fought to remain faithful to the teachings of Christ and the holy bible. Mormonism is a 19th century religion among many others who's founder is a man and not Christ.

All I had to do was compare what I had been taught for 19 years by the Presbyterian church to what the missionaries taught me to know that what they were teaching was from a God of love and not the made up God of the philosophers.

The LDS do not have a creed because the articles of faith are just the beginning of faith not the limit.

Marvin

[TheSword99]

Without on going revelation just like in the Bible, you can't have the Church of Jesus Christ. Subs***utes are not acceptable.


The why did Paul so often go beyond what was written?


When was the last time you saw the throne, like Isaiah did? And why would that negate the need for a prophet? Isaiah was still a prophet even though he saw the Throne of God.



Christ was human! Does that mean you don't need him since the Bible calls him the mediator between God and man?

Marvin

''Christ was never fully human in that he wasn't also fully God. Since he was always God and did not give up his deity during his earthly ministry, he alone is our Mediator, no one else.

Paul's writings were scripture. They were recognized as such by the Christian churches and even Peter acknowledged this.. Paul was an apostle of Christ, called by Christ to fully preach His Gospel.

Christians receive God’s revelation in two forms: the Bible and the Holy Spirit’s ongoing revelation. These two types of revelation support each other, as the Bible repeatedly teaches that the Lord will speak to us and guide us by the Spirit, and the Spirit always urges us deeper into the Word. We can only understand the Bible properly with the Holy Spirit’s revelation, and we test individual revelations or prophecies by the standard of Scripture. We should reject any so-called revelations that contradict the Bible, no matter who claims to have received them. The Lord does not contradict Himself (2 Timothy 2:13).

[TheSword99]

When was the last time you saw the throne, like Isaiah did? And why would that negate the need for a prophet? Isaiah was still a prophet even though he saw the Throne of God.


The doctrines don't change but the teaching may.


The LDS do not have a creed because the articles of faith are just the beginning of faith not the limit.

Marvin


The spiritually born again believer in Christ has access to God's throne through prayer. Marvin, you seem not to understand that God is a spirit and we must worship him in spirit and truth. The BoM also says that God is spirit, but you changed that doctrine. Alma 31:15: Holy, Holy God… we believe thou art holy and thou wast a spirit, and thou art a spirit, and thou will be a spirit forever

Gill's Exposition says this about Hebrews 4:16 and the throne of God:

Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace,.... Either to Christ, who is before spoken of as an high priest, and who was typified by the mercy seat and coming to him as a priest upon his throne is very proper: to him saints come for pardon and cleansing, and for a justifying righteousness. Or else to God the Father, since Christ, the high priest, is the way of access to God, and it is by him the saints come unto the Father; who is represented as on a "throne", to show his majesty, and to command reverence; and as on a "throne of grace."

As for this throne of God. You see, Marvin, the lds believe God can be seen. All because one young man claimed he saw God and this god had a body exactly like ours. For this young man to claim he saw god is calling God a liar. God said in His Word: No man can see my face and live. And please don't tell me that Moss saw God's "face." All Moses saw was the remnant of God's glory after He p***ed. God had covered Mose's face to protect him, otherwise it would have killed him. The Bible also says that no man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

But Smith changed those p***ages that said no man can see God... to no man can see God except him that believes. Its interesting the changes Smith made to John, when John's gospel is about the deity of Christ."..

You say the doctrines don't change but the teaching may. Sounds like double speak. If the doctrines always remain the same, then why do your teachings on them change? The BoM says there is only one God. He is unchangeable, the same yesterday, today and forever. But your other works say differently. So yes you do change your doctrines and this is only one example. The fact is the BoM mostly does not teach mormonism. Many of your teachings are not in this so-called "most correct book."

[TheSword99]

Without on going revelation just like in the Bible, you can't have the Church of Jesus Christ. Subs***utes are not acceptable.


And to limit what the true believer could believe and still be called a Christian. Funny how Christ never needed a creed to define who was a Christian! Or to teach or define the doctrines of the Gospel.



And those who failed to believe the creeds were sacrificed to the God of orthodoxy.


So now you are trying to deny your history? These burning at the stake are historical facts.

Can you cite any real documentation that any people were killed by the doctrine of blood atonement? And don't cite any 18th century sensational books or novels. Give me real historical facts not sensational yellow journalism.

Marvin

Why would Christ, who is God, need a creed or anything for that matter? The creeds clearly defines the doctrines of Christianity. In the early history of the Christian church when heretical teachings crept in, it became necessary to defend the faith and clearly define true doctrines in order to stamp out heresies. The reason why the lds do not consider their articles of faith a creed is because your teachings keep changing. But God and His plan for Salvation never changes.

The Roman church forced people to convert or else were threatened with death. Where did I ever say I approved of this or was an adherent of the church of Rome?

Read Brigham's Destroying Angel: Chapter V of Bill Hickman's autobiographical m****cript. Contains the full transcripts of actual events including the murder of Richard Yates, the M***acre of the Aiken party from California, and other incidents related to Danite activities, "blood atonement," and the "Utah war" of 1857-58.

Read: "On the Mormon Frontier; The Diary of Hosea Stout."

"In 1868 the Deseret News encouraged rank-and-file Mormons to kill anyone who engaged in sexual relations outside marriage....


Read "The Mormon hierarchy: Extensions of Power", Dr. Quinn presented compelling evidence showing that "blood atonement" was endorsed by church leaders and actually practiced by the Mormon people. Quinn gives the names of a number of violent men who served as "enforcers" for Brigham Young.

Go ahead and dismiss these as "sensational books" The truth is out there and you are in denial if you say these things never happened.

Doesn't matter if this took place in the 19th century. its still recent history compared to the Church of Rome's burning at the stake.

[ErikErik]

What sins does a newborn infant commit?

All humans are born with a sin nature. That means they have the capacity to sin. If we were born innocent with no sin nature, then why is it no one can be free of sin??

You and I have sinned over and over. This we cannot escape from and the apostle Paul said this was the very reason he had no confidence in the flesh.

[ErikErik]

All I had to do was compare what I had been taught for 19 years by the Presbyterian church to what the missionaries taught me to know that what they were teaching was from a God of love and not the made up God of the philosophers.



Marvin

The lds missionaries are trained to only give the milk. You don't get the meat until after you convert and are baptized in the lds church. And even then the church is slow to give the real meat. Many lds still don't even know all that their church teaches.

The Christian God is a God of love. The gods of the philosophers are pagan/mythological.

[James Banta]

The lds missionaries are trained to only give the milk. You don't get the meat until after you convert and are baptized in the lds church. And even then the church is slow to give the real meat. Many lds still don't even know all that their church teaches.

The Christian God is a God of love. The gods of the philosophers are pagan/mythological.

I have had these children at my door.. Milk is all they know.. IHS jim

[alanmolstad]

I do not think children are "born in sin"...and thus in need of being forgiven...

I think that the sin tendency grows as a natural path that even small children walk ....
But the Scripture tells me that Paul believe that at one time he was "alive" before the Law came into his life.
From looking at the normal life of a Jewish male child, I take the words of Paul to be talking about his being "alive" before he reached the older age when he was taught the law by his Jewish elders.

So when the law came into his life as he grew older, and he started to know what was the difference between right and wrong, sin sprang to life in his mind, and he died...

Thus before that time Paul believe that he was 'alive" and this means that he could not have been "born in sin".....or in need of being forgiven.



I also believe that even as a child grows older that God "overlooks"the sins of childen as a parent would of their dear children knowing that with age will also come the greater ability to learn from mistakes and to take more responsibility for themselves that younger kids just don't have right now.

[TheSword99]

Eph. 2:3 says we are all "by nature children of wrath."

If man is not born in sin, then wouldn't some people be sinless throughout their lives?
If we are born innocent and good, why aren't there at least some people who have continued in this state and remained sinless? The fact is everybody sins because we are sinners by nature.

[TheSword99]

I do not think children are "born in sin"...and thus in need of being forgiven...

I think that the sin tendency grows as a natural path that even small children walk ....
But the Scripture tells me that Paul believe that at one time he was "alive" before the Law came into his life.
From looking at the normal life of a Jewish male child, I take the words of Paul to be talking about his being "alive" before he reached the older age when he was taught the law by his Jewish elders.

So when the law came into his life as he grew older, and he started to know what was the difference between right and wrong, sin sprang to life in his mind, and he died...

Thus before that time Paul believe that he was 'alive" and this means that he could not have been "born in sin".....or in need of being forgiven.



I also believe that even as a child grows older that God "overlooks"the sins of childen as a parent would of their dear children knowing that with age will also come the greater ability to learn from mistakes and to take more responsibility for themselves that younger kids just don't have right now.

It doesn't matter what we believe. Its what God's word says. The lds church teaches that Adam and Eve did not sin and that the Fall was a good thing. Thus they teach that we are all good. This is in opposition of what the Scriptures says. Paul wrote that before our conversion we were dead in our tresp***es. If we are by nature children of wrath as Eph 2 says we are, it can only be because we are by nature sinners.

[TheSword99]

I do not think children are "born in sin"...and thus in need of being forgiven...

I think that the sin tendency grows as a natural path that even small children walk ....
But the Scripture tells me that Paul believe that at one time he was "alive" before the Law came into his life.
From looking at the normal life of a Jewish male child, I take the words of Paul to be talking about his being "alive" before he reached the older age when he was taught the law by his Jewish elders.

So when the law came into his life as he grew older, and he started to know what was the difference between right and wrong, sin sprang to life in his mind, and he died...

Thus before that time Paul believe that he was 'alive" and this means that he could not have been "born in sin".....or in need of being forgiven.



I also believe that even as a child grows older that God "overlooks"the sins of childen as a parent would of their dear children knowing that with age will also come the greater ability to learn from mistakes and to take more responsibility for themselves that younger kids just don't have right now.

Where does the Holy Bible say that God condones sin?

[disciple]

Where does the Holy Bible say that God condones sin?


Infants die, therefore they are not innocent Death--both physical and spiritual--is a result of sin (Romans 5:12; 6:23). Thus, death only comes upon those who have sinned. Since infants die, they therefore must be sinners. David wrote in Psalm 51 "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me. "
I believe we are all born after our own kind...sinful man.

[RealFakeHair]

Infants die, therefore they are not innocent Death--both physical and spiritual--is a result of sin (Romans 5:12; 6:23). Thus, death only comes upon those who have sinned. Since infants die, they therefore must be sinners. David wrote in Psalm 51 "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me. "
I believe we are all born after our own kind...sinful man.

I was born in sin and keep relapsing.

[disciple]

I was born in sin and keep relapsing.

unfortunately, me too.

[alanmolstad]

Eph. 2:3 says we are all "by nature children of wrath."

If man is not born in sin, then wouldn't some people be sinless throughout their lives?
.the tendency of people to sin is great....but for a few of us ...like they who never age...or they who have mental issues, I have no trouble believing that "they never sinned"

Also, as a person draws closer and closer to the Lord they drift away farther and farther from sinning....So I have no trouble believing that with growth in the Lord, sin becomes simply unknown in your personal life...

[alanmolstad]

Infants die, therefore they are not innocent Death--both physical and spiritual--is a result of sin (Romans 5:12; 6:23). Thus, death only comes upon those who have sinned. Since infants die, they therefore must be sinners. David wrote in Psalm 51 "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me. "
I believe we are all born after our own kind...sinful man.
We die because we are the phisical children of Adam, and as Adam died so to do we...

But my sins ae my own....I do not blame Adam for my sins, nor do I allow Adam's sin to be credited to me.
I have to answer for only my own sins....not yours...not my co-worker's....not my mom's....and not Adam's

[TheSword99]

Infants die, therefore they are not innocent Death--both physical and spiritual--is a result of sin (Romans 5:12; 6:23). Thus, death only comes upon those who have sinned. Since infants die, they therefore must be sinners. David wrote in Psalm 51 "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me. "
I believe we are all born after our own kind...sinful man.


I agree with you completely because this is what the Scriptures teaches. When someone gives their beliefs its important to see what the Scripture says. All babies are born with a sin nature. There's no escaping it. We live in a fallen world ruled by satan.

The Mormons would have us believe that God wanted Adam and Eve to transgress and they teach that the Fall was a very good thing. This is not only twisting the Scriptures, but a lie of the devil.

[TheSword99]

David wrote in Psalm 51 "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me. "
I believe we are all born after our own kind...sinful man.

Psalm 51 that you have given above in your post is one that I have given to the Mormons on here. Time and time again they will tell you that David meant it was his mother who had sinned and that it does not mean that David was born with a sin nature. Mormons do not teach the doctrine of original sin. They cannot because it would contradict their teaching that it was necessary for Adam and Eve to transgress., that the Fall was good and that man is also good.

[alanmolstad]

well......this verse contradicts the idea that babies are in sin....

Romans 7:9
"Once I was alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life"

[TheSword99]

I do not think children are "born in sin"...and thus in need of being forgiven...





I also believe that even as a child grows older that God "overlooks"the sins of childen as a parent would of their dear children knowing that with age will also come the greater ability to learn from mistakes and to take more responsibility for themselves that younger kids just don't have right now.

Can you give us any scriptures to support your belief that babies are not born with a sin nature?

Can y also give us the scripture that teaches God overlooks sin, even those of a child's?

[alanmolstad]

Can y also give us the scripture that teaches God overlooks sin, even those of a child's?Acts 17:30

[alanmolstad]

Can you give us any scriptures to support your belief that babies are not born with a sin nature?
see post #228

[TheSword99]

well......this verse contradicts the idea that babies are in sin....

Romans 7:9
"Once I was alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life"


Paul is nowhere saying he was once sinless. By being alive he meant that he was totally unaware of the death sentence he was under. Those who are not born again are blissfully unaware of their eternal condition. The commandments revives sin which is why God gave the Commandments to show us how far we have fallen. "He died" so to speak, and suddenly realized that he was law breaker and deserved death!

[alanmolstad]

Paul is nowhere saying he was once sinless. By being alive he meant that he was totally unaware of the death sentence he was under. !

LOL>>>>Nice try, but then Paul would have said, "Once I was confused..."

But I take it at face value that when Paul said that before the law came into his life he was "alive"
Now we know that Paul grew up within the Jewish faith...being a Jews-Jew.
And we know as such he was asked to be repsonsible under the Law as he grew older and became a member of the Jewish community.

So this proves to us that Paul did not believe that little babies were guilty of sin.
And the text also shows us that as a child grew older and their tendency to commit error and sin grew inside them, that the Bible teaches that God "overlooks" such things.....

So this is how I look at things too!

Babies are not "in sin"
As we get older, and sin springs to life in our hearts, God overlooks it when we are little kids, but as we become able to respond to God's light he demands from us to repent and have faith in the power of the cross to clean us of sin's stain.

[disciple]

well......this verse contradicts the idea that babies are in sin....

Romans 7:9
"Once I was alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life"



“For apart from the law sin was dead. I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died.”

I would ask that you would consider the possibility that Paul was saying this….I had not yet realized in my heart or my conscience that I was dead in tresp***es and sin, I thought I was alive in every way, a sound mind, spirit and body. Notice that Paul said, "When the commandment came, sin revived." He did not say, "Sin came." You cannot revive something that doesn't already exist. The sin nature already exists in every human at birth but until the Law comes, that nature is dead. That does not mean that it is not functional. Observation tells us that very young children have a sin nature, we do not have to teach them to lie to their parents or to be selfish. But God is not imputing sin unto people until the time that they knowingly violate God's Law.

[alanmolstad]

also....a closer reading of the words of King david show us that David was not attepting to transfer the guilt of his sin on to anyone else.....NOT his mom....not even Adam and Eve.

So the argument that tried to use the words, "In sin did my mother conceive me" to prove "original sin" is in error.
Even a brief look at the context of that whole set of Bible verses written by David show us the opposite of the "original sin" idea is what David was saying.....

[alanmolstad]

“For apart from the law sin was dead. I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died.”

I would ask that you would consider the possibility that Paul was saying this….I had not yet realized....Nope, that is not the correct understanding of the text.

that would be Paul saying, "Once I was confused..."

But Paul does not say he was confused, he says he was "ALIVE!"..........


Then the Law enters his life...and sin takes the occasion of the law to "Spring to Life"

This is how it works for all of us.
We are born and live our little lives free of the stain of sin...
Then as we get older we start to understand the "law"
But while we are little kids, god will overlook our many sins because we are just kids and He is a loving Father to us.
Then as we get older, God demands from us to "repent".....and at this time we are asked to respond to the Light from heaven we receive....

If we dont?...we die....as Paul died and was dead at the time in his life he thought he was doing good, when he watched the coats of the guys with rocks.

[TheSword99]

Acts 17:30

This verse says nothing about God overlooking a child's sin. John Gill's Commentary says this:

"Not that he (God) approved of, or encouraged such blindness and folly, as appeared among the Gentiles, when they worshipped idols of gold, silver, and stone, taking them for deities; but rather the sense is, he despised this, and them for it, and was displeased and angry with them; and as an evidence of such contempt and indignation, he overlooked them, and took no notice of them, and gave them no revelation to direct them, nor prophets to instruct them, and left them to their stupidity and ignorance."

We must be careful not to pull out one verse and have it mean what we think and at the same time ignore what other scriptures teaches.

[disciple]

Ah, controversy the life blood of any forum. I respect your opinion Alan, we will have to ask Paul someday

[TheSword99]

Ah, controversy the life blood of any forum. I respect your opinion Alan, we will have to ask Paul someday

I agree, disciple. Lots of opinions on here, but if they don't agree with God's word they are false and not of God.

[TheSword99]

LOL>>>>Nice try, but then Paul would have said, "Once I was confused..."

But I take it at face value that when Paul said that before the law came into his life he was "alive"
Now we know that Paul grew up within the Jewish faith...being a Jews-Jew.
And we know as such he was asked to be repsonsible under the Law as he grew older and became a member of the Jewish community.

So this proves to us that Paul did not believe that little babies were guilty of sin.
And the text also shows us that as a child grew older and their tendency to commit error and sin grew inside them, that the Bible teaches that God "overlooks" such things.....

So this is how I look at things too!

Babies are not "in sin"
As we get older, and sin springs to life in our hearts, God overlooks it when we are little kids, but as we become able to respond to God's light he demands from us to repent and have faith in the power of the cross to clean us of sin's stain.

Paul said, "When the commandment came, (God's law) sin revived." He did not say, "Sin came." You can't revive something that doesn't already exist. The sin nature already exists in every human at birth. Although we are born with a sin nature, God does not impute sin unto the baby or very little child until the time that they knowingly violate God's Law.

[TheSword99]

well......this verse contradicts the idea that babies are in sin....

Romans 7:9
"Once I was alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life"

Babies are not sinners but they are born with a sin nature, How can you say as a child gets older God overlooks his sins? What do you do with the "age of accountability?

[TheSword99]

Footnotes in KJV Bible says concerning Romans 7:9

"I was alive without the law once": the There was a time when Paul lived a complacent life, insensitive to the demands of the law. Paul said "I died," meaning he understood the law to realize that he was accused, guilty and marked for death.

[alanmolstad]

Footnotes in KJV Bible says concerning Romans 7:9

"I was alive without the law once": the There was a time when Paul lived a complacent life, insensitive to the demands of the law. Paul said "I died," meaning he understood the law to realize that he was accused, guilty and marked for death.
The footnote is wrong.

The real idea that Paul is talking about is that when he was not yet of age he was not guilty of sin.

[alanmolstad]

Babies are not sinners but they are born with a sin nature, How can you say as a child gets older God overlooks his sins? What do you do with the "age of accountability?
God overlooks our sins when we are unable yet to understand the full implications of our thoughts and deeds.
But as we grow older we are tasked with more and more responsibility.

When I was a child I thought as a child,
But when I became older I put away the childish things.

When I was a child I was only ready to drink milk.
But as I grew older I became able to eat meat.

There was nothing wrong at the time with only drinking milk, but there would be something wrong now if i continued to only drink milk when I am now able to eat meat.

So in the same way, when I was a child my Father in Heaven as well as my Father here on earth both tasked me according to what they knew I was mature enough to accomplish.
As a child I was given tasks that I always was able to perform.
But as I grew older I was then tasked with new things, different than the things I was asked to perform before...

So first i was only allowed to pull weeds, but later i was given the *** of mowing the yard.

In the beginning I was not held accountable for my sins before God, but later I was tasked with the responsibility of understanding the truth about my actions and to respond to the Good News of the blood of Christ and its power to clean my sins away.

[alanmolstad]

Paul said, "When the commandment came, (God's law) sin revived." He did not say, "Sin came." You can't revive something that doesn't already exist. The sin nature already exists in every human at birth. Although we are born with a sin nature, God does not impute sin unto the baby or very little child until the time that they knowingly violate God's Law.I disagree with this completely.

its like this...
When Adam was made, we cant say that he was made with a 'sin nature"...

Just as Adam was not made with a sin nature, so too I was not made with a sin nature.
But both Adam and myself are made of flesh.....and the flesh is weak and subject to doing things that are evil.

Now when Adam sinned, we cant say that he sinned because sin was already inside him when he was created, as that would make God the original cause of sin and it's true Maker.
But we can say that when the Law came into Adam's life, then and only then did sin "SPRING TO LIFE" in his heart.

Its the same way with all us who are the children of Adam too.
Sin "springs to life" inside our hearts and we die.

Adam and his children are not created with little "seeds" of sin inside us, rather what happens is that temptation enters our hearts and we respond in a wrong manner to the temptation and this leads us to sin....

So while all are tempted from time to time, not all temptation leads to sin.

[alanmolstad]

Romans 7:9
Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died.

[alanmolstad]

So first i was only allowed to pull weeds, but later i was given the *** of mowing the yard.

I love this way I support my understanding here with the image of a child being tasked according to what their father knows that they can do...

[BigJulie]

Just to clarify what Mormons believe.

1. All are fallen and in need of a Savior.

2. Because the Savior atoned for the sins of the world, everyone is born with the atonement covering the fall. Therefore, we are only responsible for our own sins and not Adams.

3. As Jesus Christ atoned for all, it is his decision when we become accountable for our sins (rather than our parents being accountable, such as with Adam.) He has chosen the age of 8.

From the Book of Mormon:

"And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins. But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism....

For awful is the wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child because of baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism....

And I am filled with charity, which is everlasting love; wherefore, all children are alike unto me; wherefore, I love little children with a perfect love; and they are all alike and partakers of salvation. For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity. Little children cannot repent; wherefore, it is awful wickedness to deny the pure mercies of God unto them, for they are all alive in him because of his mercy."

[alanmolstad]

God overlooks our sins when we are unable yet to understand the full implications of our thoughts and deeds.
But as we grow older we are tasked with more and more responsibility.

When I was a child I thought as a child,
But when I became older I put away the childish things.

When I was a child I was only ready to drink milk.
But as I grew older I became able to eat meat.

There was nothing wrong at the time with only drinking milk, but there would be something wrong now if i continued to only drink milk when I am now able to eat meat.

So in the same way, when I was a child my Father in Heaven as well as my Father here on earth both tasked me according to what they knew I was mature enough to accomplish.
As a child I was given tasks that I always was able to perform.
But as I grew older I was then tasked with new things, different than the things I was asked to perform before...

So first i was only allowed to pull weeds, but later i was given the *** of mowing the yard.

In the beginning I was not held accountable for my sins before God, but later I was tasked with the responsibility of understanding the truth about my actions and to respond to the Good News of the blood of Christ and its power to clean my sins away.

My argument totally ****s away all the talk about little kids being born sinners...

[alanmolstad]

I disagree with this completely.

its like this...
When Adam was made, we cant say that he was made with a 'sin nature"...

Just as Adam was not made with a sin nature, so too I was not made with a sin nature.
But both Adam and myself are made of flesh.....and the flesh is weak and subject to doing things that are evil.

Now when Adam sinned, we cant say that he sinned because sin was already inside him when he was created, as that would make God the original cause of sin and it's true Maker.
But we can say that when the Law came into Adam's life, then and only then did sin "SPRING TO LIFE" in his heart.

Its the same way with all us who are the children of Adam too.
Sin "springs to life" inside our hearts and we die.

Adam and his children are not created with little "seeds" of sin inside us, rather what happens is that temptation enters our hearts and we respond in a wrong manner to the temptation and this leads us to sin....

So while all are tempted from time to time, not all temptation leads to sin.

a perfect way to understand this issue...