Biblical and historical reasons why Mitt Romney is not a Christian [Archive]

dberrie2000

11-06-2011, 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by Jill View Post
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/walterm...not-a-christia

This thread is about THEOLOGY and HISTORY, not politics. Romney's name is mentioned because he continues to insist he is a "Christian" when it can be proven outside of politics that he is NOT. Let's try it again and stay away from the insults, please.

dberrie---Are you using "Christian" in terms of "orthodox Christianity" or Biblical Christianity?

dberrie,---More than 2000 years of Christian history shows that the iden***y of Jesus is the same as it was during the time he walked this earth. That is biblical and historical truth. Christianity never disappeared from the earth; Joseph Smith Jr. just decided to redefine it.

There is little resemblance between the faith alone doctrines of salvation and the Biblical NT doctrines of salvation. Precious little.

The "orthodox Christianity" of today bears little resemblance to the Biblical Christianity of the NT. Not even close.

And any denomination teaching that there is not the first act of obedience to Jesus Christ necessary for His grace unto life is not connected to Biblical Christianity.

The LDS can match their core salvational doctrines with the Biblical text.

dberrie2000

11-06-2011, 06:01 PM

db: Orthodox means to be true, and we as Biblical Christians believe what the Bible teaches.

No you don't. And you won't fare very well in any attempt to match your salvational doctrines up with the Biblical NT.

Any religion claiming that there is not the first obedience to Jesus Christ for His grace unto life has little in common with the Biblical NT.

neverending

11-06-2011, 09:14 PM

No you don't. And you won't fare very well in any attempt to match your salvational doctrines up with the Biblical NT.

Any religion claiming that there is not the first obedience to Jesus Christ for His grace unto life has little in common with the Biblical NT.

db: please show me where the Bible teaches that I must first have obedience to Jesus before I can be saved. John 3:16 doesn't say anything about obedience, it just says, "that whosoever BELIEVES...." nothing about obedience. Also, "for all have sinned and fallen short" Romans 3:23. ALL means ALL, not just a few but ALL...that includes YOU dberrie. God's free gift of salvation is available to anyone who so desires to believe in Him, and salvation to me is not resurrection but Eternal Life! LDS have several types of salvation so when you're discussing with a Christian, you now know what we mean when salvation is mentioned. The LDS hide the meanings from the unsuspecting convert, why do you have to do that?

neverending

11-06-2011, 09:18 PM

There is little resemblance between the faith alone doctrines of salvation and the Biblical NT doctrines of salvation. Precious little.

The "orthodox Christianity" of today bears little resemblance to the Biblical Christianity of the NT. Not even close.

And any denomination teaching that there is not the first act of obedience to Jesus Christ necessary for His grace unto life is not connected to Biblical Christianity.

The LDS can match their core salvational doctrines with the Biblical text.

db: CFR NOW! Mormonism can't even match its doctrines to John 3:16, Psalm 90:2. I find your post is deceiving.

Jill

11-06-2011, 11:19 PM

The LDS can match their core salvational doctrines with the Biblical text.

Really? Why don't we start with the biblical nature of Jesus--about as close to salvation as you can get. Exactly how was Jesus conceived?

Historic Christianity: Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost." Matthew 1:18

Mormonism: Jesus was not conceived by the Holy Spirit.

Journal of Discourses 1:50,51, Brigham Young – "The question has been, and is often, asked, who it was that begat the Son of the Virgin Mary . . . .When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost . . . . Now, remember from this time forth, and forever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost."

dberrie2000

11-07-2011, 04:03 AM

db: please show me where the Bible teaches that I must first have obedience to Jesus before I can be saved.

Hebrews5:9--"And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;"

John 3:16 doesn't say anything about obedience, it just says, "that whosoever BELIEVES...." nothing about obedience.

Please do show where obedience to Jesus Christ is not an integral component of belief.

Whenever one sees terms such as belief, faith, trust, etc--obedience to Christ is understood as an integral component.

For example:

Term--house

Integral components: roof, walls, foundation, windows, etc.

Word term: car

Integral components: Engine, transmission, seats, wheels, etc.

Word term: belief

Integral components: trust, obedience, following Christ, faith, etc.

James2:26--"For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also."

Also, "for all have sinned and fallen short" Romans 3:23. ALL means ALL, not just a few but ALL...that includes YOU dberrie. God's free gift of salvation is available to anyone who so desires to believe in Him, and salvation to me is not resurrection but Eternal Life!

Me also. When I state salvation--that means eternal life.

Yes, I sin. And that is the reason God has given us repentance and water baptism:

Acts2:38--"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

If Eternal Life were free--why was everyone commanded to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins?

Eternal Life, as an opportunity is a free gift to all men--but the personal reception of Life is dependent upon obedience to Jesus Christ for His grace unto life.

1 John1:7--"But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin."

LDS have several types of salvation so when you're discussing with a Christian, you now know what we mean when salvation is mentioned. The LDS hide the meanings from the unsuspecting convert, why do you have to do that?

I'm not hiding anything--when we talk about salvation--eternal life is my point. Why would I "hide" any other meaning?

dberrie2000

11-07-2011, 04:18 AM

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post
The LDS can match their core salvational doctrines with the Biblical text.

Really? Why don't we start with the biblical nature of Jesus--about as close to salvation as you can get. Exactly how was Jesus conceived?

Nobody knows exactly how Jesus was conceived--only that God the Father was His God and His Father.

And since when is knowing every detail of Jesus's conception a salvational doctrine?

Jesus never claimed the Holy Ghost as His Father.

Historic Christianity: Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost." Matthew 1:18

Mormonism: Jesus was not conceived by the Holy Spirit.

Journal of Discourses 1:50,51, Brigham Young – "The question has been, and is often, asked, who it was that begat the Son of the Virgin Mary . . . .When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost . . . . Now, remember from this time forth, and forever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost."

John1:And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

Where do you find it that Jesus Christ was the Only Begotten of the Holy Ghost?

Do you believe that God the Father and the Holy Ghost is the same being?

Sir

11-07-2011, 08:53 AM

db: please show me where the Bible teaches that I must first have obedience to Jesus before I can be saved. John 3:16 doesn't say anything about obedience, it just says, "that whosoever BELIEVES...." nothing about obedience.

Taht's it? All you have to do is believe? Even the devil believes. And here, too, is this sleight of hand, where the critic says, "The Bible only says to believe and you are saved, nothing about obedience." THe LDS then respond that they believe in Jesus. Then the critic then starts the litnay of conditions, qualifications, and variables that are also required in order to claim you believe in the right Jesus.

The LDS hide the meanings from the unsuspecting convert, why do you have to do that?

The critics hide the meaning of "believe in Jesus" and do not reveal all of the other details that they claim are required for salvation. Why do you have to do that?

neverending

11-07-2011, 09:09 AM

Hebrews5:9--"And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;"

Please do show where obedience to Jesus Christ is not an integral component of belief.

Whenever one sees terms such as belief, faith, trust, etc--obedience to Christ is understood as an integral component.

For example:

Term--house

Integral components: roof, walls, foundation, windows, etc.

Word term: car

Integral components: Engine, transmission, seats, wheels, etc.

Word term: belief

Integral components: trust, obedience, following Christ, faith, etc.

James2:26--"For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also."

Me also. When I state salvation--that means eternal life.

Yes, I sin. And that is the reason God has given us repentance and water baptism:

Acts2:38--"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

If Eternal Life were free--why was everyone commanded to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins?

Eternal Life, as an opportunity is a free gift to all men--but the personal reception of Life is dependent upon obedience to Jesus Christ for His grace unto life.

1 John1:7--"But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin."

I'm not hiding anything--when we talk about salvation--eternal life is my point. Why would I "hide" any other meaning?

db: your last sentence is not true! There are many terms LDS use for salvation. Your doctrines teach a general salvation which is given to ALL men because that is only resurrection. You also teach in a personal salvation or individual or conditional and you call it, exaltation. This salvation comes by grace PLUS baptism plus works. Talmadge says in your Articles of Faith, "Redemption from personal sins can ONLY be obtained through obedience to the requirement of the Gospel and a life of good works." Now think about the thief of the cross as he was dying. Thank God, Christ was there and not Mr. Talmage, or the thief would have been forever lost. This man never did anything good or why would he be called a thief but he DID BELIEVE in Christ and nothing else. No works, no baptism, just belief!

This obedience idea comes only from your doctrines. To be saved requires one thing; BELIEF in Christ. Again, John 3:16. And answer me this, who is EVER obedient? Who EVER does good? We are all sinners so we will fail at some point no matter how hard we try to be a good person....it is part of our sin nature which we can not change. If you fails in ONE POINT, YOU ARE GUILTY OF ALL! (James 2:10) Even ONE failure will condemn you or I but having been saved through the SHED blood of Jesus Christ, I now have been wrapped in His righteousness and that is what God will see when someday I stand before Him. My wish is for all LDS to understand this concept and be saved. God bless and have a good day today.

Sir

11-07-2011, 11:17 AM

Jill

11-07-2011, 11:36 AM

Nobody knows exactly how Jesus was conceived--only that God the Father was His God and His Father.

And since when is knowing every detail of Jesus's conception a salvational doctrine?

Jesus never claimed the Holy Ghost as His Father.

John1:And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

Where do you find it that Jesus Christ was the Only Begotten of the Holy Ghost?

Do you believe that God the Father and the Holy Ghost is the same being?

The Bible tells us exactly how Jesus was conceived:

"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins."

"The angel answered, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God’" Luke 1:35

The iden***y, the nature, the very being of the Savior has been defended by the Christian Church throughout history. Ever read about Arian heresy? Ever explore the Church and the history of the Gnostics? How about Docetism? Donatism? Sabellianism? The iden***y of Jesus has always been considered by the Church to be a key salvational doctrine worth defending and worth charging people and convicting them of heresy if they tried to change it.

Jesus claimed "I and my father are one." John 10:30. They were one as the Holy Spirit was one with them. He claimed the Holy Spirit as his father in this verse. To deny that is to deny the historic Christian Doctrine of the Trinity:

"There is one God (Matt. 4:10; 16:16; 22:32,37). The Father is God (6:6,9,14–15; 10:32–33; 11:25), Jesus is God (1:23; 9:6; 11:27; 12:8; 16:27; 19:28; 25:31; 26:64), and the Holy Spirit is God (1:18,20; 10:20; 12:18,28,32). Within the unity of the one God are three persons: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (28:19). All three persons of the Trinity, moreover, were present (and distinct from each other) at Jesus’ baptism (3:16–17). In view of this, it makes good sense that Jesus, before ascending into heaven, would instruct the disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, for each played a pivotal role in human salvation." R. Rhodes, Is Jesus the Father and the Holy Spirit?

Mormonism: "Now, remember from this time forth, and forever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost."--Journal of Discourses 1:51, Brigham Young

And this is a key reason why Mitt Romney is NOT a Christian.

Decalogue

11-07-2011, 03:58 PM

Really? Why don't we start with the biblical nature of Jesus--about as close to salvation as you can get. Exactly how was Jesus conceived?

Historic Christianity: Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost." Matthew 1:18

Mormonism: Jesus was not conceived by the Holy Spirit.

Journal of Discourses 1:50,51, Brigham Young – "The question has been, and is often, asked, who it was that begat the Son of the Virgin Mary . . . .When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost . . . . Now, remember from this time forth, and forever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost."

:) Bingo ! Jill. Good reference. Yaa hit-the-nail-on-the-head ! I read that quote in the Journal of Discourses years ago in a Deseret Book store ( Fashion Place Mall , in Murray , Utah ) . Plain as black ink on white paper.

Christianity is CHRIST JESUS ! If someone ( well meaning as they might be ) is following something which has some speckles and sprinkles of "Jesus" stuff and some "aromas" of Christianity , then they think it must be Okay.

Brigham Young was the really big leader / Prophet / President of Mormonism and the quote you used from the "Journal of Discourses" is actual-factual.

To the LDS posters on the Thread ... This website is NOT your site. It is called the "Walter Martin Religious Info Net". If you do not get that or do not understand what/who Walter Martin was and what he did , then go to the front page and start reading / listening to some of his works. Listen to Jill's radio program. The website is not here to just pick-on Mormons , but is here to get the truth out to thousands of people with a computer and internet hook-up. Remember --- before you mormons get your feelings hurt , take your ball, and go home ... remember that it was YOUR Prophet who started things rolling , when he said that ; ..."All the Chruches were wrong , all the doctrines were wrong , and all the teachers were wrong..."

It is the duty of Biblical Christians to stand up for the Gospel truth. To accept lies and half-truths from a well-meaning / photogenic politician/businessman are wrong. Two different Jesus Christs. One is Biblical. The other was cooked-up by a flim-flam artist who never did an honest days work in his life.

The L.D.S. system { Corporation } has mega dollars and has built a Visitors Center and pays for much TV advertising. If you wish to be Mormons ... hey - if you are over 18 years of age ... you can join just about any group , but do NOT presuppose that just because the L.D.S. have the name "Jesus Christ" on the sign on the front of the L.D.S. Wards that they are actually a "Christian" organization.

Christianity holds to John 14:6 . Mormonmism teaches that Joseph Smith must be confessed as a "Prophet-of God" before a person can get into the top level of Heaven. That folks is sheer blasphemy !

It was Jesus who was whipped , beaten and nailed to a cross for our sins. Not Joseph Smith. That it why we can say --- without any doubt in our minds --- that neither Romney , nor any other mormon is a Biblical Christian. Mormons --- by the very words of Brigham Young ,,, are NOT Christians.

BigJulie

11-07-2011, 06:57 PM

[QUOTE=Jill;101597]The iden***y, the nature, the very being of the Savior has been defended by the Christian Church throughout history. Ever read about Arian heresy? Ever explore the Church and the history of the Gnostics? How about Docetism? Donatism? Sabellianism? The iden***y of Jesus has always been considered by the Church to be a key salvational doctrine worth defending and worth charging people and convicting them of heresy if they tried to change it.

Which is why so many Protestants at one point were put to death, as well as the men who translated the Bible to English--because the "Christian" church at that time thought that what they were doing was heretical.

I guess you are just the next in th line to claim they are the one who protects the "religion" and the "correct view".

That said, it might be worth noting that the word "only" and the word "begotten" have two different meanings in Hebrew.

dberrie2000

11-08-2011, 04:14 AM

The Bible tells us exactly how Jesus was conceived:

"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins."

"The angel answered, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God’" Luke 1:35

The iden***y, the nature, the very being of the Savior has been defended by the Christian Church throughout history. Ever read about Arian heresy? Ever explore the Church and the history of the Gnostics? How about Docetism? Donatism? Sabellianism? The iden***y of Jesus has always been considered by the Church to be a key salvational doctrine worth defending and worth charging people and convicting them of heresy if they tried to change it.

And how does all this change the fact that Jesus Christ never claimed but One who was His Father--and that was God the Father?

And this Jesus maintained throughout His earthly ministry--and following His death and resurrection.

Jesus Christ claimed God the Father as His God and His Father--what about that we are not understanding?

St John20:17--"Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God."

So--if you claim that the Holy Ghost is Jesus' Father--is your claim that the Holy Ghost and God the Father are the same being? Or that the scriptures are wrong?

Jesus claimed "I and my father are one." John 10:30. They were one as the Holy Spirit was one with them. He claimed the Holy Spirit as his father in this verse.

Where in that verse do you find that the Holy Ghost was Jesus' Father? If being "one" with the Father is the cause of the Holy Ghost being the father--then was the Holy Ghost the father of the disciples also?:

St John17:11--"And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are."

St John17:21-22--"That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:"

To deny that is to deny the historic Christian Doctrine of the Trinity:

"There is one God (Matt. 4:10; 16:16; 22:32,37). The Father is God (6:6,9,14–15; 10:32–33; 11:25), Jesus is God (1:23; 9:6; 11:27; 12:8; 16:27; 19:28; 25:31; 26:64), and the Holy Spirit is God (1:18,20; 10:20; 12:18,28,32). Within the unity of the one God are three persons: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (28:19).

And how does any of that prove that the Holy Ghost is the father of Jesus Christ?

All three persons of the Trinity, moreover, were present (and distinct from each other) at Jesus’ baptism (3:16–17). In view of this, it makes good sense that Jesus, before ascending into heaven, would instruct the disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, for each played a pivotal role in human salvation." R. Rhodes, Is Jesus the Father and the Holy Spirit?

And how are you connecting this to your claim that the Holy Ghost is the father of Jesus CHrist?

Mormonism: "Now, remember from this time forth, and forever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost."--Journal of Discourses 1:51, Brigham Young

And this is a key reason why Mitt Romney is NOT a Christian.

Could you please quote the first scripture that states that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of the Holy Ghost?

Again--the scriptures affirm that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten of the Father--not the Holy Ghost.

If you are going to insist that Mitt Romney is not Christian because of this issue--it only would confirm you are not Christian also.

Decalogue

11-08-2011, 06:17 AM

:rolleyes: Hey Mormon defenders : Be advised that the burden of proof is in your court ( to borrow a term from Tennis ) .

It is Y O U and the President/Prophet of the L.D.S. mega system that HAS to prove that YOUR self-proclaimed Prophet and his Deputy ( Brigham Young ) have any Biblical scripture p***ages which support and prove that all Christianity is wrong and that only you , the followers of Joseph Smith have any hope.

Jill posted the information for you to read ... words from the L.D.S. prophet/President Brigham Young. Brigham taught that Mary got pregnant by a VERY different way than what the Bible tells us. :eek:

It is up to you now , to decide whether you will bow the knee to The King of Kings and Lord of Lords and put your faith and trust in Him , oorrrr spend forever in a very hot and miserable place because you blindly accept the lies of a scam-artist and his crooked family in 1830's New York.

dberrie2000

11-09-2011, 03:57 AM

--Jill posted the information for you to read ... words from the L.D.S. prophet/President Brigham Young. Brigham taught that Mary got pregnant by a VERY different way than what the Bible tells us.

Jill's comments that Jesus Christ's father was the Holy Ghost is foreign to the Biblical text.

The Bible makes this claim--that Jesus Christ was the Only Begotten Son of God the Father. He never makes the claim that the Holy Ghost was His Father.

If you or anyone else on this forum has a Biblical p***age where Jesus Christ makes any claim that God the Father really isn't His father--or where the Holy Ghost is His father--then please print it.

St John20:17-"Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God."

Billyray

11-09-2011, 07:50 AM

Jesus Christ was the Only Begotten Son of God the Father

Could you tell me exactly what you mean when you say "Only Begotten"?

BigJulie

11-09-2011, 08:49 AM

Could you tell me exactly what you mean when you say "Only Begotten"?

An interesting note Billyray---the word "only" and the word "begotten" have two different meanings in Hebrew. To say that Jesus was the "only" Son of God the Father and not to put in the "begotten" would mean that Jesus was no different from the other sons of God.

So, we do not know the details of how he is the "begotten" Son of God the Father, just that Mary was overcome by the Holy Ghost--but we do know that Jesus was not just a son of God as was Adam or any of God's children, but that Mary was Christ's mother and God the Father, his father. To me, that means that 23 chromosomes came from Mary and 23 chromosomes are God the Father's. How that happened, exactly---I don't know. What I do know is that God the Father is Christ's father.

Billyray

11-09-2011, 10:50 AM

An interesting note Billyray---the word "only" and the word "begotten" have two different meanings in Hebrew. To say that Jesus was the "only" Son of God the Father and not to put in the "begotten" would mean that Jesus was no different from the other sons of God.

But according to Mormonism every son or daughter of god was begotten and born in the pre earth life. Agree?

BigJulie

11-09-2011, 11:00 AM

But according to Mormonism every son or daughter of god was begotten and born in the pre earth life. Agree?

Disagree.

.
.
.

Billyray

11-09-2011, 11:07 AM

Disagree.

.
"Chapter 2: Our Heavenly Family," Gospel Principles, (2009)

"“Man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal [physical] body” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith [1998], 335)."

dberrie2000

11-09-2011, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by Billyray View Post
Could you tell me exactly what you mean when you say "Only Begotten"?

But according to Mormonism every son or daughter of god was begotten and born in the pre earth life. Agree?

I'm combining these questions, because I believe they are related.

The LDS belief of the "Only Begotten" is that Jesus Christ is the only One ever begotten to this earth with a Heavenly Father and an earthly mother.

Unique.

Yes--the LDS believe that every spirit was begotten of God the Father before the birth of the physical body here, which it inhabits, and returns to God after death, who gave it.

Billyray

11-09-2011, 11:19 AM

I'm combining these questions, because I believe they are related.

The LDS belief of the "Only Begotten" is that Jesus Christ is the only One ever begotten to this earth with a Heavenly Father and an earthly mother.

Unique.

Yes--the LDS believe that every spirit was begotten of God the Father before the birth of the physical body here, which it inhabits, and returns to God after death, who gave it.

So God the Father begot Jesus and Mary then the Father begot Jesus' again with his daughter who was begotten. Correct?

dberrie2000

11-09-2011, 11:50 AM

Billyray

11-09-2011, 11:53 AM

One point here--God the Father did not impregnate the spirit, which He is the Father of--He impregnated the physical body--which God was not the father of.

How did you come to this conclusion?

BigJulie

11-09-2011, 11:56 AM

How did you come to this conclusion?

I think we need to clarify "begotten" Son or what it means.

Billyray, how do you believe that God the Father is the Father of Jesus Christ? If Mary is Christ's mother (23 chromosomes of Mary)...where and how did the other 23 chromosomes show up, according to you. and how does that make Christ different from Adam, who was created by God?

Billyray

11-09-2011, 12:07 PM

Billyray, how do you believe that God the Father is the Father of Jesus Christ?

I believe that the Father and Son have been eternal Father and Son in a Father/Son relationship.

dberrie2000

11-09-2011, 12:08 PM

Billyray

11-09-2011, 12:09 PM

If Mary is Christ's mother (23 chromosomes of Mary)...where and how did the other 23 chromosomes show up, according to you. and how does that make Christ different from Adam, who was created by God?

We aren't given the details of this but God could create an embryo via his word.

Billyray

11-09-2011, 12:10 PM

what conclusion are you referring to?
The one bolded in your post below.

one point here--god the father did not impregnate the spirit, which he is the father of--he impregnated the physical body--which god was not the father of.

dberrie2000

11-09-2011, 12:11 PM

I believe that the Father and Son have been eternal Father and Son in a Father/Son relationship.

Hebrews1:5--"For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?"

BigJulie

11-09-2011, 12:12 PM

I believe that the Father and Son have been eternal Father and Son in a Father/Son relationship.

Okay, so to you, he is not the "begotten" Son of the Father, but just have this type of relationship.

So, you still didn't answer my question:

Billyray, how do you believe that God the Father is the Father of Jesus Christ? If Mary is Christ's mother (23 chromosomes of Mary)...where and how did the other 23 chromosomes show up, according to you. and how does that make Christ different from Adam, who was created by God?

Where did Christ get his extra 23 chromosomes from Billyray? How is Christ different physically from Adam?

BigJulie

11-09-2011, 12:13 PM

We aren't given the details of this but God could create an embryo via his word.

But, then how is Christ different from Adam? Are both bodies just physical creations of God?

Snow Patrol

11-09-2011, 12:14 PM

I believe that the Father and Son have been eternal Father and Son in a Father/Son relationship.

Would it surprise you to learn that I've had many mainstream christians tell me that the Father/Son role is more ***le than actual relationship. They said there is not Father/Son relationship but Father is a ***le of heirarchy only.

Billyray

11-09-2011, 12:15 PM

Hebrews1:5--"For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?"

ESV Study Bible
". . .today I have begotten you. A poetic expression reflecting the unique relationship of the Son to God Almighty (see further Heb. 1:6); this speaks of entering into a new phase of that Father-Son relationship and should not be pressed to suggest that the Son once did not exist (he has begotten the already living Son “today”. . ."

BigJulie

11-09-2011, 12:18 PM

ESV Study Bible
". . .today I have begotten you. A poetic expression reflecting the unique relationship of the Son to God Almighty (see further Heb. 1:6); this speaks of entering into a new phase of that Father-Son relationship and should not be pressed to suggest that the Son once did not exist (he has begotten the already living Son “today”. . ."

So, to you, when you read that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotton of the Father--your response seems to be "but not really."

So, then why did Mary need to be overcome by the Holy Ghost--why not just produce a body the way Adam was produced or just the regular way a baby was produced and then implant in that body the spirit of God? And then why say "the only begotten" if it really wasn't the "begotten" Son of God?

Billyray

11-09-2011, 12:18 PM

Okay, so to you, he is not the "begotten" Son of the Father, but just have this type of relationship.

Yes that they were always in Father Son relationship. Even you believe this prior to Christ's incarnation.

So, you still didn't answer my question:

Billyray, how do you believe that God the Father is the Father of Jesus Christ? If Mary is Christ's mother (23 chromosomes of Mary)...where and how did the other 23 chromosomes show up, according to you. and how does that make Christ different from Adam, who was created by God?

Where did Christ get his extra 23 chromosomes from Billyray? How is Christ different physically from Adam?
Actually I answered it here

We aren't given the details of this but God could create an embryo via his word.
God can create by simply speaking it into existence. We aren't given any details such my answer is simply my opinion but God could have created an embryo without using any of Mary's chromosomes.

BigJulie

11-09-2011, 12:20 PM

Yes that they were always in Father Son relationship. Even you believe this prior to Christ's incarnation.

Actually I answered it here

God can create by simply speaking it into existence. We aren't given any details such my answer is simply my opinion but God could have created an embryo without using any of Mary's chromosomes.

So, to you, when you read that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotton of the Father--your response seems to be "but not really."

So, then why did Mary need to be overcome by the Holy Ghost--why not just produce a body the way Adam was produced or just the regular way a baby was produced and then implant in that body the spirit of God? And then why say "the only begotten" if it really wasn't the "begotten" Son of God?

dberrie2000

11-09-2011, 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post
I'm combining these questions, because I believe they are related.

The LDS belief of the "Only Begotten" is that Jesus Christ is the only One ever begotten to this earth with a Heavenly Father and an earthly mother.

Unique.

Yes--the LDS believe that every spirit was begotten of God the Father before the birth of the physical body here, which it inhabits, and returns to God after death, who gave it.

Originally Posted by Billyray View Post
So God the Father begot Jesus and Mary then the Father begot Jesus' again with his daughter who was begotten. Correct?

dberrie----One point here--God the Father did not impregnate the spirit, which He is the Father of--He impregnated the physical body--which God was not the father of.

We have earthly fathers for that.

If your ****ogy was true--then we, as humans, are impregnating our sisters, as God the Father is the Father of spirits.

The "Only Begotten" applies to the flesh, not the spirit.

Originally Posted by Billyray View Post
How did you come to this conclusion?

dberrie---What conclusion are you referring to?

The one bolded in your post below.

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post
one point here--god the father did not impregnate the spirit, which he is the father of--he impregnated the physical body--which god was not the father of.

Billy--one point here before we get started. Your reproduction of my quote is not an exact quote. Please make my posts the exact reproduction. Your rudeness of using lower case to denote the word "God" should not be contracted to my posts.

To your point--there are no pregnant spirits that return to God. That happens in the physical realm--the mortal body. Mortality producing mortality.

What is your evidence of pregnant spirits?

Billyray

11-09-2011, 12:25 PM

Billy--one point here before we get started. Your reproduction of my quote is not an exact quote. Please make my posts the exact reproduction. Your rudeness of using lower case to denote the word "God" should not be contracted to my posts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post
I'm combining these questions, because I believe they are related.

The LDS belief of the "Only Begotten" is that Jesus Christ is the only One ever begotten to this earth with a Heavenly Father and an earthly mother.

Unique.

Yes--the LDS believe that every spirit was begotten of God the Father before the birth of the physical body here, which it inhabits, and returns to God after death, who gave it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billyray View Post
So God the Father begot Jesus and Mary then the Father begot Jesus' again with his daughter who was begotten. Correct?
Quote:
dberrie----One point here--God the Father did not impregnate the spirit, which He is the Father of--He impregnated the physical body--which God was not the father of.

We have earthly fathers for that.

If your ****ogy was true--then we, as humans, are impregnating our sisters, as God the Father is the Father of spirits.

The "Only Begotten" applies to the flesh, not the spirit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billyray View Post
How did you come to this conclusion?
Quote:
dberrie---What conclusion are you referring to?
quote=Billyray;101703The one bolded in your post below.

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post
one point here--god the father did not impregnate the spirit, which he is the father of--he impregnated the physical body--which god was not the father of.quote]

Billy--one point here before we get started. Your reproduction of my quote is not an exact quote. Please make my posts the exact reproduction. Your rudeness of using lower case to denote the word "God" should not be contracted to my posts.

To your point--there are no pregnant spirits that return to God. That happens in the physical realm--the mortal body. Mortality producing mortality.

What is your evidence of pregnant spirits?

DB your posts are so messy it is hard to tell who is speaking. Why don't you clean them up a little bit before you make any further complaints.

dberrie2000

11-09-2011, 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post
Hebrews1:5--"For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?"

ESV Study Bible
". . .today I have begotten you. A poetic expression reflecting the unique relationship of the Son to God Almighty (see further Heb. 1:6); this speaks of entering into a new phase of that Father-Son relationship and should not be pressed to suggest that the Son once did not exist (he has begotten the already living Son “today”. . ."

Personal commentaries do not supplant the scriptures--what is it about "shall be to me a Son" being future tense that you do not agree with--as it relates to "this day have I begotten thee?"

Billyray

11-09-2011, 12:29 PM

To your point--there are no pregnant spirits that return to God.

One point here--God the Father did not impregnate the spirit, which He is the Father of--He impregnated the physical body--which God was not the father of.

You didn't answer the question. Why do you say that god the father did not impregnate the spirit?

Billyray

11-09-2011, 12:32 PM

what is it about "shall be to me a Son" being future tense that you do not agree with
That he was a Son eternally not that he was NOT a son then became a son at a certain point in time. Is that what you believe that Jesus was not a son prior to being impregnated/born?

dberrie2000

11-09-2011, 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post
Billy--one point here before we get started. Your reproduction of my quote is not an exact quote. Please make my posts the exact reproduction. Your rudeness of using lower case to denote the word "God" should not be contracted to my posts.

DB your posts are so messy it is hard to tell who is speaking. Why don't you clean them up a little bit before you make any further complaints.

No matter how messy you deem my posts--that is no excuse for posting changes in the reproduction of my posts--period.

dberrie2000

11-09-2011, 12:38 PM

dberrie---To your point--there are no pregnant spirits that return to God. That happens in the physical realm--the mortal body. Mortality producing mortality.

What is your evidence of pregnant spirits?

You didn't answer the question. Why do you say that god the father did not impregnate the spirit?

What is it about mortality reproducing mortality we are not getting? Since the spirit leaves the body upon death, and returns to God--then there must be are two separate en***ies.

We know that the physical mortal body bears the mortal child. All of those who have reached the adult age understands that. What evidence do you have that the spirit is impregnated?

Are you saying that if one dies in pregnancy--then a pregnant spirit returns to God?

Billyray

11-09-2011, 12:41 PM

No matter how messy you deem my posts--that is no excuse for posting changes in the reproduction of my posts--period.

Half the time I don't know who you are even quoting then you go back and fix it after I have already quoted it.

Billyray

11-09-2011, 12:43 PM

What is it about mortality reproducing mortality we are not getting? . . We know that the physical mortal body bears the mortal child.

Again you didn't answer my question. Is the father mortal or immortal?

Billyray

11-09-2011, 12:44 PM

What evidence do you have that the spirit is impregnated?
"Chapter 2: Our Heavenly Family," Gospel Principles, (2009)

"“Man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal [physical] body” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith [1998], 335)."

dberrie2000

11-09-2011, 12:47 PM

That he was a Son eternally not that he was NOT a son then became a son at a certain point in time. Is that what you believe that Jesus was not a son prior to being impregnated/born?

Jesus Christ was a Son before He came to earth--in the Spirit--as we all are as spirits.

That Jesus confirmed:

St John20:17--"Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God."

God the Father is the Father and God of spirits.

That Jesus Christ is the "Only Begotten" Son is reference to the earthly fleshly child of His mother Mary and His Father God the Father.

He was the only One ever born to this earth that had an earthly mother and a heavenly Father.

That distinguishes Jesus Christ as the "Only Begotten". If the disciples shared the same God and Father as Jesus Christ did--that is not a unique situation, and applies only to the spirit. The "Only Begotten" applies only to the flesh.

dberrie2000

11-09-2011, 12:53 PM

dberrie---What is it about mortality reproducing mortality we are not getting? Since the spirit leaves the body upon death, and returns to God--then there must be are two separate en***ies.

We know that the physical mortal body [/B]bears the mortal child. All of those who have reached the adult age understands that. What evidence do you have that the spirit is impregnated?

Are you saying that if one dies in pregnancy--then a pregnant spirit returns to God?

"Chapter 2: Our Heavenly Family," Gospel Principles, (2009)

"“Man, as a spirit, [B]was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal [physical] body” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith [1998], 335)."

And just how do you relate this to the physical mortal body, and the spirit therein? How does this confirm that the spirit of the mortal body is impregnated?

How does even the immortal body being impregnated mean that the spirit is impregnated? You are printing that the spirit was begotten by heavenly parents--not that the spirit was impregnated.

dberrie2000

11-09-2011, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post
What is it about mortality reproducing mortality we are not getting? . . We know that the physical mortal body bears the mortal child.

Again you didn't answer my question. Is the father mortal or immortal?

What father are you referring to? The one who impregnated the mortal Mary was immortal--that is the reason Christ possessed mortality and immortality, and hence--the "Only Begotten".

All other fathers are mortals, here in the mortal realm.

But ALL mothers have been mortals, and there is no record of their spirits being impregnated. Mary's mortal, physical body carried the Baby--the impregnation happened there.

Billy--give it up. Your point has been lost.

BigJulie

11-09-2011, 01:07 PM

I am just still trying to figure out who Billyray thinks Jesus Christ's father was since he seems to think the term "begotten" is spoken more in poetic terms rather than concrete terms. As we know that Christ had a human body--I am wondering if half of his chromosomes were the virgin Mary's (his mother), then where exactly did he get the other 23?...and if they were just "created" by God, then how would Christ be any different from Adam---also a creation of God?

Billyray

11-09-2011, 01:14 PM

Jesus Christ was a Son before He came to earth--in the Spirit--as we all are as spirits.

Of course he was. But I was addressing your comment below.

what is it about "shall be to me a Son" being future tense that you do not agree with
That he was a Son eternally not that he was NOT a son then became a son at a certain point in time. Is that what you believe that Jesus was not a son prior to being impregnated/born?

Billyray

11-09-2011, 01:15 PM

Billyray

11-09-2011, 01:18 PM

You are printing that the spirit was begotten by heavenly parents--not that the spirit was impregnated.

Chapter 2: Our Heavenly Family," Gospel Principles, (2009)

"“Man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal [physical] body” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith [1998], 335)."

The spirit was begotten and born. How are you defining begotten?

BigJulie

11-09-2011, 01:31 PM

What part didn't you understand about my answer?

All of it---to me, you are just basically saying that the body of Christ is just like any other body that God created such as Adam. Therefore, to you, Christ is not the begotton Son of the Father, but the term begotton only is used in a poetic term such as calling a dear friend an uncle even though there is no real relationship. Is this correct?

dberrie2000

11-09-2011, 01:35 PM

Chapter 2: Our Heavenly Family," Gospel Principles, (2009)

"“Man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal [physical] body” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith [1998], 335)."

The spirit was begotten and born. How are you defining begotten?

Billyray--to recap our discussion--you trying to connect Mary's impregnation to incest.

Again--how are you tying the begetting of spirits to the impregnation of Mary's spirit, instead of her mortal body? This is where our discussion began:

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post
I'm combining these questions, because I believe they are related.

The LDS belief of the "Only Begotten" is that Jesus Christ is the only One ever begotten to this earth with a Heavenly Father and an earthly mother.

Unique.

Yes--the LDS believe that every spirit was begotten of God the Father before the birth of the physical body here, which it inhabits, and returns to God after death, who gave it.

Originally Posted by Billyray View Post
So God the Father begot Jesus and Mary then the Father begot Jesus' again with his daughter who was begotten. Correct?

dberrie---One point here--God the Father did not impregnate the spirit, which He is the Father of--He impregnated the physical body--which God was not the father of.

We have earthly fathers for that.

If your ****ogy was true--then we, as humans, are impregnating our sisters, as God the Father is the Father of spirits.

The "Only Begotten" applies to the flesh, not the spirit.

Billyray

11-09-2011, 01:36 PM

Billyray--to recap our discussion--you trying to connect Mary's impregnation to incest.

Isn't that true from the LDS point of view?

Billyray

11-09-2011, 01:37 PM

Again--how are you tying the begetting of spirits to the impregnation of Mary's spirit, instead of her mortal body?

I am asking specifically about this quote.

Chapter 2: Our Heavenly Family," Gospel Principles, (2009)
"“Man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal [physical] body” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith [1998], 335)."

The spirit was begotten and born. How are you defining begotten?

BigJulie

11-09-2011, 01:42 PM

I am asking specifically about this quote.

Chapter 2: Our Heavenly Family," Gospel Principles, (2009)
"“Man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal [physical] body” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith [1998], 335)."

The spirit was begotten and born. How are you defining begotten?

It means that our spirits are made up of the spiritual matter of God.

Likewise, we believe that our begotten bodies are made up of the physical matter of our parents (their DNA).

In that light, I asked you your definition of begotten and stated in trying to understand your definition as explained by you:

"you are just basically saying that the body of Christ is just like any other "body that God created such as Adam. Therefore, to you, Christ is not the begotton Son of the Father, but the term begotton only is used in a poetic term such as calling a dear friend an uncle even though there is no real relationship. Is this correct?"

Once again, is this correct?

Billyray

11-09-2011, 01:45 PM

It means that our spirits are made up of the spiritual matter of God.

So the spirits were begotten and born through a procreative act just like Jesus was begotten and born?

Billyray

11-09-2011, 01:47 PM

Therefore, to you, Christ is not the begotton Son of the Father, but the term begotton only is used in a poetic term such as calling a dear friend an uncle even though there is no real relationship. Is this correct?"

We are not told the exact mechanism, but I don't believe that the Father came down and had sex with Mary like I used to believe when I was LDS.

BigJulie

11-09-2011, 01:47 PM

So the spirits were begotten and born through a procreative act just like Jesus was begotten and born?

You are ignoring my question and making ***umptions that I did not state. We don't know how Mary was impregnated, only that she was overcome by the Holy Ghost and was impregnanted as she did become pregnant (or do you disagree with that?)

That said---you are ignoring my question. Did I have it correct in my descripion regarding what it means to you for Christ to be the "only begotten" of the Father?

BigJulie

11-09-2011, 01:50 PM

We are not told the exact mechanism, but I don't believe that the Father came down and had sex with Mary like I used to believe when I was LDS.

Okay--so this has gone from what it means to be begotten to your accusations regarding how Mary became impregnated. Well---to me, it just doesn't matter. I don't see sex as an evil or wicked thing especially in light of the fact that God created man and woman in His image and marriage is ordained of God and having children (procreation) is one of the most Godlike things we do.

That said, you are ignoring what you think it means that Christ is the begotten of the Father. Do you believe the term "begotten" does not mean what it means in every other case when it is used in the Bible? Are you changing the definition of "begotten" to suit your faith?

dberrie2000

11-09-2011, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post
Billyray--to recap our discussion--you trying to connect Mary's impregnation to incest.

Isn't that true from the LDS point of view?

No. And one has to do no more than weed through our posts to see that your accusations did not pan out there.

Billyray

11-09-2011, 02:08 PM

Okay--so this has gone from what it means to be begotten to your accusations regarding how Mary became impregnated.
That is what you believe isn't? That is what I used to believe.

Billyray

11-09-2011, 02:09 PM

Do you believe the term "begotten" does not mean what it means in every other case when it is used in the Bible?

You mean become pregnant via sex? Then no I don't believe that.

dberrie2000

11-09-2011, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post

Again--how are you tying the begetting of spirits to the impregnation of Mary's spirit, instead of her mortal body?

I am asking specifically about this quote.

Chapter 2: Our Heavenly Family," Gospel Principles, (2009)
"“Man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal [physical] body” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith [1998], 335)."

The spirit was begotten and born. How are you defining begotten?

I know exactly what you are doing, Billy. As soon as you lose one argument--you flip flop through another one.

be·get--Merriam Webster
verb \bi-ˈget, bē-\
be·got\-ˈgät\ also be·gat\-ˈgat\be·got·ten\-ˈgä-tən\ or be·gotbe·get·ting
Definition of BEGET
transitive verb
1
: to procreate as the father : sire
2
: to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth
— be·get·ter noun

Billyray

11-09-2011, 02:12 PM

No.

1. Mary is the literal daughter begotten and born.

2. Mary is the literal wife of the father for the physical body of Jesus.

Agree?

Billyray

11-09-2011, 02:12 PM

As soon as you lose one argument

What argument did I lose?

BigJulie

11-09-2011, 02:21 PM

You mean become pregnant via sex? Then no I don't believe that.

Okay, Billyray, even for you, you are stretching.

I said regarding what it means to be "begotten":

It means that our spirits are made up of the spiritual matter of God.

Likewise, we believe that our begotten bodies are made up of the physical matter of our parents (their DNA)

and:

So, we do not know the details of how he is the "begotten" Son of God the Father, just that Mary was overcome by the Holy Ghost--but we do know that Jesus was not just a son of God as was Adam or any of God's children, but that Mary was Christ's mother and God the Father, his father. To me, that means that 23 chromosomes came from Mary and 23 chromosomes are God the Father's. How that happened, exactly---I don't know. What I do know is that God the Father is Christ's father.

You are ignoring my responses and instead, I guess I will have to rely on Paul when he taught:

2Ti 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.

As usual Billyray, you are beginning to rely on "foolish and unlearned" questions rather than honest ones.

That said---you never told me if I was correct in your description of what it means to by "begotten"---is it to you rather just a figure of speech regarding Christ and does not have the same meaning as when it is used in other parts of the Bible?

Billyray

11-09-2011, 02:24 PM

That Jesus Christ is the "Only Begotten" Son is reference to the earthly fleshly child of His mother Mary and His Father God the Father.

Which verse are you using for "only begotten"?

BigJulie

11-09-2011, 02:27 PM

Which verse are you using for "only begotten"?

1Jo 4:9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

Compare to:

Hbr 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten [son],

(Keep in mind, that Abraham also had Ishmael---and if you read this in account in the OT which this refers to in Hebrew, it says his son (which means begotten), his only (which means the child of the covenant.) In others, his "only" is a separate phrase.)

Billyray

11-09-2011, 02:30 PM

To me, that means that 23 chromosomes came from Mary and 23 chromosomes are God the Father's.

As I said before God can create by speaking it into existence. God could have created an embryo and not utilized Mary's egg at all if that is what he wanted.

BigJulie

11-09-2011, 02:32 PM

As I said before God can create by speaking it into existence. God could have created an embryo and not utilized Mary's egg at all if that is what he wanted.

You are right. But, then, how would she be his mother? Was Mary his "adopted" mother---his serogate mother? And then, if that be the case, where did the 46 chromosomes come from? Was Christ body just another one like Adam's, one that God created, but was not the actual father of? Why say "begotten" then?

Billyray

11-09-2011, 02:33 PM

1Jo 4:9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

1 John 4:9 (from Net Bible page)

NET 4:9 By this 1 the love of God is revealed in us: that God has sent his one and only Son into the world so that we may live through him.

NIV 4:9 This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him.

NASB4:9 By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him.

ESV 4:9 In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him.

NLT 4:9 God showed how much he loved us by sending his one and only Son into the world so that we might have eternal life through him.

BBE 4:9 And the love of God was made clear to us when he sent his only Son into the world so that we might have life through him.

NRSV 4:9 God’s love was revealed among us in this way: God sent his only Son into the world so that we might live through him.

KJV 4:9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

Not all versions translated it "only begotten" son.

BigJulie

11-09-2011, 02:35 PM

1 John 4:9 (from Net Bible page)

NET 4:9 By this 1 the love of God is revealed in us: that God has sent his one and only Son into the world so that we may live through him.

NIV 4:9 This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him.

NASB4:9 By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him.

ESV 4:9 In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him.

NLT 4:9 God showed how much he loved us by sending his one and only Son into the world so that we might have eternal life through him.

BBE 4:9 And the love of God was made clear to us when he sent his only Son into the world so that we might have life through him.

NRSV 4:9 God’s love was revealed among us in this way: God sent his only Son into the world so that we might live through him.

KJV 4:9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

Not all versions translated it "only begotten" son.

Yes, I realize that, which is why I pointed you to Abraham in which "only begotten" is used for Isaac even though Ishmael was also Abraham's begotten son and explained to you that the term "only" does not mean a single child---but rather the child of the covenant. In that case--Christ could be just like Adam or anyone else created by God and is considered the child of the covenant alone and not begotten. Is that what you believe?

If you read the account of Isaac in the OT in Hebrew, it phrases "only" and "begotten" in two separate phrases...so it would be said -- "your son (which means begotten), your only (which means the child of the covenant.)

Billyray

11-09-2011, 02:38 PM

Yes, I realize that, which is why I pointed you to Abraham in which "only begotten" is used for Isaac even though Ishmael was also Abraham's begotten son and explained to you that the term "only" does not mean a single child---but rather the child of the covenant.

And you also believe that only may not mean only because you were also begotten by your father.

BigJulie

11-09-2011, 02:40 PM

And you also believe that only may not mean only because you were also begotten by your father.

No, that is why I said I disagree, because in the NT, the term "only begotten" means, the child of the covenant who is begotten of the father, refering to his physical body. Which is why in the Bible, we have the term "sons of God" and the terms "begotten Son" of God---noting the difference. The term "only" then denotes that Christ is not only the alone begotten of the father but also the child of the covenant.

Billyray

11-09-2011, 02:45 PM

Which is why in the Bible, we have the term "sons of God" and the terms "begotten Son" of God---noting the difference.
Both are begotten by the father--which of course you believe. Right?

Billyray

11-09-2011, 02:46 PM

No, that is why I said I disagree, because in the NT, the term "only begotten" means,
But not all versions use the term "only begotten" rather they use one and only.

BigJulie

11-09-2011, 02:50 PM

Both are begotten by the father--which of course you believe. Right?

No, not right---"sons of God" are begotten by their earthly parents and refers to those born on earth and Christ being "begotten" of the Father refers to the fact that His Father is God the Father.

BigJulie

11-09-2011, 02:51 PM

But not all versions use the term "only begotten" rather they use one and only.

So, are you saying that you don't believe that Christ "begotten" of the Father and that God the Father is not really His Father?

Billyray

11-09-2011, 02:53 PM

So, are you saying that you don't believe that Christ "begotten" of the Father and that God the Father is not really His Father?

The Father and Son have eternally been Father and Son. The Father did not procreate the Son by sex with Mary like the LDS teach.

BigJulie

11-09-2011, 03:03 PM

The Father and Son have eternally been Father and Son. The Father did not procreate the Son by sex with Mary like the LDS teach.

So, what are you saying---that after everything I have told you regarding my beliefs, you are going to rely on your salacious smearing of my beliefs? But I guess by your comments, you think sex is bad or naughty or disgusting and so you have to project that untrue belief onto me. *sigh*

Critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sometimes proclaim that the LDS believe that God had sex with Mary, resulting in the conception of Jesus. This is simply not true. While some members of the Church may have speculated concerning the conception of Jesus, the Church has never had a teaching concerning this event. This can easily be seen in a letter written by President Harold B. Lee to a brother in Logan, Utah. The letter is reproduced below. An edited version is also quoted in The Teachings of Harold B. Lee (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1996), 14.

http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Did_God_Have_Sex_with_Mary.html

For the letter, you can go to the website.

Billyray

11-09-2011, 03:06 PM

So, what are you saying---that after everything I have told you regarding my beliefs, you are going to rely on your salacious smearing of my beliefs?

Why is stating the facts a "salacious smearing of my beliefs"?

BigJulie

11-09-2011, 03:08 PM

Why is stating the facts a "salacious smearing of my beliefs"?
I will repeat.

Critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sometimes proclaim that the LDS believe that God had sex with Mary, resulting in the conception of Jesus. This is simply not true. While some members of the Church may have speculated concerning the conception of Jesus, the Church has never had a teaching concerning this event. This can easily be seen in a letter written by President Harold B. Lee to a brother in Logan, Utah. The letter is reproduced below. An edited version is also quoted in The Teachings of Harold B. Lee (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1996), 14.

http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Did_God_...with_Mary.html

Billyray

11-09-2011, 03:17 PM

I will repeat.
That is what I believed as an LDS member and that is what some of your leaders taught. But since every LDS has different beliefs then I believe you that you do not believe sex was involved.

So how is your concept of how Mary became pregnant different than mine?

BigJulie

11-09-2011, 03:21 PM

That is what I believed as an LDS member and that is what some of your leaders taught. But since every LDS has different beliefs then I believe you that you do not believe sex was involved.

So how is your concept of how Mary became pregnant different than mine?

I will repeat:

Critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sometimes proclaim that the LDS believe that God had sex with Mary, resulting in the conception of Jesus. This is simply not true. While some members of the Church may have speculated concerning the conception of Jesus, the Church has never had a teaching concerning this event. This can easily be seen in a letter written by President Harold B. Lee to a brother in Logan, Utah. The letter is reproduced below. An edited version is also quoted in The Teachings of Harold B. Lee (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1996), 14.

http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Did_God_...with_Mary.html My version is different because you seem to think that "begotten" of the Father is just a poetic term and that Jesus Christ is not really the Son of God the Father.

You seem to be caught up in how he could be the Son of God rather than acknowledging that He is the Son of God. I say, it doesn't matter how---all we know is that Mary was overcome by the Holy Ghost--other than that, we know nothing concerning HOW, but we do know that HE IS the Son of God.

Billyray

11-09-2011, 03:24 PM

I will repeat.
You pushed it so lets look at quotes from your leaders.

"The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood—was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers," (Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 115).

Can you tell me what this statement means?

dberrie2000

11-09-2011, 03:26 PM

The Father and Son have eternally been Father and Son. The Father did not procreate the Son by sex with Mary like the LDS teach.

However you might think God impregnated Mary--Mary was the mother, and God the Father was the father of Jesus Christ.

There was a baby in her womb.

Mary's gestation period was the same as any other normal pregnancy--the baby was a normal baby delivered through the womb of woman.

What about that is not procreation?

BigJulie

11-09-2011, 03:30 PM

You pushed it so lets look at quotes from your leaders.

"The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood—was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers," (Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 115).
Can you tell me what this statement means?

Regarding the Journal of Discourses:

Critics often use the Journal of Discourses to show both nonmembers and LDS what The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints supposedly "really believes" to be official doctrine on subjects that have been considered to be either controversial or touchy by members of the Church....

Critics also ignore other statements by LDS leaders that explain how they saw the material published in venues like the Journal of Discourses. ....

One might ***ume, based on how critics quote the Journal of Discourses, that it is something to be shunned, and generally ignored. It does in fact have some errors in it. However many of these errors can be attributed to the fact that the discourses given by the brethren were not always reviewed by them for errors (many gave their sermons impromptu, especially Brigham Young). This of course makes it much more difficult to determine the intent of the speaker.

I guess Billyray, when you went to church you studied the Journal of Discourses rather than the scriptures. Strange.

Billyray

11-09-2011, 03:30 PM

What about that is not procreation?

"The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood—was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers," (Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 115).

The natural action.

Billyray

11-09-2011, 03:31 PM

I guess Billyray, when you went to church you studied the Journal of Discourses rather than the scriptures. Strange.

"The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood—was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers," (Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 115).

So you don't believe Brigham Young?

Billyray

11-09-2011, 03:32 PM

I guess Billyray, when you went to church you studied the Journal of Discourses rather than the scriptures. Strange.

Actually I liked Mormon Doctrine as well.

"Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers," (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, p. 547).

Can you tell me what this means?

BigJulie

11-09-2011, 03:42 PM

Actually I liked Mormon Doctrine as well.

"Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers," (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, p. 547).

Can you tell me what this means?

Mormon Doctrine and the Journal of Discourses are your "scriptures'---okay.

This is what is interesting about the critics of the my faith---they want to make the discussion surrounding our scriptures our doctrine while ignoring our doctrine. I have told you what I believe. The Journal of Discourses and Mormon Doctrine are not scriptural. They are discussions--nothing more and nothing less.

Billyray

11-09-2011, 03:49 PM

Mormon Doctrine and the Journal of Discourses are your "scriptures'---okay.

You do believe that Brigham Young was a prophet of God don't you?

Why is it unfair to quote one of your revered leaders. Do you think that he is wrong?

dberrie2000

11-09-2011, 03:54 PM

dberrie----However you might think God impregnated Mary--Mary was the mother, and God the Father was the father of Jesus Christ.

There was a baby in her womb.

Mary's gestation period was the same as any other normal pregnancy--the baby was a normal baby delivered through the womb of woman.

What about that is not procreation?

"The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood—was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers," (Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 115).

The natural action.

It was procreation whether you believe it was a natural or a unnatural action.

Jesus Christ was a begotten Son of God the Father. Period. Your straining at gnats will not change that.

BigJulie

11-09-2011, 03:55 PM

You do believe that Brigham Young was a prophet of God don't you?

Why is it unfair to quote one of your revered leaders. Do you think that he is wrong?

Well, first off---you make the mistake of thinking that everything that comes out of a prophet's mouth is prophetic. The Journal of Discourses and Mormon Doctrine are excellent examples of apostles and prophets stating their opinions. If they had been revelations, their statements would have been canonized into our scriptures.

So, what happens in the church? Prophets receive revelation from God and then all the members, including the prophets and apostles do their best to understand the revelation. For this, we get tons of discussion.

So, what do the critics do? They mull over this discussion as ways to make points as to what we believe. But as members, we understand that this is just discussion, nothing more and nothing less.

Do I agree with the discussion of Brigham Young and Bruce R. McConkie? I don't know. We dont' have revelation and so I can't say definitively what is right and what is wrong. What I can tell you is what I know. 1) Sex is not some disgusting thing as you seem to think it is . 2) I don't know the method in which Christ was conceived as we have no revelation to that matter--in fact, even our comments from these two apostles are not clear on that matter as you seem to think--see Dberries comment above. 3) Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God the Father. These three things I know for sure.

dberrie2000

11-09-2011, 03:55 PM

BigJulie

11-09-2011, 04:03 PM

It means Bruce R McConkie has an opinion.

Yes, this is so true. But it appears people like Billyray or Walter Martin was especially keen on this---they site our discussion as doctrine and completely ignore our doctrines.

dberrie2000

11-09-2011, 04:09 PM

Yes, this is so true. But it appears people like Billyray or Walter Martin was especially keen on this---they site our discussion as doctrine and completely ignore our doctrines.

It suites their cause--but it just is not the composition of a truthful discussion, not when trying to establish it as LDS doctrine. It isn't. Never has been.

Billy has not done very well in our discussions, so I understand his need to do so.

Billyray

11-09-2011, 04:13 PM

dberrie2000

11-09-2011, 04:27 PM

Do you feel the need to distance yourself from some of the quotes from your leaders?

Nope--not at all. I feel they are en***led to their opinions, as well as I am to mine.

All we are saying is--don't confuse that with LDS scripture.

Billyray

11-09-2011, 04:29 PM

Nope--not at all. I feel they are en***led to their opinions, as well as I am to mine.

So you would cl***ify all of the teachings of your leaders as "opinion" unless it is in your Quad?"

dberrie2000

11-09-2011, 04:41 PM

So you would cl***ify all of the teachings of your leaders as "opinion" unless it is in your Quad?"

Regardless of how I feel about the teachings of our leaders--there is a difference between canonized scripture and the comments of any leader in the church. It takes time and unity of the church to determine if it will be canonized scripture.

Billyray

11-09-2011, 04:50 PM

Regardless of how I feel about the teachings of our leaders--there is a difference between canonized scripture and the comments of any leader in the church.
So Thomas Monson gives you lots of his opinions a couple of times a year at conference?

dberrie2000

11-09-2011, 04:55 PM

So Thomas Monson gives you lots of his opinions a couple of times a year at conference?

The voice of the Prophet is usually recognized as more than an opinion, but it is not canonized scripture. But if the church goes in another direction than a prophet's voice--then it is considered his opinion.

Billyray

11-09-2011, 04:59 PM

The voice of the Prophet is usually recognized as more than an opinion, but it is not canonized scripture.
But it is still his opinion and nothing more. Is this a fair ***essment?

dberrie2000

11-09-2011, 05:07 PM

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post
The voice of the Prophet is usually recognized as more than an opinion, but it is not canonized scripture.

But it is still his opinion and nothing more. Is this a fair ***essment?

Is that what I said?

Billyray

11-09-2011, 05:14 PM

Is that what I said?

The voice of the Prophet is usually recognized as more than an opinion,

What exactly is "more than an opinion"? Is that simply just a plain old opinion like my opinion?

dberrie2000

11-09-2011, 05:17 PM

What exactly is "more than an opinion"? Is that simply just a plain old opinion like my opinion?

No. No LDS would listen to your opinion as they would a prophet's voice. It is more than an opinion to them. But again--if a prophet should state something that the church disagrees on--then it would be considered his opinion.

The LDS believe the prophet has his opinions also, as do all prophets.

BigJulie

11-09-2011, 05:19 PM

What exactly is "more than an opinion"? Is that simply just a plain old opinion like my opinion?

No---it means that when the student gives an opinion it does not hold as much weight as the teachers opinion, but we understand it is only the "text" that is revelation and not opinion.

So, Billyray, are you still going to avoid the question, do you believe that Jesus Christ is not really the Son of God, but that the idea that he is the "only begotten" of the Father is just more of a poetic figure of speech?

Billyray

11-09-2011, 05:20 PM

No. No LDS would listen to your opinion as they would a prophet's voice. It is more than an opinion to them. But again--if a prophet should state something that the church disagrees on--then it would be considered his opinion.

When would the church disagree with the prophet? Can you give me a recent example?

Billyray

11-09-2011, 05:21 PM

but we understand it is only the "text" that is revelation and not opinion.

What does this mean?

Billyray

11-09-2011, 05:21 PM

So, Billyray, are you still going to avoid the question, do you believe that Jesus Christ is not really the Son of God
Jesus is the Son and the Father is the Father.

BigJulie

11-09-2011, 05:26 PM

Jesus is the Son and the Father is the Father.

How so? Is Jesus Christ begotten of the Father or not?

dberrie2000

11-09-2011, 05:27 PM

Jesus is the Son and the Father is the Father.

But the question--is Jesus Christ the begotten Son of God the Father--Mary being the mother, and God the Father being the Father?

BigJulie

11-09-2011, 05:27 PM

What does this mean?

It means that the prophet leads the church and therefore, his opinion has more weight. That said, even a prophet realizes that all of his utterances are not prophetic and will gladly acknowledge at times that they are wrong. Just read the D&C and see how many times Joseph Smith is told to repent.

Billyray

11-09-2011, 05:29 PM

That said, even a prophet realizes that all of his utterances are not prophetic and will gladly acknowledge at times that they are wrong.
So did brigham young acknowledge that his quote was not true?

BigJulie

11-09-2011, 05:32 PM

So did brigham young acknowledge that his quote was not true?

The point is that Brigham Young never put his stamp of approval on the Journal of Discourses, nor did the other prophets and apostles. If they had, the Journal of Discourses would have been cannonized as scripture. That is a point that seems to keep going over your head--not sure why.

Billyray

11-09-2011, 05:34 PM

The point is that Brigham Young never put his stamp of approval on the Journal of Discourses, nor did the other prophets and apostles.
“The Journal of Discourses deservedly ranks as one of the standard works of the Church, and every rightminded Saint will certainly welcome with joy every number (issue) as it comes forth.“ (President George Q. Cannon, Journal of Discourses, Preface, Volume 8.)"

http://www.journalofdiscourses.org/

BigJulie

11-09-2011, 05:38 PM

“The Journal of Discourses deservedly ranks as one of the standard works of the Church, and every rightminded Saint will certainly welcome with joy every number (issue) as it comes forth.“ (President George Q. Cannon, Journal of Discourses, Preface, Volume 8.)"

http://www.journalofdiscourses.org/

Straight out of the Journal of Discourses which is not cannonized. Had this "deserved" been a standard works, it would have been one.

As noted, this seems to be the whole argument evangelicals have against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints---a set of books that the church does not consider scripture. As much as you want to make it such Billyray, it is not.

So, Billyray, seeing as we have hundreds of pages of scripture to look at---why not qualify your criticisms of my beliefs using what you absolutely know I take as revelation? Hundreds of pages Billyray, surely you can find something from them to critique us on.

Billyray

11-09-2011, 05:50 PM

Straight out of the Journal of Discourses which is not cannonized. Had this "deserved" been a standard works, it would have been one.

President George Q. Cannon was wrong on this one as well?

Billyray

11-09-2011, 05:54 PM

Straight out of the Journal of Discourses which is not cannonized. Had this "deserved" been a standard works, it would have been one.

Critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sometimes proclaim that the LDS believe that God had sex with Mary, resulting in the conception of Jesus. This is simply not true. While some members of the Church may have speculated concerning the conception of Jesus, the Church has never had a teaching concerning this event. This can easily be seen in a letter written by President Harold B. Lee to a brother in Logan, Utah. The letter is reproduced below. An edited version is also quoted in The Teachings of Harold B. Lee (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1996), 14.

http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Did_God_...with_Mary.html

Would you say that the above quote is simply opinion?

BigJulie

11-09-2011, 05:56 PM

President George Q. Cannon was wrong on this one as well?

Billyray---why not keep using the Journal of Discourses to attack the church. (Or better yet, attack the opinions about the opinions as above?) As certainly, there is nothing in our revelations in which to attack? Hundreds of pages of scriptures and yet you continue to continue going to sources that are not scriptures. It tells me just how weak your arguments are. It is like going to cliff notes and thinking you understand the whole book. :p

Billyray

11-09-2011, 05:58 PM

Billyray---why not keep using the Journal of Discourses to attack the church.

Because within its pages shows the false teachings of your leaders. You should wake up to this fact but my guess is that you are fast asleep.

BigJulie

11-09-2011, 06:01 PM

Because within its pages shows the false teachings of your leaders. You should wake up to this fact but my guess is that you are fast asleep.

No, being a member of the church for many, many years, I clearly understand that my beliefs are not decided by discussion had by older prophets, but rather revelation given in scriptures. All the discussion is just that, discussion.

But clearly, Billyray, as you do not look to attack our scriptures, I guess that means that you agree with them. Hundreds of pages of scripture and yet you go to the cliff notes. Okay.

dberrie2000

11-09-2011, 06:01 PM

Billyray

11-09-2011, 06:05 PM

Billyray--please know this one thing--the Journal of Discourses is not LDS scripture.

Why have modern day prophets if all you believe is that their words are simply opinions?

BigJulie

11-09-2011, 06:09 PM

Why have modern day prophets if all you believe is that their words are simply opinions?

Because they lead the affairs of the church and when needed, God gives them revelation. Listen to the conference talks Billyray---what you will hear is the prophets using scripture to teach. When something is a "revelation", it will be cannonized.

If you think everything a prophet ever spoke should be scripture---where are all of your scriptures? Or do you think the prophets and apostles were completely silent other than what you have a "scripture"?

dberrie2000

11-09-2011, 06:13 PM

Because they lead the affairs of the church and when needed, God gives them revelation. Listen to the conference talks Billyray---what you will hear is the prophets using scripture to teach. When something is a "revelation", it will be cannonized.

If you think everything a prophet ever spoke should be scripture---where are all of your scriptures? Or do you think the prophets and apostles were completely silent other than what you have a "scripture"?

That's a good point.

Billyray

11-09-2011, 06:13 PM

God gives them revelation.

What was the last revelation that your prophet received?

Billyray

11-09-2011, 06:14 PM

If you think everything a prophet ever spoke should be scripture

Give me all of the scripture that you have received from your last 2 prophets.

dberrie2000

11-09-2011, 06:15 PM

Why have modern day prophets if all you believe is that their words are simply opinions?

Cite, please. Could you cite that? Where do you find my opinion as the voice of prophets being just another opinion? Some of their words are opinion, but the LDS do not view the words of prophets as just another opinion.

BigJulie

11-09-2011, 06:17 PM

Give me all of the scripture that you have received from your last 2 prophets.

Why not from all the last prophets---it is called, The Bible, The Book of Mormon, The Pearl of Great Price, and the D&C.

Like I said Billyray--hundreds of pages. Dig through them and see what criticisms you have. If not---then your arguments are just fluff.

Billyray

11-09-2011, 06:19 PM

Why not from all the last prophets---it is called, The Bible, The Book of Mormon, The Pearl of Great Price, and the D&C.

Is there any scripture from the last two prophets?

dberrie2000

11-09-2011, 06:26 PM

Is there any scripture from the last two prophets?

If one were to notice--most prophets reinforce and restore those scriptures that have already been given.

Billyray

11-09-2011, 06:28 PM

If one were to notice--most prophets reinforce and restore those scriptures that have already been given.

Is that a no?

How about the last 3 prophets? Any scripture?

Jill

11-09-2011, 07:39 PM

Jill's comments that Jesus Christ's father was the Holy Ghost is foreign to the Biblical text.

"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost." Matt 1:18

"Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." Matt 1:20

BigJulie

11-09-2011, 07:56 PM

The sections from the Bible are scripture. Jeffrey's other words are simply his opinions. BTW Jeffery comes across as angry. Did you get that vibe from him?

No, I did not get anger from him. Interesting that you did. So---then, as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is up to us to pray about the words of the apostle (or sometimes the spirit just witnesses as you listen) and come to a decision regarding the truth of it.

Now, was it mandatory that Christ suffer alone for our atonement---was that just an opinion? That is up for you to decide between you and God.

neverending

11-09-2011, 08:02 PM

Jill's comments that Jesus Christ's father was the Holy Ghost is foreign to the Biblical text.

The Bible makes this claim--that Jesus Christ was the Only Begotten Son of God the Father. He never makes the claim that the Holy Ghost was His Father.

If you or anyone else on this forum has a Biblical p***age where Jesus Christ makes any claim that God the Father really isn't His father--or where the Holy Ghost is His father--then please print it.

St John20:17-"Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God."

db: Have you read where it says in Matt. 1:18, "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost." How can one agrue with this very verse as it is clear to me that Mary begot Christ through the power of the Holy Ghost. And since the Holy Ghost is a member of the Godhead, then we also have to accept that Christ was begotten by God the Father too, begotten by both for they are ONE God.
There are somethings within the story of Christ that we can't fully understand, this being one of them but we must say that He also had a part in the creation of his physical body. When Christ said, "God is spirit", that included himself too. Yes, I know that this concept is difficult to realize but try and think on it.

Billyray

11-09-2011, 08:06 PM

No, I did not get anger from him.

He seems so angry. You don't get that from him at all?

Billyray

11-09-2011, 08:08 PM

Now, was it mandatory that Christ suffer alone for our atonement---was that just an opinion?
Do you mean that there was only one savior and not two? Or are you asking about the part when Christ says "why have you forsaken me"? I am not sure what you are really asking?

Jill

11-09-2011, 08:16 PM

Jill

11-09-2011, 08:21 PM

The point is that Brigham Young never put his stamp of approval on the Journal of Discourses, nor did the other prophets and apostles. If they had, the Journal of Discourses would have been cannonized as scripture. That is a point that seems to keep going over your head--not sure why.

Uh, I think it's gone over your head, BigJulie.

Brigham Young

"I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom...I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 95)

"I am here to answer. I shall be on hand to answer when I am called upon, for all the counsel and for all the instruction that I have given to this people. If there is an Elder here, or any member of this Church, called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who can bring up the first idea, the first sentence that I have delivered to the people as counsel that is wrong, I really wish they would do it; but they cannot do it, for the simple reason that I have never given counsel that is wrong; this is the reason." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 16, p. 161)

"I say now, when they [his discourses] are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible . . . " (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 264; see also p. 95).

neverending

11-09-2011, 08:24 PM

Julie,
I watched the video.....Holland came across quite humble as he spoke of the Savior. My problem is this, Christ leads HIS Church today......HE promised he would never leave us nor forsake us. There is NO NEED for apostles or your self proclaimed prophet who has NEVER prophesized about anything, nor has his performed miracles of any kind. NO! He is only a figure head running a corporation, not a church. Is this what Christ would have wanted for HIS Church? Christ didn't care about money, he cared about making disciples and sending those disciples out into the world to preach HIS gospel, not the LDS made up gospel, which is another gospel spoken in Gal. 1:8-9, "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!" That is how strongly God feels about anyone preaching anything other than what Jesus taught. Mormonism is under this curse for your doctrines do not follow what Christ taught; your apostles are fake and do nothing but give lip service for they know that Mormonism is a lie but they love the money, power and prestige it alllows them.

Decalogue

11-09-2011, 08:38 PM

"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost." Matt 1:18

"Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." Matt 1:20

Amen ! and Amen ! Jill.

How is it that the Mormon Tabernacle Choir can sing those beautiful Christmas hymns of the Christian Faith , and yet the mormons reading this website do not know the verses that you posted ?

The L.D.S. folks reading this need to break open a Bible and turn over to Matthew 1 , and read it. Next , Luke chapter 1 and 2 . Plain as day folks. That's why your parents sent you to school - so you could learn to read. Mary asks the Angel Gabriel some questions. Open the Bible and see the words for yourself.

Jill ; You posted the correct answer and it is what I was going to use as a reply after a L.D.S. member quoted and posted to me. { page 3 iirc. }

I was trying to "cool down" before I went on a full ****n rant. My blood pressure almost spiked reading the disgusting blasphemy that these modern-day mormons are posting on this Thread. They are advocating physical incest between God the Father with a young jewish girl in the Dividic family line. They have bought into the filth of Joseph Smith's adulterous mindset. His Deputy - Brigham Young added onto the mental sludge of Joseph Smith with his statements which you correctly posted from his sermons ( Discourses ).

Shameless blasphemy. :eek:

BigJulie

11-09-2011, 08:55 PM

He seems so angry. You don't get that from him at all?

Not at all---sorrowful, sad--in pain, but not angry.

BigJulie

11-09-2011, 08:57 PM

Uh, I think it's gone over your head, BigJulie.

Brigham Young

"I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom...I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 95)

"I am here to answer. I shall be on hand to answer when I am called upon, for all the counsel and for all the instruction that I have given to this people. If there is an Elder here, or any member of this Church, called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who can bring up the first idea, the first sentence that I have delivered to the people as counsel that is wrong, I really wish they would do it; but they cannot do it, for the simple reason that I have never given counsel that is wrong; this is the reason." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 16, p. 161)

"I say now, when they [his discourses] are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible . . . " (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 264; see also p. 95).

All from the Journal of Discourses--which you know was not written by Brigham Young, right? Your argument becomes circular if you rely on the Journal of Discourses to prove the validity of the Journal of Discourses as scripture. Clearly, one can observe that we do not use the Journal of Discourses as our scripture and that makes the point alone.

BigJulie

11-09-2011, 09:00 PM

Amen ! and Amen ! Jill.

How is it that the Mormon Tabernacle Choir can sing those beautiful Christmas hymns of the Christian Faith , and yet the mormons reading this website do not know the verses that you posted ?

The L.D.S. folks reading this need to break open a Bible and turn over to Matthew 1 , and read it. Next , Luke chapter 1 and 2 . Plain as day folks. That's why your parents sent you to school - so you could learn to read. Mary asks the Angel Gabriel some questions. Open the Bible and see the words for yourself.

Jill ; You posted the correct answer and it is what I was going to use as a reply after a L.D.S. member quoted and posted to me. { page 3 iirc. }

I was trying to "cool down" before I went on a full ****n rant. My blood pressure almost spiked reading the disgusting blasphemy that these modern-day mormons are posting on this Thread. They are advocating physical incest between God the Father with a young jewish girl in the Dividic family line. They have bought into the filth of Joseph Smith's adulterous mindset. His Deputy - Brigham Young added onto the mental sludge of Joseph Smith with his statements which you correctly posted from his sermons ( Discourses ).

Shameless blasphemy. :eek:

No--this filth was not brought in by us, but first by your "filth"y mind and second by Billyray and others. What we have said is that we don't know how Christ is the Son of God, the only begotten Son of God---but we know that He is the Son of God.

How do you describe Christ being the Son of God? Do you, like Billyray, see this as just more a figure of speech than real?

And while Matthew states that Mary's child was of the Holy Ghost---Christ himself clearly states that He is not the Son of the Holy Ghost, but of the Father.

We are all waiting patiently for Jill to point us to the scripture where Christ declares Himself the Son of the Holy Ghost.

BigJulie

11-09-2011, 09:07 PM

We're getting off-topic here. The discussion is about why Mitt Romney is not a Christian based on historical and biblical proofs.

Talking about Jesus does not make you a Christian or there wouldn't be a history of Christians defending biblical doctrine against HERESY stretching back 2000 years. Heretics talked about Jesus all the time and even said some interesting things...but their talk was false teaching because their definitions were not biblical.

The heart of the matter is that Christians have defined Christianity consistently for 2000 years based on the Bible, and just talking nice about Jesus does not make you a Christian. Which Jesus are you talking about? Which God? What definition are you using?

Joseph Smith Jr. made up his own definitions, and that is why Mormonism is not Christian.

Yes, Jill, but the real irony is that not that many years ago, you would have killed on account of your heresy--so I find it almost laughable that someone who belongs to a Protestant religion who reads the Bible in English sees herself as defending "christianity"--as those who came before you who saw themselves as doing the same would see you as the heretic.

As I said, you are just one in a long line of many who have done the same all thinking that they know best.

neverending

11-09-2011, 09:08 PM

Amen ! and Amen ! Jill.

How is it that the Mormon Tabernacle Choir can sing those beautiful Christmas hymns of the Christian Faith , and yet the mormons reading this website do not know the verses that you posted ?

The L.D.S. folks reading this need to break open a Bible and turn over to Matthew 1 , and read it. Next , Luke chapter 1 and 2 . Plain as day folks. That's why your parents sent you to school - so you could learn to read. Mary asks the Angel Gabriel some questions. Open the Bible and see the words for yourself.

Jill ; You posted the correct answer and it is what I was going to use as a reply after a L.D.S. member quoted and posted to me. { page 3 iirc. }

I was trying to "cool down" before I went on a full ****n rant. My blood pressure almost spiked reading the disgusting blasphemy that these modern-day mormons are posting on this Thread. They are advocating physical incest between God the Father with a young jewish girl in the Dividic family line. They have bought into the filth of Joseph Smith's adulterous mindset. His Deputy - Brigham Young added onto the mental sludge of Joseph Smith with his statements which you correctly posted from his sermons ( Discourses ).

Shameless blasphemy. :eek:

Dec: All I can say to you is AMEN! And my blood pressure spikes every time I come here. What a vile thing to say about how our Savior came to be......totally disgusting! No wonder they have no comp***ion about our Savior's death if they can speak about his conception like they do. They don't give any real thought to what Hell is all about. Mormon's concept of Hell is not being allowed to progress and not being in god's presence, so anything short of exaltation would be Hell to them. They do not believe in the Lake of Fire even though it is written right there in Revelations. I don't want to see anyone face eternity being cast into that nightmarish place. Thank you for your comment and God bless.

BigJulie

11-09-2011, 09:10 PM

Dec: All I can say to you is AMEN! And my blood pressure spikes every time I come here. What a vile thing to say about how our Savior came to be......totally disgusting! No wonder they have no comp***ion about our Savior's death if they can speak about his conception like they do. They don't give any real thought to what Hell is all about. Mormon's concept of Hell is not being allowed to progress and not being in god's presence, so anything short of exaltation would be Hell to them. They do not believe in the Lake of Fire even though it is written right there in Revelations. I don't want to see anyone face eternity being cast into that nightmarish place. Thank you for your comment and God bless.

All I see is a bunch of critics of the LDS faith chasing windmills--making up their own fantasies regarding our beliefs and then being repulsed by them. *sigh*

Billyray

11-09-2011, 09:14 PM

-making up their own fantasies regarding our beliefs

BigJ I don't think quoting from your own leaders is making up fantasies. Do you?

BigJulie

11-09-2011, 09:21 PM

BigJ I don't think quoting from your own leaders is making up fantasies. Do you?

It is when those quotes are taken out of context away from our understanding and scriptures and something that is recognized today as not supported by scriptures--but merely discussion.

Jill and the rest of you would have the rest of the world believing that we go to church and use the Journal of Discourses and Bruce R. McConkies "Mormon Doctrine" as our scriptures. We don't. They are discussed very little and often only a small tidbit might be recited when something said supports the scriptures and our current understanding.

As I said this dialogue---this is meant to sensationalize my beliefs and the best guess I can come up with someone doing this is the same reason Christopher Hitchens writes his books and essays---because there is a paranoid "christian/republican right' out there that will believe anything sensational and it makes money. Just look at how worked up people are getting just on this site alone. The truth of our religion is far more boring.

As a note: The Kingdom of the Cults (now in the vicinity of some 750000 copies sold ), and Walter Martin has written many other books against many religions. Jill maybe can answer what happened to the money made from these books? Was it all donated to a '"church"--which church, etc?

neverending

11-09-2011, 09:22 PM

No--this filth was not brought in by us, but first by your "filth"y mind and second by Billyray and others. What we have said is that we don't know how Christ is the Son of God, the only begotten Son of God---but we know that He is the Son of God.

How do you describe Christ being the Son of God? Do you, like Billyray, see this as just more a figure of speech than real?

And while Matthew states that Mary's child was of the Holy Ghost---Christ himself clearly states that He is not the Son of the Holy Ghost, but of the Father.

We are all waiting patiently for Jill to point us to the scripture where Christ declares Himself the Son of the Holy Ghost.

BJ, what you just said to Decalogue is reportable! And as for how Christ came to be conceived, it WAS by the Holy Ghost as it says in Matt. This is your problem for NOT understanding the trinity. God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, all three in ONE GOD! Not three beings in purpose as your doctrines teach. If you don't like what the Bible teaches, that again is your problem and is sad. You can fall back on your Article of Faith that lets you off the hook with saying, "as long as its translated correctly." I will say again, ALL THREE of the Godhead were involved in the conception of Christ. Christ helping to create his own physical body. If Jesus is the Christ and is God, then there should never be any argument, for his word is true....God does not lie, at least mine doesn't but what about yours?

BigJulie

11-09-2011, 09:28 PM

[QUOTE=neverending;101972]BJ, what you just said to Decalogue is reportable! And as for how Christ came to be conceived, it WAS by the Holy Ghost as it says in Matt. Yes, but the details of this are left out. The only thing is that we know is that this conception resulted in the birth of the Son of the Father--not of the Holy Ghost.

This is your problem for NOT understanding the trinity. God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, all three in ONE GOD! Then why does Christ distinguish the Father from the Holy Ghost or even the Son when declaring who His Father is?

Not three beings in purpose as your doctrines teach. This concept is not only taught of the Godhead, but also of the marriage of a man and a woman where they become "one."

If you don't like what the Bible teaches, that again is your problem and is sad. You can fall back on your Article of Faith that lets you off the hook with saying, "as long as its translated correctly." I do like what the Bible says---but even when you all post the long list of translations, it becomes obvious that to understand it, one must have access to the Holy Ghost.

I will say again, ALL THREE of the Godhead were involved in the conception of Christ. All three? I suppose if I was saying that as a Mormon, you would come up with a way to sensationlize that and put you "filthly" spin on it too.

Christ helping to create his own physical body. If Jesus is the Christ and is God, then there should never be any argument, for his word is true....God does not lie, at least mine doesn't but what about yours?Christ helping to create his own body? Okay--so, now lets talk real stuff here. As Christ was fully man, where did the extra 23 chromosomes come from that make him a man? Are they the same as with Adam who was created, but is not begotten?

neverending

11-09-2011, 09:43 PM

All I see is a bunch of critics of the LDS faith chasing windmills--making up their own fantasies regarding our beliefs and then being repulsed by them. *sigh*

BJ: I'd like you to CFR just one thing, just one doctrine of yours that can be supported by the Bible. As for making up fantasies, those are your own with belief in JS, a false prophet. Your fantasy in a belief in a false god, and Jesus Christ! I know what the LDS teach about how Mary conceived Christ. It was taught to me that it happened just as it does for men and women, having intercourse. That is what is vile and disgusting. That is what is repulsive and it is not our fantasy, blame your own leaders for their vile ideas....they're not ours.

Your own Prophet Benson said this concerning the conception of Christ, "
President Ezra Taft Benson stated, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the most literal sense. The body in which He performed His mission in the flesh was fathered by that same Holy Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father. Jesus was not the son of Joseph, nor He begotten was by the Holy Ghost. He is the Son of the Eternal Father!" (Benson, p. 4). (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol. 2, p. 725, 1992; The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p. 7)
Ancient and modern scriptures use the ***le Only Begotten to emphasize the divine nature of Jesus Christ. Latter-day Saints recognize Jesus as literally the Only Begotten Son of God the Father in the flesh (John 3:16; D&C 93:11; Moses 6:52). This ***le signifies that Jesus' physical body was the offspring of a mortal mother and of the eternal Father (Luke 1:35, 1 Ne. 11:18). It is LDS doctrine that Jesus Christ is the child of Mary and God the Father, "not in violation of natural law but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof" (Jesus The Christ, James E. Talmage, p. 81; Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol.2, page 729)
These name-***les all signify that our Lord is the only Son of the Father in the flesh. Each of the words is to be understood literally. Only means only; Begotten means begotten; and Son means son. Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers. (Mormon Doctrine, Bruce R. McConkie, p. 546-547)

God the Father is a perfected, glorified, holy Man, an immortal Personage. And Christ was born into the world as the literal Son of this Holy Being; he was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father. There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events, for he is the Son of God, and that designation means what it says. (ibid, p. 742)

What say you now? Are these Christian fantasies? NO! It is your leaders who have made Christ's conception a vile and disgusting thing. And Pres. Benson denying what is written in the Bible is more proof of how off your leaders are when it comes to anything written in God's word. Your Bible is Chinese for you can choose from column A, or B or C, for the things that only support your doctrines, anything else is excluded. Either you accept what is written within the pages of the Bible or DON'T have it as one of your standard works!

neverending

11-09-2011, 09:52 PM

[quote] Yes, but the details of this are left out. The only thing is that we know is that this conception resulted in the birth of the Son of the Father--not of the Holy Ghost.

Then why does Christ distinguish the Father from the Holy Ghost or even the Son when declaring who His Father is?

This concept is not only taught of the Godhead, but also of the marriage of a man and a woman where they become "one."

I do like what the Bible says---but even when you all post the long list of translations, it becomes obvious that to understand it, one must have access to the Holy Ghost.

All three? I suppose if I was saying that as a Mormon, you would come up with a way to sensationlize that and put you "filthly" spin on it too.

Christ helping to create his own body? Okay--so, now lets talk real stuff here. As Christ was fully man, where did the extra 23 chromosomes come from that make him a man? Are they the same as with Adam who was created, but is not begotten?

BJ: I don't find your thoughts to be rational! You insult me by accusing me of putting a "filthy spin on Christ's conception? That is in your mind......and I have no issue with how Christ was conceived. We know that Mary was overshadowed by the "Holy Spirit". It is you and your leaders that have made it into some filthy thing, making it incestuous! I have already shared with you the very comments made by Pres. Benson who came right out and said that Christ was conceived literally like a man and woman conceive a child. This is FACT! Try and disclaim it.

BigJulie

11-09-2011, 10:08 PM

[QUOTE=neverending;101977]

BJ: I don't find your thoughts to be rational! You insult me by accusing me of putting a "filthy spin on Christ's conception? That is in your mind......No, that is in YOUR mind---you project your filth onto what you think are my beliefs.
and I have no issue with how Christ was conceived. We know that Mary was overshadowed by the "Holy Spirit". Yes, I agree. But the details of how the Mary's egg was fertilized to impregnate Mary, we do not know. I have stated this many times---it is you who want to insist that we believe something more.

It is you and your leaders that have made it into some filthy thing, making it incestuous! Nope, you again. Now, if someone wants to discuss this or think sex was involved (which we have no scripture regarding)---I don't think of sex as a bad or disgusting thing. Do you?

I
have already shared with you the very comments made by Pres. Benson who came right out and said that Christ was conceived literally like a man and woman conceive a child. This is FACT! Try and disclaim it. I haven't seen the quote, but regardless,

... just for good measure, I will repeat this quote: (Oh, I just saw the quote--nothing of it says what you think it does---it basically speaks to the fact that Jesus Christ is the begotten Son of God the Father which means he shares physical attributes and is the Son of God the Father. This does not state how He is the Son, but that He is the Son.)

Critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sometimes proclaim that the LDS believe that God had sex with Mary, resulting in the conception of Jesus. This is simply not true. While some members of the Church may have speculated concerning the conception of Jesus, the Church has never had a teaching concerning this event. This can easily be seen in a letter written by President Harold B. Lee to a brother in Logan, Utah. The letter is reproduced below. An edited version is also quoted in The Teachings of Harold B. Lee (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1996), 14.

http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Did_God_...with_Mary.html

BigJulie

11-09-2011, 10:17 PM

[What say you now? Are these Christian fantasies?

Yes, they appear to be fantasies. Please highlight and quote which part you think states
"They are advocating physical incest between God the Father with a young jewish girl in the Dividic family line.

In all the quotes you gave--I don't see it. So, yes this seems to be the result of YOUR filthy mind, not mine.

dberrie2000

11-10-2011, 04:06 AM

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post
Jill's comments that Jesus Christ's father was the Holy Ghost is foreign to the Biblical text.

The Bible makes this claim--that Jesus Christ was the Only Begotten Son of God the Father. He never makes the claim that the Holy Ghost was His Father.

If you or anyone else on this forum has a Biblical p***age where Jesus Christ makes any claim that God the Father really isn't His father--or where the Holy Ghost is His father--then please print it.

St John20:17-"Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God."

db: Have you read where it says in Matt. 1:18, "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost." How can one agrue with this very verse as it is clear to me that Mary begot Christ through the power of the Holy Ghost.

And I believe the scriptures are clear that we become children of God through the power of the Holy Ghost--but nowhere does it say that the Holy Ghost is our father, or we are sons of the Holy Ghost.

Jesus Christ did not ever claim the Holy Ghost as His Father, but He did claim that God the Father was.

How do you reconcile that? Was God the Father and the Holy Ghost the same personage?

I'm trying to understand the idea that the Holy Ghost is the Father of Jesus Christ--and Jesus was the Son of the Holy Ghost.

And since the Holy Ghost is a member of the Godhead, then we also have to accept that Christ was begotten by God the Father too, begotten by both for they are ONE God.

But not the same personage, even if what you state is true.

dberrie2000

11-10-2011, 04:14 AM

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post
Jill's comments that Jesus Christ's father was the Holy Ghost is foreign to the Biblical text.

"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost." Matt 1:18

"Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." Matt 1:20

And just where in that scripture does it state that Jesus was the Son of the Holy Ghost--or the Holy Ghost was His Father?

I believe the scriptures state we are all conceived as children of God through the Holy Ghost--but that does not mean our Father is the Holy Ghost.

So--question for you--where do you find that Jesus claimed He was the Son of the Holy Ghost? Surely He would know?

Do you believe that God the Father and the Holy Ghost are the same personage?

Why would you distinguish Mitt Romney as non-Christian for believing that Jesus Christ was the Son of God the Father, which was the claim of Jesus Christ Himself?

Billyray

11-10-2011, 07:05 AM

As a note: The Kingdom of the Cults (now in the vicinity of some 750000 copies sold ), and Walter Martin has written many other books against many religions. Jill maybe can answer what happened to the money made from these books? Was it all donated to a '"church"--which church, etc?
I am not sure why this makes any difference at all. If you write a book and you keep every penny does it make the book true or false? On the other hand does giving every penny away make the book true or false?

Can you tell me your point BigJ?

BigJulie

11-10-2011, 11:29 AM

I am not sure why this makes any difference at all. If you write a book and you keep every penny does it make the book true or false? On the other hand does giving every penny away make the book true or false?

Can you tell me your point BigJ?

My point was that smearing others makes big money in this country---sadly. And so, yes---if this became WM way of a livelihood, I see a problem with it.''

If people who listened to WM today came into my church and listened to a sermon, they would wonder if it was the same church the WM states that we are. He takes old writings from my faith/church that was growing and learning and trying to comprehend the revelations received and takes them to a new level--sensationlizing them and morphing them into something that I don't even recognize and then sells books off of it. For this reason, anything that WM says about any other religion, I tend not to believe. I have seen what he has done regarding my faith and I ***ume he does likewise to others.

That said, the sad thing is that because of people like WM, a lot of people in our country are beginning to view religion in general as a bunch of fanatics (as you can't mock and criticize one faith without tainting all of religious faiths) who run from one wild rumor to the next when making decisions about very important things. Honest discussion is gone. Dr. Mouw is trying to do you all a favor by asking you to take an honest look at these tactics.

And this thread is a perfect example of Christianity gone wild pointing fingers at the heretics while forgetting their own "heretical" history. This discussion board would not even exist were it not for the heretics of both our political and religious past.

Billyray

11-10-2011, 12:51 PM

My point was that smearing others makes big money in this country---sadly. And so, yes---if this became WM way of a livelihood, I see a problem with it.''

The LDS smears other faiths in a very subtle manner, they make lots of money, and they hide where that money goes. It seems hypocritical to bring this up don't you think?

BigJulie

11-10-2011, 01:16 PM

The LDS smears other faiths in a very subtle manner, they make lots of money, and they hide where that money goes. It seems hypocritical to bring this up don't you think?

When I go to church, I never hear the teacher smear another person's faith. What is your "subtle smear" you speak of? Is it our faith that we have the true and living church? Is that a smear to you? Then every faith or even every evangelical (as we have seen on this site) who does not agree with how you see things is "subtling" smearing your faith.

And I see exactly where the money goes in my church--temples, church buildings, our ward budgets, welfare systems, measle's vaccines for third world country, clean water projects, etc. Are you aware that the number one budget of the church goes to buliding and maintaining temples and ward houses and the second largest budget is to that of education. For every student that goes to a BYU school, they get a huge scholarship every semester to the tune of about $8000. I see where the money goes. Please, don't try to slander my church further as an excuse for what you do here.

neverending

11-10-2011, 02:17 PM

My point was that smearing others makes big money in this country---sadly. And so, yes---if this became WM way of a livelihood, I see a problem with it.''

If people who listened to WM today came into my church and listened to a sermon, they would wonder if it was the same church the WM states that we are. He takes old writings from my faith/church that was growing and learning and trying to comprehend the revelations received and takes them to a new level--sensationlizing them and morphing them into something that I don't even recognize and then sells books off of it. For this reason, anything that WM says about any other religion, I tend not to believe. I have seen what he has done regarding my faith and I ***ume he does likewise to others.

That said, the sad thing is that because of people like WM, a lot of people in our country are beginning to view religion in general as a bunch of fanatics (as you can't mock and criticize one faith without tainting all of religious faiths) who run from one wild rumor to the next when making decisions about very important things. Honest discussion is gone. Dr. Mouw is trying to do you all a favor by asking you to take an honest look at these tactics.

And this thread is a perfect example of Christianity gone wild pointing fingers at the heretics while forgetting their own "heretical" history. This discussion board would not even exist were it not for the heretics of both our political and religious past.

BJ:
Dr. Mouw does not hold any of my opinions at ALL! He speaks only for himself and decided to take far to much onto himself by apologizing for ALL Christians. This has angered me immensely for Dr. Mouw knows nothing of the dark secrets of Mormonism or he wouldn't have made the statement he did. As for the smearing of Mormonism by WM, sorry for he spoke the truths about how Mormonism came to be, and the false doctrines thought up by JS a known necromancer, liar, thief, wife stealer, vandal and traitor. This is a man whom you want to follow and have faith in? I think your leaders are the heretics with teaching that man was once a god and that you too can become a god, if you live ALL the laws and ordinances of your cultic church. When God himself has spoken in Isaiah that He knows no other gods, you can beat that that is true, for God does not LIE! Only foolish men who hunger for power and have delusions of grandeur lie, cheat and steal. Also, FYI, WM is not longer alive, did you even know that? With your comments here, you speak as if he is still with us, so I do think you owe Jill an apology for "Smearing" her father's good name! Would you want someone saying these kinds of things about your father?

As for how WM spent the money from the sell of his book is no ones business. I am sure he used it to help provide for his family and pay for his radio time, is that a problem for you? If you wrote a book how would you be using the proceeds from the sales of it?

neverending

11-10-2011, 02:30 PM

When I go to church, I never hear the teacher smear another person's faith. What is your "subtle smear" you speak of? Is it our faith that we have the true and living church? Is that a smear to you? Then every faith or even every evangelical (as we have seen on this site) who does not agree with how you see things is "subtling" smearing your faith.

And I see exactly where the money goes in my church--temples, church buildings, our ward budgets, welfare systems, measle's vaccines for third world country, clean water projects, etc. Are you aware that the number one budget of the church goes to buliding and maintaining temples and ward houses and the second largest budget is to that of education. For every student that goes to a BYU school, they get a huge scholarship every semester to the tune of about $8000. I see where the money goes. Please, don't try to slander my church further as an excuse for what you do here.

BJ:
Do you not find it strange that the #1 budget item is spending money on building temples that do nothing for anyone? It is for doing work for dead people and how does that help? No one is given a second chance. Where does it speak of doing temple work for the dead in the Bible? NO WHERE! And there was only ONE Temple, the one in Jerusalem. Mormonism has taken it upon itself to spend millions of millions of dollars, given by it's members to build hollow temples. Luke 9:59-60, "He said to another man, "Follow me." But the man replied, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father. But Jesus told him, Let the spiritually dead bury their own dead! Your duty is to go and preach about the Kingdom of God." So, what good does it do to do baptisms for the dead or do temple work for the dead when there are no second chances? Either one accepts Jesus Christ in this life or not. Now is the day of salvation. 2 Cor. 6:2, "For he says, I have heard you in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I helped you: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation. " Do you see what I told you, no second chances Julie.

Billyray

11-10-2011, 04:20 PM

When I go to church, I never hear the teacher smear another person's faith. What is your "subtle smear" you speak of?
1. Do you believe that I belong to the church of the devil?

2. Do you recall from the temple ceremony where lucifer asks the minister to convert people and he will pay them well? (this was edited out in the newest temple version)

Billyray

11-10-2011, 04:21 PM

Please, don't try to slander my church further as an excuse for what you do here.

I don't think it is slander to state the facts. And the fact is that the LDS has a whole lot of money and they hide where that money goes. Most churches openly present their annual budget for anyone to look at.

neverending

11-10-2011, 04:51 PM

I don't think it is slander to state the facts. And the fact is that the LDS has a whole lot of money and they hide where that money goes. Most churches openly present their annual budget for anyone to look at.

Billy,
This is so true. We have an annual budget meeting where all members are informed of it and encouraged to attend. NO monies are ever spent without the majorities approval if it and when it involves a major expense. All monies that had been spent is gone over so everyone knows where their giving is going. Why does the LDS Church think it is above asking the members for their approval, after all, the church couldn't run its day to day expenses without the ***hes they take in. Members deserve to know how their hard earned money is being spent. Course when the Prophet has spoken, the thinking has been done.

Jill

11-10-2011, 06:05 PM

All from the Journal of Discourses--which you know was not written by Brigham Young, right? Your argument becomes circular if you rely on the Journal of Discourses to prove the validity of the Journal of Discourses as scripture. Clearly, one can observe that we do not use the Journal of Discourses as our scripture and that makes the point alone.

"In having in your library the 26 volumes of the 'Journals of Discourses' you have a library containing the sermons of the Presidents and Apostles of the Church. If anyone tells you that the sermons found therein are not recognized by the Church, they know not what they are talking about."--Axel Andresen, ***istant manager of Deseret Book, 1963

"The Journal of Discourses is listed as an official publication of the LDS Church in the following books:

Essentials in Church History, by Joseph Fielding Smith, published by the LDS Church, p. 674.
Deseret News 1989-90 Church Almanac, p. 188, published by a company owned by LDS Church.

The Journal of Discourses is quoted repeatedly in LDS publications and in LDS conference reports. See for example, Doctrines of the Gospel, Student Manual, Religion 231 and 232, published by the LDS Church Educational System, 1986, p.83. See also Ensign Magazine (official publication of the LDS Church) May 1996, Conference talk by James E. Faust, of the First Presidency, p.7.

It is inconsistent of the Mormons to question the accuracy of the Journal of Discourses while the LDS leaders continue to quote from it. They never follow their quote with a disclaimer about the accuracy of the account. This issue only comes up when someone outside of Mormonism quotes something from their leaders that they are embarr***ed about. It is a double standard." www.utlm.org/faqs/faqgeneral.htm
(emphasis added)

Jill

11-10-2011, 06:17 PM

you would have killed on account of your heresy--so I find it almost laughable that someone who belongs to a Protestant religion who reads the Bible in English sees herself as defending "christianity"--as those who came before you who saw themselves as doing the same would see you as the heretic.

As I said, you are just one in a long line of many who have done the same all thinking that they know best.

Sigh. BigJulie, this is so over the top and off topic that it's going to have to go...maybe tomorrow. :)

If you want to read about a lot of killing, try Mormonism: Its Leaders and Designs by John Hyde Jr. 1857
http://books.google.com/books/about/Mormonism.html?id=XgxFAAAAIAAJ

He was an eyewitness to the world of Brigham Young.

Libby

11-10-2011, 06:21 PM

"In having in your library the 26 volumes of the 'Journals of Discourses' you have a library containing the sermons of the Presidents and Apostles of the Church. If anyone tells you that the sermons found therein are not recognized by the Church, they know not what they are talking about."--Axel Andresen, the ***istant manager of Deseret Book, 1963

"The Journal of Discourses is listed as an official publication of the LDS Church in the following books:

Essentials in Church History, by Joseph Fielding Smith, published by the LDS Church, p. 674.
Deseret News 1989-90 Church Almanac, p. 188, published by a company owned by LDS Church.

The Journal of Discourses is quoted repeatedly in LDS publications and in LDS conference reports. See for example, Doctrines of the Gospel, Student Manual, Religion 231 and 232, published by the LDS Church Educational System, 1986, p.83. See also Ensign Magazine (official publication of the LDS Church) May 1996, Conference talk by James E. Faust, of the First Presidency, p.7.

It is inconsistent of the Mormons to question the accuracy of the Journal of Discourses while the LDS leaders continue to quote from it. They never follow their quote with a disclaimer about the accuracy of the account. This issue only comes up when someone outside of Mormonism quotes something from their leaders that they are embarr***ed about. It is a double standard." www.utlm.org/faqs/faqgeneral.htm
(emphasis added)

Just a small comment on this.

The leadership, generally speaking, has the discretion to pick and choose from the Journals, what is compatible with LDS doctrine (found in scripture). I know that anyone in leadership would tell you, flatly, that not everything in the JofD is current LDS teaching/thinking/doctrine. Some of it is opinon and some of it just plain wrong (like the Adam God theory).

The critics, on the other hand, seem to take what they can find that is the most outrageously controversial and try to p*** it off as current belief and teachings of the church. That is deceptive, don't you think?

Jill

11-10-2011, 06:44 PM

It is when those quotes are taken out of context away from our understanding and scriptures and something that is recognized today as not supported by scriptures--but merely discussion.

Jill and the rest of you would have the rest of the world believing that we go to church and use the Journal of Discourses and Bruce R. McConkies "Mormon Doctrine" as our scriptures. We don't. They are discussed very little and often only a small tidbit might be recited when something said supports the scriptures and our current understanding.

As I said this dialogue---this is meant to sensationalize my beliefs and the best guess I can come up with someone doing this is the same reason Christopher Hitchens writes his books and essays---because there is a paranoid "christian/republican right' out there that will believe anything sensational and it makes money. Just look at how worked up people are getting just on this site alone. The truth of our religion is far more boring.

As a note: The Kingdom of the Cults (now in the vicinity of some 750000 copies sold ), and Walter Martin has written many other books against many religions. Jill maybe can answer what happened to the money made from these books? Was it all donated to a '"church"--which church, etc?

BigJulie,

Once again, you're off topic but I have to say, the history of your religion is anything but boring.

As a note: To set the record straight, The Kingdom of the Cults is actually at about 1,000,000 copies; it's been a best-seller for more than 45 years.

It's amusing (since I can't see any logic behind it) that you think people should not be paid to research and write books on theology. Better take a look back into history:

The Chicago Daily Tribune, September 12, 1875, A MORMON SAINT, DEATH OF MARTIN HARRIS

"Mrs. Harris, knowing her husband's credulity and Smith's trickery, did all she could to stop the expenditure of money; but Smith not only plied [Martin] Harris with ‘revelations,’ but explained the certainty of making a spec out of the publication of the m****cripts. An edition of 5,000 would cost, say, $3,000. Joseph had a revelation that the books would sell for $1.25 each, and he went on to ***ure his victim that there was a chance to clear $3,250."

Apparently Joseph didn't think there was anything wrong with selling the Book of Mormon.

Jill

11-10-2011, 06:48 PM

Just a small comment on this.

The leadership, generally speaking, has the discretion to pick and choose from the Journals, what is compatible with LDS doctrine (found in scripture). I know that anyone in leadership would tell you, flatly, that not everything in the JofD is current LDS teaching/thinking/doctrine. Some of it is opinon and some of it just plain wrong (like the Adam God theory).

The critics, on the other hand, seem to take what they can find that is the most outrageously controversial and try to p*** it off as current belief and teachings of the church. That is deceptive, don't you think?

I think if Joseph Smith Jr. and Brigham Young were alive today, LDS Leaders would not "pick and choose" anything.

It's a double standard to say that some writings are A-Okay but the embarr***ing ones are not, Libby. Last time I checked, it wasn't the critics who wrote all those outrageous, controversial things.

Libby

11-10-2011, 07:14 PM

I think if Joseph Smith Jr. and Brigham Young were alive today, LDS Leaders would not "pick and choose" anything.

It's a double standard to say that some writings are A-Okay but the embarr***ing ones are not, Libby. Last time I checked, it wasn't the critics who wrote all those outrageous, controversial things.

Past Christians of all faiths have said some very embarr***ing things. Cultures were different back then and I don't think you would want to lay claim to every single word the Reformers espoused, either.

Spirituality is an ever evolving process (for all of us). It is not fair to claim that people (of any religion) are following or believe things, said by leaders in the past, that they simply do not believe or consider untrue. Church leaders, of the past, are often not representative of religion, today (not yours or LDS or anyone else's). Not to say there are not some things that are still considered doctrine and wise, but certainly not everything or anything one wants to pick and choose, to sensationalize.

neverending

11-10-2011, 07:27 PM

Past Christians of all faiths have said some very embarr***ing things. Cultures were different back then and I don't think you would want to lay claim to every single word the Reformers espoused, either.

Spirituality is an ever evolving process (for all of us). It is not fair to claim that people (of any religion) are following or believe things, said by leaders in the past, that they simply do not believe or consider untrue. Church leaders, of the past, are often not representative of religion, today (not yours or LDS or anyone else's). Not to say there are not some things that are still considered doctrine and wise, but certainly not everything or anything one wants to pick and choose, to sensationalize.

Libby,
If past leaders made foolish statements and now the members of that faith do not consider those statements to be true, then what does it say for that religion? The only conclusion that any intelligent person can honestly come up with is this, "my religion MUST be false if that is what my past Prophet preached and believed." There is only ONE standard that the world can believe in and that is the Bible, which is God's Word! Christians have not changed in how they are to gain salvation. It has remained the same for centuries where Mormonism has constantly changed. Is this the restored church that JS started when being told by god that it was necessary and JS was the man of the hour? Seems it isn't anymore, for it has morphed into something else.

theway

11-10-2011, 07:36 PM

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/waltermartindotcom/2011/11/06/the-maze-of-mormonismwhy-gov-romney-is-not-a-christia

This thread is about THEOLOGY and HISTORY, not politics. Romney's name is mentioned because he continues to insist he is a "Christian" when it can be proven outside of politics that he is NOT. Well that depends on whether you plan on painting your definition of "Christian" with a broad brush, or a narrow brush.
Careful though, too broad of a brush will include the LDS Church; too narrow of a brush and you might find yourself kicked out of your own Christian club.

Jill

11-10-2011, 08:12 PM

1. Do you believe that I belong to the church of the devil?

2. Do you recall from the temple ceremony where lucifer asks the minister to convert people and he will pay them well? (this was edited out in the newest temple version)

Interesting point, Billyray. Can you provide a citation pointing to the historical fact that in a Mormon temple ceremony, "lucifer asks the minister to convert people and he will pay them well?"

Jill

11-10-2011, 08:27 PM

Past Christians of all faiths have said some very embarr***ing things. Cultures were different back then and I don't think you would want to lay claim to every single word the Reformers espoused, either.

Spirituality is an ever evolving process (for all of us). It is not fair to claim that people (of any religion) are following or believe things, said by leaders in the past, that they simply do not believe or consider untrue. Church leaders, of the past, are often not representative of religion, today (not yours or LDS or anyone else's). Not to say there are not some things that are still considered doctrine and wise, but certainly not everything or anything one wants to pick and choose, to sensationalize.

When Mormon leaders call themselves "prophets" and claim to speak in the name of Almighty God, they better be held accountable for ALL their embarr***ing, intolerant, and racist comments. This applies to anyone who thinks they have a "special" message from God.

"Reformers" never claimed to be prophets--they didn't claim to speak for God; they didn't create their own version of the Bible, erase or edit His Word, and add phases like "white and delightsome." Big difference there, Libby.

The very big problem with "ever evolving" faith is that it sounds an awful lot like, "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."
2 Tim 3:7

Billyray

11-10-2011, 08:29 PM

Interesting point, Billyray. Can you provide a citation pointing to the historical fact that in a Mormon temple ceremony, "lucifer asks the minister to convert people and he will pay them well?"

http://www.lds-mormon.com/compare2.shtml

LUCIFER:: Do you preach the orthodox religion?

SECTARIAN MINISTER: Yes, that is what I preach.

LUCIFER:: If you will preach your orthodox religion to these people, and convert them, I will pay you well.

SECTARIAN MINISTER: I will do my best.

(Note--this section is lined out on the link indicating that it was in the prior ceremony (pre-1990) but has been removed from the current ceremony)

Jill

11-10-2011, 08:33 PM

Jill

11-10-2011, 08:41 PM

http://www.lds-mormon.com/compare2.shtml

LUCIFER:: Do you preach the orthodox religion?

SECTARIAN MINISTER: Yes, that is what I preach.

LUCIFER:: If you will preach your orthodox religion to these people, and convert them, I will pay you well.

SECTARIAN MINISTER: I will do my best.

(Note--this section is lined out on the link indicating that it was in the prior ceremony (pre-1990) but has been removed from the current ceremony)

Interesting and I'm not doubting you, since I've read several eyewitness accounts that support this. But what is the historical source the quote is taken from? :)

theway

11-10-2011, 09:03 PM

2000 years of Christian Church history records the definition of "Christian" in black and white. There is no gray and a brush is irrelevant. :)Really??? What is that definition?
Many Catholics still say that doesn't included Protestants, and many Protestants say that Christianity should not be applied to Catholics.

Please give a short but accurate definition.

BigJulie

11-10-2011, 09:24 PM

BigJulie,

Once again, you're off topic but I have to say, the history of your religion is anything but boring.

As a note: To set the record straight, The Kingdom of the Cults is actually at about 1,000,000 copies; it's been a best-seller for more than 45 years.

It's amusing (since I can't see any logic behind it) that you think people should not be paid to research and write books on theology. Better take a look back into history:

The Chicago Daily Tribune, September 12, 1875, A MORMON SAINT, DEATH OF MARTIN HARRIS

"Mrs. Harris, knowing her husband's credulity and Smith's trickery, did all she could to stop the expenditure of money; but Smith not only plied [Martin] Harris with ‘revelations,’ but explained the certainty of making a spec out of the publication of the m****cripts. An edition of 5,000 would cost, say, $3,000. Joseph had a revelation that the books would sell for $1.25 each, and he went on to ***ure his victim that there was a chance to clear $3,250."

Apparently Joseph didn't think there was anything wrong with selling the Book of Mormon.

I guess this is your way of letting me know the the proceeds your father has made from smearing the beliefs of others has been kept in the family.

alanmolstad

11-10-2011, 09:51 PM

I guess this is......

Julie.......Julie....

you make such a shamefully personal comment .

Im very disappointed with the whole lot of you bunch...---------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------

do we all hide now behind "Jill started it"?

My advice to you would be to disregard who started this like of conversation,,,clearly it has gone on too long if we are now getting down in the mud of talking about such personal private things of parents long missed by children.

disregard, and take credit only for 'ending" the conversation that was off the rails anyway.

Where is Fig when his brand of wisdom was seen lacking around here?

Libby

11-10-2011, 10:02 PM

When Mormon leaders call themselves "prophets" and claim to speak in the name of Almighty God, they better be held accountable for ALL their embarr***ing, intolerant, and racist comments.

I don't think so, since LDS prophets never claimed to speak for God 24/7. Not everything they spoke was revelation; Joseph made that clear.

Plus, I think people like John Calvin were pretty sure that they were being inspired by God, even though they didn't call themselves prophets. Many people, even today, believe that Calvin was inspired in his interpretation of the Bible. Same for Luther and Wesley and many others. My great great Grandfather was a follower of John Wesley, and he sure did believe he was inspired by God.

There is clearly a double standard being employed by critics of the LDS Church.

Billyray

11-10-2011, 10:32 PM

IBut what is the historical source the quote is taken from?

That is a direct quote from the temple ceremony. I don't think you will find it in historical LDS sources because of the secrecy.

Libby

11-11-2011, 12:18 AM

That is a direct quote from the temple ceremony. I don't think you will find it in historical LDS sources because of the secrecy.

Billy, I suppose you know that hasn't been in the Temple ceremony for years? I would have been in ten years next month and it was long gone, before I converted.

Billyray

11-11-2011, 06:12 AM

Billy, I suppose you know that hasn't been in the Temple ceremony for years? I would have been in ten years next month and it was long gone, before I converted.

I gave you the exact date that it was changed which was 1990. It was there when I went through the temple. BTW because it is not there now does this make it OK in your opinion to portray Christian ministers as hired guns for Lucifer?

neverending

11-11-2011, 09:05 AM

I guess this is your way of letting me know the the proceeds your father has made from smearing the beliefs of others has been kept in the family.

BJ: NEWS FLASH! WM IS NO LONGER LIVING! And if the money from the sale of WM's book was, " kept in the family" as you so rudely put it, is none of your business! ***osh! If you wrote a book, what would you do with the money earned. The book might have taken you years to finish so does it not make sense to you that you earned every penny? GEESH! WHAT HAVE ALL THE PAST PROPHETS AND APOSTLES OF YOUR CHURCH DONE WITH THE MONIES THEY'VE EARNED FROM THE SALE OF THEIR BOOKS? And WM has been gone for many years now, so what is your major difficulty? He had a family to support, so I guess that is a crime to take care of ones family now?

WM didn't smear your beloved church, JS did that and the many leaders who followed did it ALL by themselves! WM told the truth about Mormonism's many odd doctrines and that the members follow blindly their Prophet; which does make Mormonism a CULT, plain and simple! A centralized leader who does all the thinking and decision making for its members and by heaven, DON'T EVER question the brethern or you'll end up like James and myself, being thrown out on your ear! Start using the brain and intelligence that God gave you Julie just once in your life.....there's a whole, beautiful world waiting for you. A world without bondage, where you can be free in Christ, and know that no matter what, your name will always be found in the Lamb's Book of Life.

neverending

11-11-2011, 09:11 AM

Billy, I suppose you know that hasn't been in the Temple ceremony for years? I would have been in ten years next month and it was long gone, before I converted.

And who gave the President of the Church back in 1990 the right to make changes to the temple ceremony? JS said that it could NEVER be altered or changed! Again, the church bowed to those who complained, the squeaky wheel gets the grease but in truth, the attendance numbers were dropping.

I will tell you in my experience of going through the temple to be married in 1971, it was the most DISGUSTING, VILE thing I've ever experienced and THIS was my wedding day? The day for a woman to be center of attention and to hold onto beautiful memories of that day but no, all I can remember is taking bloody oaths all the while knowing that my parents were sitting there too and thinking that this was ok? So again, who gave the authority to make even one single little change to the ceremony which was supposedly God given to JS?

neverending

11-11-2011, 09:37 AM

Interesting point, Billyray. Can you provide a citation pointing to the historical fact that in a Mormon temple ceremony, "lucifer asks the minister to convert people and he will pay them well?"

Jill,
Since the temple ceremony has ALWAYS been secret and members vow not to talk about what goes on inside, there is very little one can find but I did find this:

" Mormon Apostle John Widtsoe stated, "Joseph Smith received the temple endowment and its ritual, as all else he promulgated, by revelation from God" (Joseph Smith - Seeker After Truth, pg. 249). Because of this, Mormons have been told that it can never change. Royden Derrick, a Mormon Seventy, wrote, "Temple ordinances ins***uted in the heavens before the foundation of the world are for the salvation and exaltation of God's children. It is important that the saving ordinances not be altered or changed, because all of those who will be exalted, from the first man, Adam, to the last, must be saved on the same principles" (Temples in the Last Days, 1987, pg. 36).

The post that Billy gave you was true, since I and James were married in the Cardston, Alberta, Canada temple and I witnessed these exact events. I found it odd that such a, "sacred" ordinance would include Lucifer. The whole ceremony was disturbing and vile! And to think we traveled over 700 miles to be able to get married and this was supposed to be my beautiful wedding day? Something I've never forgotten.
This seems quite clear to me that there should never have been any changes to the ceremony when to Mormons it is the highest degree of worship and is what all members work towards.

neverending

11-11-2011, 09:50 AM

Well that depends on whether you plan on painting your definition of "Christian" with a broad brush, or a narrow brush.
Careful though, too broad of a brush will include the LDS Church; too narrow of a brush and you might find yourself kicked out of your own Christian club.

THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY TO PAINT THE DEFINITION OF CHRISTIAN. Mormonism can claim all day long that they are Christians because after all they believe in Jesus Christ and his name is on everyone of their buildings; but, that does not make one a Christian when one believes Jesus to be something he's not! It's comparing apples to oranges Richard! I will keep pounding this into your head and ALL LDS that, YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE JESUS OF THE BIBLE! Your Jesus was a created being and was not always God! Your Jesus is the brother of Satan! Your Jesus atoned for man by sweating in the Garden! Can you see NOW that you worship a FALSE Jesus? When you and your leaders will admit that your Jesus is not the Biblical one, then we will have an, "Oh, I should have had a V-8 moment".

BigJulie

11-11-2011, 09:54 AM

BJ: NEWS FLASH! WM IS NO LONGER LIVING! And if the money from the sale of WM's book was, " kept in the family" as you so rudely put it, is none of your business!

My only point was that there is a lot of money to be made in smearing others--sensationalizism and smut.

Clearly, WM specialized in this art--not just in regards to my faith but the faiths of many others.

And the irony is that Walter Martin, an evangelical who reads the Bible in English only has the religion or faith he does because of past "heretics' who were often put to death for their heretical positions against the "church" at the time.

theway

11-11-2011, 11:48 AM

THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY TO PAINT THE DEFINITION OF CHRISTIAN. Mormonism can claim all day long that they are Christians because after all they believe in Jesus Christ and his name is on everyone of their buildings; but, that does not make one a Christian when one believes Jesus to be something he's not! It's comparing apples to oranges Richard! I will keep pounding this into your head and ALL LDS that, YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE JESUS OF THE BIBLE! Your Jesus was a created being and was not always God! Your Jesus is the brother of Satan! Your Jesus atoned for man by sweating in the Garden! Can you see NOW that you worship a FALSE Jesus? When you and your leaders will admit that your Jesus is not the Biblical one, then we will have an, "Oh, I should have had a V-8 moment".I'm sorry I must have missed that definition of a Christian. Can I please get the official version of it, instead of your critic rant? No offense, but your opinion carries no credibility, seeing as though you have been consistently wrong on so many things, like my name ever being Richard.

Billyray

11-11-2011, 12:33 PM

I'm sorry I must have missed that definition of a Christian.
Would you OK with me calling mysel Mormon even though I don't believe in the tenets of Mormonism?

Billyray

11-11-2011, 12:34 PM

My only point was that there is a lot of money to be made in smearing others--

There is a lot of money to be made by telling someone that Mormonism is the only true church and then telling them that ***hing is required for exaltation.

BigJulie

11-11-2011, 12:42 PM

There is a lot of money to be made by telling someone that Mormonism is the only true church and then telling them that ***hing is required for exaltation.

***hing did not originate with the church, it originated with God and can be found all the way back to the OT.

Billyray

11-11-2011, 12:44 PM

***hing did not originate with the church, it originated with God and can be found all the way back to the OT.

And you know full well that ***hing is not required fir the NT church. Can you show me ***hing in the church after the death of Christ?

BigJulie

11-11-2011, 12:46 PM

And you know full well that ***hing is not required fir the NT church. Can you show me ***hing in the church after the death of Christ?

I don't know that full well. Keep in mind, all the commandments of God are voluntary, he "requires' nothing if one does not want to follow Him, that is their choice. But if they say they are followers of Christ, then they should follow Him and they would see it as a requirement they put on themselves.

P.S. Remember Abraham payed ***hes prior to the Mosaic law.

Your comment regarding ***hes not being part of the NT is interesting noting that I have "christian" friends who ***he today? If it is not part of the NT church, why do it at all?

Billyray

11-11-2011, 12:52 PM

Keep in mind, all the commandments of God are voluntary,

If I want to be exalted is ***hing optional?

BigJulie

11-11-2011, 12:54 PM

If I want to be exalted is ***hing optional?

Whether one wants to follow Christ or not is optional. Once one chooses to follow Christ, it is not optional what that means. In other words, one cannot pick and choose who to follow Christ. He has spoken and his law will not be broken.

Billyray

11-11-2011, 12:56 PM

P.S. Remember Abraham payed ***hes prior to the Mosaic law.

Abraham gave 10% of recovered stolen property and and then gave back the remaining 90%. Hardly a model of ***hing. He was never commanded to ***he and you never see him ***he anywhere else.

Can you show me where God commands ***hing? Is this before the Law or in the Law?

BigJulie

11-11-2011, 12:58 PM

Abraham gave 10% of recovered stolen property and and then gave back the remaining 90%. Hardly a model of ***hing. He was never commanded to ***he and you never see him ***he anywhere else.

Can you show me where God commands ***hing? Is this before the Law or in the Law?

Mal 3:8 Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In ***hes and offerings.

Billyray

11-11-2011, 01:01 PM

Mal 3:8 Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In ***hes and offerings.

If you notice that this is in the OT under the Law. Why do you think that verse supports your position?

BigJulie

11-11-2011, 01:05 PM

If you notice that this is in the OT under the Law. Why do you think that verse supports your position?

As noted, the Mosaic Law started after Abraham who paid ***hes. And as also noted, modern day "christians' still pay ***hes today.

I will tell you what, why not start a campaign for all parishioners to stop paying ***hing and see how the pastors respond. ;)

theway

11-11-2011, 01:28 PM

And you know full well that ***hing is not required fir the NT church. Can you show me ***hing in the church after the death of Christ?You are correct... in the early church they were required to give all they had, I guess they were better at extracting the gold from their members than the LDS Church; we only get 10%.

But then the LDS Church is actually under the lesser law of ***hing (10%) as were the OT Jews, that's because the early LDS Church failed to fully live the Law of consecration.
However the Law of Consecration must come back, and the Church must be ready to recieve it.

Libby

11-11-2011, 01:37 PM

I gave you the exact date that it was changed which was 1990. It was there when I went through the temple. BTW because it is not there now does this make it OK in your opinion to portray Christian ministers as hired guns for Lucifer?

Apologies. I did not see that you had posted the date.

BTW because it is not there now does this make it OK in your opinion to portray Christian ministers as hired guns for Lucifer?

I suppose it is as "OK" as calling Joseph Smith (and all of the LDS prophets) agents of Satan, and a gazillion other negative names and inferences.

neverending

11-11-2011, 02:24 PM

Apologies. I did not see that you had posted the date.

I suppose it is as "OK" as calling Joseph Smith (and all of the LDS prophets) agents of Satan, and a gazillion other negative names and inferences.

Libby,
And IF you left the LDS Church, why do you continue to defend it? This is a poor example of a person who has left and I'd like to know whatcaused you to leave Mormonism and where you stand now as far as any religion. We who come to WM do so out of concern for Mormons, knowing that it teaches another gospel and leads people away from God. Just their teaching how they themselves can become a god by following ALL the laws and ordinances of their church is not in anyway Biblical, but how many Mormons are able to follow every law and ordinance? No one can be perfect, for there will be a moment when one will fail and then what?

neverending

11-11-2011, 02:31 PM

You are correct... in the early church they were required to give all they had, I guess they were better at extracting the gold from their members than the LDS Church; we only get 10%.

But then the LDS Church is actually under the lesser law of ***hing (10%) as were the OT Jews, that's because the early LDS Church failed to fully live the Law of consecration.
However the Law of Consecration must come back, and the Church must be ready to recieve it.

So you think it is ok for the members of your church to live Communism? That is what the Law of Consecration was, everyone to share equally but not everyone, for what of the President of the Church who lived in luxury, owned all the land up City Creek Canyon and owning the Lion House. Did you know BY charged people to go up the canyon to cut down trees? Yes, he most certainly did....great example of brotherly love....NOT! Pres. Monson lives in a condo worth over a million dollars and has a limo with a private driver. Seems he certainly is enjoying the spoils of the giving of your members. What would be wrong with living in a modest home and drive yourself where you need to go?

neverending

11-11-2011, 02:52 PM

I'm sorry I must have missed that definition of a Christian. Can I please get the official version of it, instead of your critic rant? No offense, but your opinion carries no credibility, seeing as though you have been consistently wrong on so many things, like my name ever being Richard.

I call you Richard because you speak as he did....sorry if it offends you. I will again repeat myself even though you claim whatever I say has no credibility.

Definitions of Christian (n) (http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+Christian&qpvt=what+is+a+christian&FORM=DTPDIA)

believer in Jesus Christ as savior: somebody whose religion is Christianity
from teachings of Jesus Christ: based on or relating to a belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Messiah, and acceptance of his teachings, contained in the Gospels
relating to Christianity, or belonging to or maintained by a Christian organization, especially a church

This is the definition of what a Christian is or a religion that calls itself Christian. Now, answer me this. If a person claims to believe in and follows Christ BUT the Christ they say they believe in is NOT the TRUE Christ of the Bible, then can they be considered a Christian? I don't think you even read all of my previous post or you plain ignored it before you spouted off back to me.

How many of the Christians here have told you over and over again that Mormonism DOES NOT worship the true and living Jesus Christ of the Bible. JS made up your Jesus claiming him to be a created being, and the brother of Satan. “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel from everlasting to everlasting: and let all the people say, Amen. Hallelujah!” (Psalm 106:48).
Where in ALL the Bible does it defend your beliefs? Please let me know. And from now on before commenting back to someone, it would be nice if you read their whole post.

Billyray

11-11-2011, 03:06 PM

You are correct... in the early church they were required to give all they had, I guess they were better at extracting the gold from their members than the LDS Church; we only get 10%.

They were never commanded to give everything and they were never commanded to ***he. ***hing was commanded under the law. But I am sure you already know this.

BigJulie

11-11-2011, 03:18 PM

So you think it is ok for the members of your church to live Communism? That is what the Law of Consecration was,

The law of consecration is not communism and there are some clear distingusihing differences just as cohabitation is not marriage. Similarities does not make something the same as I don't think you would call cohabitation marriage merely because a man and a woman are living together.

neverending

11-11-2011, 05:21 PM

The law of consecration is not communism and there are some clear distingusihing differences just as cohabitation is not marriage. Similarities does not make something the same as I don't think you would call cohabitation marriage merely because a man and a woman are living together.

Oh Julie....have you not heard of Common Law Marriages? We have such a law here in Utah that once a couple have cohabitated for 2 years, the State considers them married. So, what do you call sharing everything in common and equally then?

Communism:
cl***less political system: the political theory or system in which all property and wealth is owned in a cl***less society by all the members of that society.

Does this sound familiar? So then the Law of Consecration was based on Communism where ALL things were owned in common by ALL members of the church. If this law was so wonderful, why are you not living it now?

I would suggest you go and read your D&C section 78:3-11. If you don't have the time nor the will here it is for you: "Section 78

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Hiram, Ohio, March 1832 (see History of the Church, 1:255–57). The order was given of the Lord to Joseph Smith for the purpose of establishing a storehouse for the poor. It was not always desirable that the iden***y of the individuals whom the Lord addressed in the revelations should be known by the world; hence, in the publication of this and some subsequent revelations the brethren were referred to by other than their own names; (names changed to protect the innocent or the guilty). When the necessity had p***ed for keeping the names of the individuals unknown, their real names were thereafter given in brackets. Since there exists no vital need today to continue the code names, the real names only are now used herein as given in the original m****cripts.

1 The Lord spake unto Joseph Smith, Jun., saying: Hearken unto me, saith the Lord your God, who are ordained unto the high (http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/78.3-11?lang=eng#) priesthood of my church, who have ***embled yourselves together;
2 And listen to the counsel (http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/78.3-11?lang=eng#) of him who has ordained (http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/78.3-11?lang=eng#) you from on high, who shall speak in your ears the words of wisdom (http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/78.3-11?lang=eng#), that salvation may be unto you in that thing which you have presented before me, saith the Lord God.
3 For verily I say unto you, the time has come, and is now at hand; and behold, and lo, it must needs be that there be an organization (http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/78.3-11?lang=eng#) of my people, in regulating and establishing the affairs of the storehouse (http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/78.3-11?lang=eng#) for the poor (http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/78.3-11?lang=eng#) of my people, both in this place and in the land of Zion (http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/78.3-11?lang=eng#)—
4 For a permanent and everlasting establishment and order unto my church, to advance the cause, which ye have espoused, to the salvation of man, and to the glory of your Father who is in heaven;
5 That you may be equal (http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/78.3-11?lang=eng#) in the bonds of heavenly things, yea, and earthly things also, for the obtaining of heavenly things.
6 For if ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal (http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/78.3-11?lang=eng#) in obtaining heavenly things;
7 For if you will that I give unto you a place in the celestial (http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/78.3-11?lang=eng#) world, you must prepare (http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/78.3-11?lang=eng#) yourselves by doing (http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/78.3-11?lang=eng#) the things which I have commanded you and required of you.
8 And now, verily thus saith the Lord, it is expedient that all things be done unto my glory (http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/78.3-11?lang=eng#), by you who are joined together in this order (http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/78.3-11?lang=eng#);
9 Or, in other words, let my servant Newel K. Whitney and my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and my servant Sidney Rigdon sit in council with the saints which are in Zion (http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/78.3-11?lang=eng#);
10 Otherwise Satan (http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/78.3-11?lang=eng#) seeketh to turn their hearts (http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/78.3-11?lang=eng#) away from the truth, that they become blinded (http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/78.3-11?lang=eng#) and understand not the things which are prepared for them.
11 Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, to prepare and organize yourselves by a bond (http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/78.3-11?lang=eng#) or everlasting covenant (http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/78.3-11?lang=eng#) that cannot be broken.

Julie, how then can your church not be living this law? For it is clearly written within your D&C that it was an everlasting covenant that could NOT be broken. Can you see how your church has strayed from what God commanded? Does this not bother you?

BigJulie

11-11-2011, 05:29 PM

[QUOTE=neverending;102149]Oh Julie....have you not heard of Common Law Marriages? We have such a law here in Utah that once a couple have cohabitated for 2 years, the State considers them married. So, what do you call sharing everything in common and equally then? Well, do you believe that God approves of living together then and then having the state recognize it as marriage?

The main difference are these as noted by a website:

The two key differences are these:

First, Consecration is made voluntarily by covenant; Communism is initially imposed on individuals as Socialism by government.

Second, Consecration is based upon absolute faith and love of Christ. Communism is based on a society with no religion (opiate of the m***es), but is atheistic towards anything other than devotion to the state.

http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/14150-law-consecration-vs-socialism.html

Julie, how then can your church not be living this law? For it is clearly written within your D&C that it was an everlasting covenant that could NOT be broken. Can you see how your church has strayed from what God commanded? Does this not bother you? [/COLOR] Read up on what it means to be an everlasting covenant.

Libby

11-11-2011, 06:10 PM

Libby,
And IF you left the LDS Church, why do you continue to defend it? This is a poor example of a person who has left and I'd like to know whatcaused you to leave Mormonism and where you stand now as far as any religion. We who come to WM do so out of concern for Mormons, knowing that it teaches another gospel and leads people away from God. Just their teaching how they themselves can become a god by following ALL the laws and ordinances of their church is not in anyway Biblical, but how many Mormons are able to follow every law and ordinance? No one can be perfect, for there will be a moment when one will fail and then what?

I'm not really defending the church. I just think the church is sometimes attacked unfairly. Many of the arguments critics use, can very well be used against their own brand of Christianity. I am interested in truth. While it's, possibly, true that past LDS leaders did say some embarr***ing things (hard to know, since we didn't have tape recordings back then), it is not true that those things represent the church, today. Christians of all sects, over the centuries, have believed and practiced a lot of things they no longer practice...probably, the worst of which was the Inquisition. I can't think of anything Joseph Smith did that was worse than that.

I am no longer interested in the LDS Church, as far as being a member (for my own reasons), but I no longer believe LDS are "lost"..not anymore so than the rest of us, and I believe the LDS religion has redeeming value. But, that's not why I jumped into this conversation. I see critics (even ex-Mormons, who should know better) give very inaccurate representations of what the church, today, believes and teaches. One good example is issue of how Jesus was conceived. The LDS Church today considers that a "mystery". And, even for those who believe it was some kind of "pro-creation", they do not believe it was the kind of sex that humans have. I was taught that there is something LIKE pro-creation, in the Celestial Kingdom, but not likely to be what humans experience. Anyway, that's one example of an issue that, I think, gets very badly misrepresented. There are many more.

Billyray

11-11-2011, 06:17 PM

The LDS Church today considers that a "mystery".

But that is not what LDS believe in the past as evidenced by many upper level LDS leaders. Why do you think that the leaders got it wrong?

Libby

11-11-2011, 06:28 PM

But that is not what LDS believe in the past as evidenced by many upper level LDS leaders. Why do you think that the leaders got it wrong?

Because they're human.

Why do you suppose the Pope and many other Christian leaders of that era, were so wrong about torturing and murdering, supposed, heretics (in the name of Jesus Christ). They were the mainstream Christians of their time (the "inspired ones")...how could they have been so wrong?

Billyray

11-11-2011, 07:22 PM

Because they're human.

They why trust anything that they say?

Libby

11-11-2011, 07:47 PM

They why trust anything that they say?

I don't, particularly, not unless I can confirm it, myself.

The Bible was also written by fallible humans. Why do you believe everything that is written there?

It's all a matter of faith, Billy. LDS believe Joseph Smith was sent by God. You believe the prophets in the O.T. were sent by God. You can't really prove that, anymore than LDS can prove JS. You can really only "prove it" to yourself, by means of the Spirit or whatever you have faith in.

Billyray

11-11-2011, 07:52 PM

The Bible was also written by fallible humans. Why do you believe everything that is written there?

Because it is God's words to us.

Billyray

11-11-2011, 07:53 PM

I don't, particularly, not unless I can confirm it, myself.

Since LDS have prophets what prophecies have you confirmed?

Libby

11-11-2011, 08:14 PM

Because it is God's words to us.

How do you know?

Libby

11-11-2011, 08:18 PM

Since LDS have prophets what prophecies have you confirmed?

None. But, I do believe some of the general teachings are correct. One example...I am convinced that our souls are eternal and we did "pre-exist"...not exactly as LDS believe it, but generally speaking, I'd call that a "hit".

neverending

11-11-2011, 08:23 PM

[quote] Well, do you believe that God approves of living together then and then having the state recognize it as marriage?

The main difference are these as noted by a website:

Read up on what it means to be an everlasting covenant.

Whether God approves of a couple living together is not the POINT! Utah, which is the capital of the Mormon Church, the State has a law on its books that once a couple has been cohabitating for 2 years, they are them recognized by the State as MARRIED! So that does away with a couple not being married doesn't it?

I don't need to read up on what an "everlasting covenant" means? Everlasting means, it lasts forever!

1. (adj.) everlasting
lasting forever; eternal.

2. everlasting
lasting or continuing for an indefinitely long time:
the everlasting hills.

3. everlasting
incessant; constantly recurring:
the everlasting changes of season.

4. everlasting
wearisome; tedious:
his everlasting puns.

5. (n.) everlasting
the, eternal duration; eternity (http://www.definitions.net/definition/eternity).

Was this enough definition for you? You tell me what everlasting means to you if this doesn't prove that an everlasting covenant is one that lasts forever, eternally!

neverending

11-11-2011, 08:24 PM

None. But, I do believe some of the general teachings are correct. One example...I am convinced that our souls are eternal and we did "pre-exist"...not exactly as LDS believe it, but generally speaking, I'd call that a "hit".

Libby,
There is nothing within the Biblical scriptures that can prove we lived a pre-existant life. How can you believe in such a doctrine?

Billyray

11-11-2011, 08:26 PM

I am convinced that our souls are eternal and we did "pre-exist"...not exactly as LDS believe. . .

So you have co-existed with God forever and that God did not create you?

Decalogue

11-11-2011, 08:55 PM

I don't think so, since LDS prophets never claimed to speak for God 24/7. Not everything they spoke was revelation; Joseph made that clear.

Plus, I think people like John Calvin were pretty sure that they were being inspired by God, even though they didn't call themselves prophets. Many people, even today, believe that Calvin was inspired in his interpretation of the Bible. Same for Luther and Wesley and many others. My great great Grandfather was a follower of John Wesley, and he sure did believe he was inspired by God.

There is clearly a double standard being employed by critics of the LDS Church.

Libby : --- Hello. Not trying to be mean or hurt your feelings , but ... to put it plainly : You are wrong !

From Joseph Smith to Brigham Young ( and the Missouri-based Mormons , and most of the Mormon-splinter groups ,,, ) Mormons have said that the President of the L.D.S. group is a "Living Prophet". Matter o' fact ... in about the 1970's the M.M.s would come door-to-door and that was their standard question on the doorstep : ..." If there was a Prophet from God alive on the earth , wouldn't you want to know what he has to say ?..." If the person at the house would say "Yes I would." Then the M.M.s would schedule a meeting for later.

Now --- as to you mentioning John Calvin , Martin Luther , and John Wesley ...

( I think in Mystery novels/stories what you did is called a "red Herring"... :rolleyes: )

.... Neither of those three gents EVER claimed to be a Prophet ! None , nein , zip , nada , non , no , zero , goose eggs !
Never did they claim "Prpphet" status , nor did the people in the congregations / pews of the Churches/Chapels they taught & preached at ever thought those guys were "prophets"... and those 3 guys would have been :mad: if anyone said that about them.

I've read and listened to several Biographies of those gents , and they did not believe that there are modern-day prophets around . The only "prophets" that Calvin , Luther & Wesley were interested in were REAL prophets such as Isaiah , Jeremiah , Amos , Malachi , Joel , Hosea , Micah , and those gents found in the Hebrew Bible ( O.T. ) , the kind of prophets who spoke FOR God Almighty , and warned the people of sin , and falling away from God their maker. Real prophets make true prophecies.

Now --- howzabout we get back to the THREAD TOPIC ? ! ?

theway

11-11-2011, 11:10 PM

Richard,
So you think it is ok for the members of your church to live Communism? That is what the Law of Consecration was, everyone to share equally but not everyone, for what of the President of the Church who lived in luxury, owned all the land up City Creek Canyon and owning the Lion House. Did you know BY charged people to go up the canyon to cut down trees? Yes, he most certainly did....great example of brotherly love....NOT! Pres. Monson lives in a condo worth over a million dollars and has a limo with a private driver. Seems he certainly is enjoying the spoils of the giving of your members. What would be wrong with living in a modest home and drive yourself where you need to go?Oh Neverending... you have made yet another mistake in your long list of errors. To put it simply; Communism is a forced socialism, whereas The Law of Consecration, is a voluntary socialism. In fact the best form of government in the world is a form of socialism called a Theocracy. This will be implemented when the Lord comes again to rule on this earth personally.

In the future, please try to refrain from replying to subjects in which you know nothing about.

theway

11-11-2011, 11:18 PM

I call you Richard because you speak as he did....sorry if it offends you. I will again repeat myself even though you claim whatever I say has no credibility.
Not true... you made it clear before that you called me Richard because you thought i was using a sock puppet. I have no respect for someone who can not admit to their mistakes.

Definitions of Christian
believer in Jesus Christ as savior:
There you go... in using that broad brush you just included the LDS Church. When can I expect my discount Christian card?

Billyray

11-11-2011, 11:28 PM

whereas The Law of Consecration, is a voluntary socialism.

If the law of consecration was implemented could some LDS choose not to participate and still be a member in good standing and be on tract for exaltation?

Libby

11-11-2011, 11:54 PM

So you have co-existed with God forever and that God did not create you?

How about you answer my other question first. How do you know that every word in the Bible is from God?

Billyray

11-12-2011, 12:01 AM

How do you know that every word in the Bible is from God?

Because of the eye witness testimony of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ and through a spiritual witness. However we don't have the original m****cripts but rather we have copies of copies and thus we have variant readings within the NT m****cripts.

Libby

11-12-2011, 12:14 AM

Libby : --- Hello. Not trying to be mean or hurt your feelings , but ... to put it plainly : You are wrong !

From Joseph Smith to Brigham Young ( and the Missouri-based Mormons , and most of the Mormon-splinter groups ,,, ) Mormons have said that the President of the L.D.S. group is a "Living Prophet". Matter o' fact ... in about the 1970's the M.M.s would come door-to-door and that was their standard question on the doorstep : ..." If there was a Prophet from God alive on the earth , wouldn't you want to know what he has to say ?..." If the person at the house would say "Yes I would." Then the M.M.s would schedule a meeting for later.

Now --- as to you mentioning John Calvin , Martin Luther , and John Wesley ...

( I think in Mystery novels/stories what you did is called a "red Herring"... :rolleyes: )

.... Neither of those three gents EVER claimed to be a Prophet ! None , nein , zip , nada , non , no , zero , goose eggs ! Never did they , or the people in the congregations / pews of the Churches/Chapels they taught & preached at ever think those guys were "prophets"... and those 3 guys would have been :mad: if anyone said that about them.

I've read and listened to several Biographies of those gents , and they did not believe that there are modern-day prophets around . The only "prophets" that Calvin , Luther & Wesley were interested in were REAL prophets such as Isaiah , Jeremiah , Amos , Malachi , Joel , Hosea , Micah , and those gents found in the Hebrew Bible ( O.T. ) , the kind of prophets who spoke FOR God Almighty , and warned the people of sin , and falling away from God their maker. Real prophets make true prophecies.

Now --- howzabout we get back to the THREAD TOPIC ? ! ?

No, I am not wrong, nor did I claim that Calvin and other Church Fathers were "prophets". I think I said, specifically, that they were not. But, that doesn't keep people from reading and revering and teaching and believing their words, in regards to interpretations of the Bible. I have two large volumes of Calvin's works (The Ins***utes) that I read and studied, when I was interested in the Calvinist perspective and I know many, many Calvinists who study those books like they study the Bible. There are a gazillion books and cl***es on the subject of Calvinism...I have a small library of Calvinist books. So, you may not have been a "prophet", but he was and IS extremely influential, even to this day, in Reformed Christian circles. In the Reformed Church I attended, for two years, Calvin's writings were quoted just as often, if not moreso, as Joseph Smith is quoted in Gospel Doctrine cl***. Our Minister fairly often included a quote from Calvin, even in his main sermon.

The point is, Protestant Christianity has a "church history", as well, and it is not all neat and tidy (there are some terrible atrocities in the history of the Protestant Church), just as there are some potentially embarr***ing things in LDS church history. I think there are some pretty terrible atrocities in the Old Testament, plus very imperfect prophets, as well. Do those things make your church untrue? Does it make your church a "cult"?

And I am on topic. The topic, as always, on this board is "Why I am a Christian, but you are not".