Religion built upon a god who failed.

[Christian]

Wouldn't that mean that GOD FAILED in setting up HIS CHURCH 2,000 years ago?

Wouldn't that ALSO MEAN that GOD FAILED to understand that the Apostles would all die?

Did GOD FAIL to set up a system in which HIS WORD, THE SCRIPTURES would remain intact?

What kind of stupid LITTLE god would do those things?

Oh yes, the MORMON god. . .

Why would God need to 'restore' Christ's church?

Joseph smith's whole religion is built upon a god who failed. . .

WHY should we believe their religion at all?

[Erundur]

What kind of stupid LITTLE god would do those things?
Must be the Protestant god, because God didn't fail.

[theway]

Wouldn't that mean that GOD FAILED in setting up HIS CHURCH 2,000 years ago?

Wouldn't that ALSO MEAN that GOD FAILED to understand that the Apostles would all die?

Did GOD FAIL to set up a system in which HIS WORD, THE SCRIPTURES would remain intact?

What kind of stupid LITTLE god would do those things?

Oh yes, the MORMON god. . .

Why would God need to 'restore' Christ's church?

Joseph smith's whole religion is built upon a god who failed. . .

WHY should we believe their religion at all?Mormons believe in a restoration. Orthodox Christianity believes in unbroken authority.

As a Protestant, you don't even have a horse in this race.
That what's so funny... In order for Faith Alone and other Protestant beliefs to be true... The Church Christ set up would have had to of failed. You're arguing against yourself.

[MickeyS]

Wouldn't that mean that GOD FAILED in setting up HIS CHURCH 2,000 years ago?

Wouldn't that ALSO MEAN that GOD FAILED to understand that the Apostles would all die?

Did GOD FAIL to set up a system in which HIS WORD, THE SCRIPTURES would remain intact?

What kind of stupid LITTLE god would do those things?

Oh yes, the MORMON god. . .

Why would God need to 'restore' Christ's church?

Joseph smith's whole religion is built upon a god who failed. . .

WHY should we believe their religion at all?

It's ok Christian, it will all be explained to you when Christ comes again :)

Seriously though...of course God could have intervened and prevented the apostasy, but He can't override free agency...that would make Him a liar. We are here to exercise our free agency. I don't understand why it's so hard to believe there was an apostasy and a falling away from Christ's church...the leader of said church was crucified after all, and His apostles were killed...why is it so hard to believe that with the inspired leaders of the church dead and gone, the church would go astray? And at that...why on earth would He have allowed the apostles to have been martyred like that so quickly?? That's a pretty crazy system.

And as you don't believe God spoke to man anymore after Christ and His apostles...how exactly was He supposed to GUARANTEE His church would remain absolutely perfect without messing with free agency? How can He do that without forcing His will on others. Do you believe God takes free agency from us? If you do than you believe in a contradictory God who allows SOME people free will (to kill apostles) but not other people (when it comes to the Bible) You believe in an arbitrary God?

God could "set up" the PERFECT "system"...but He still has to hand the reigns over to HUMANS. And humans aren't perfect. Do you believe God forced man to keep His Gospel intact? Actually, I know for a fact you don't believe God forced man to keep His Gospel intact because you don't believe the Catholic Church is true either....and it was "allowed" full reign of Christianity for a long time...why did God allow that?? If He wouldn't allow His word or His scripture to be twisted or changed...why are there SO MANY translations of the Bible? Do you believe God is a failure? Do you believe God failed to make it clear what church was in charge? Because as far as history goes....you're a Protestant...which means your sect of Christianity either broke off from the Catholic Church or was attempting to reform the Catholic Church 1,000 years after it was formed. Wow....that's a long time for God to "allow" His church to be lead astray. Except according to you it never was lead astray..so you DO believe the Catholic Church true then? I thought you didn't believe they were Christian...

[Christian]

Must be the Protestant god, because God didn't fail.

CHRIST'S God didn't fail.

CHRIST'S CHURCH didn't fail.

Mormonism is built upon a lie when it claims it did.

[Christian]

way posted:

Mormons believe in a restoration. Orthodox Christianity believes in unbroken authority.

The unbroken authority of ALL CHRISTIANS to speak for and act for God. NOT for manmade 'authority' supposedly gained by joey smith and oliver cowdrey when they went out into the woods and played 'religion,' supposedly baptizing and ordaining each other into their imaginary new religion.

As a Protestant, you don't even have a horse in this race.

Who is a 'protestant?' I am not. That is an imaginary group invented by your catholic friends into which they dump ALL NON-CATHOLICS INCLUDING MORMONS.

I am not a 'protestant.' I am simply a BIBLICAL CHRISTIAN. So far you have not shown that joey smith OR his followers have 'a horse' in this race.

That what's so funny... In order for Faith Alone and other Protestant beliefs to be true... The Church Christ set up would have had to of failed. You're arguing against yourself.

Since you don't have a CLUE what you are talking about, I won't even bother addressing your nonsensical remark.

I'll continue to pray that one day you will find the REAL Jesus Christ and leave your heathen cult for HIM.

[Erundur]

CHRIST'S God didn't fail.
That's what I said.

[MickeyS]

That's what I said.

Oh....yes...that's exactly what you said :)

[MickeyS]

[COLOR=#0000FF]The unbroken authority of ALL CHRISTIANS to speak for and act for God. NOT for manmade 'authority'.

I'm curious...not trying to fight...as to what you believe about why Christ ordained men with priesthood authority if that wasn't supposed to be something we were supposed to do ever again? What was the purpose for that?

And also...what was the purpose of Christ being baptized if we weren't supposed to do that either? He didn't need to be baptized, He had no sin, the only reason I could see that He did that was a-because His Father commanded Him and b-to set an example for us to follow. So I really would like to know what you think about that, and where in the Bible it says what you believe.

Thanks~

[alanmolstad]

I'm curious...not trying to fight...as to what you believe about why Christ ordained men with priesthood authority if that wasn't supposed to be something we were supposed to do ever again?

Im not sure when he is said to have done this?
the church had Apostles as they were the few who walked with the Lord while he was alive, but that was not an office that was p***ed on to others.

I know that the 12 once tried to stop a guy from preaching and doing stuff that was not connected to them and Jesus told them to not bother the other guy.
To me that kinda shows that the idea of "Apostolic Line"is a joke as the other guy clearly was not connected to the 12 yet was not stopped by Jesus from preaching.

I also remember that after the resurrection of Christ the 11Deciples decided to get a replacement for Judas, and yet not much is heard of that guy after being named one of the 12, so that seems to suggest that the "office" was not going to be something p***ed on to others like that despite the efforts of men to do so..

[alanmolstad]

And also...what was the purpose of Christ being baptized ?

Even John raised that question with Jesus when Jesus came to him.

[theway]

Even John raised that question with Jesus when Jesus came to him.And Jesus gave him the answer... "To fulfill all righteousness". In other words, unless Christ was baptized, He would have been disobedient.

[Christian]

mickey posted:

I'm curious...not trying to fight...as to what you believe about why Christ ordained men with priesthood authority if that wasn't supposed to be something we were supposed to do ever again? What was the purpose for that?

Please show us IN THE BIBLE where Christ 'ordained men with priesthood authority.' I don't think you can find ONE SINGLE PRIEST in the New Testament church other than TWO EXCEPTIONS, Jesus Himself (the ONLY Melchizedek priest) and EVERY CHRISTIAN EVERYWHERE (Christ's ROYAL PRIESTHOOD OF ALL BELIEVERS, EVERY CHRISTIAN EVERYWHERE).

1 Peter 2:7-10
7 Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient,
"The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone,"
8 and
"A stone of stumbling
And a rock of offense."
They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.
9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.
NKJV

The 'priesthood' setup joey smith invented is not in the New Testament church of the Bible ANYWHERE.

And also...what was the purpose of Christ being baptized if we weren't supposed to do that either? He didn't need to be baptized, He had no sin, the only reason I could see that He did that was a-because His Father commanded Him and b-to set an example for us to follow. So I really would like to know what you think about that, and where in the Bible it says what you believe.

We CHRISTIANS are not baptized because Jesus was baptized (He was not baptized into Jesus Christ, but into repentance, an OT baptism). We CHRISTIANS are baptized because He COMMANDED US TO BAPTIZE DISCIPLES (and that is what we are, amongst other things) (Matt 28:19) and because of various examples of Christians BEING BAPTIZED AFTER THEY HAD RECEIVED FAITH IN JESUS (Pentecost, the Eunuch, jailer, etc etc etc)

Does that help you?

[alanmolstad]

I re-readthe question,and I got to that part where it was suggestedthatone of the reasons that Jesus was baptised was because the "Father commanded him to be"....and I hadtostop there and ask....


Where ?


Where would you get the idea that the father commanded the Son to be baptized?

That is clearly NOT why Jesus went to John to be baptized.

[alanmolstad]

I re-read the question,and I got to that part where it was suggested that one of the reasons that Jesus was baptized was because the "Father commanded him to be"....and I had to stop there and ask....


Where is that?

[Christian]

Mickey posted:

It's ok Christian, it will all be explained to you when Christ comes again.

What do you think would be God's motive for 'explaining' the nonsense believed by Ungodly cults like Mormonism?

Seriously though...of course God could have intervened and prevented the apostasy, but He can't override free agency...that would make Him a liar. We are here to exercise our free agency.

NOBODY can come to Jesus unless HIS FATHER DRAWS HIM (SOME are not drawn, it seems) John 6:65

I don't understand why it's so hard to believe there was an apostasy and a falling away from Christ's church...

There have been MANY apostasies (or fallings away) from Christ's church. It's joey smith's fantasy that the church 'lost its authority' to act for God and 'lost its gospel' that is a bunch of hooey.

the leader of said church was crucified after all, and His apostles were killed...

Some were. John lived on the Isle of Patmos until he died at a ripe old age (He COULD have called others to be his 'successors' if that had been God's plan, but it wasn't God's plan to replace the apostles except for Judas)

why is it so hard to believe that with the inspired leaders of the church dead and gone, the church would go astray?

You leave a VERY important Person out of the mix. The Holy Ghost, the Holy Spirit of God, left to teach, guide Christians everywhere. You underestimate HIM badly.

And at that...why on earth would He have allowed the apostles to have been martyred like that so quickly?? That's a pretty crazy system.

Many were martyred. John was not. You need to check your history. God didn't make a crazy system that would leave the world without the church that HE PROMISED (the Gates of Hell would NOT prevail or 'win over' Christ's church) would not fall.

And as you don't believe God spoke to man anymore after Christ and His apostles...

God speaks to ME daily, through HIS WORD, the BIBLE. I'm sorry if YOU DON'T HAVE THAT. . .

Your so-called 'modern-day-revelators' haven't added EVEN ONE NEW REVELATION to your d&c for about 100 years now. . .so much for "modern-day ANYTHING"!!!

Your last 4 or 5 'revelators' have 'revealed' NOTHING FROM GOD AT ALL.

So much for your 'modern-day-revelation.'

how exactly was He supposed to GUARANTEE His church would remain absolutely perfect without messing with free agency? How can He do that without forcing His will on others. Do you believe God takes free agency from us? If you do than you believe in a contradictory God who allows SOME people free will (to kill apostles) but not other people (when it comes to the Bible) You believe in an arbitrary God?

Matt 20:16
For many are called, but few chosen."
NKJV

Matt 7:13-1413 "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.
NKJV


I simply believe the God of the Bible.
breakfast calls, I will try to get back to this later.

You are operating on a WHOLE LOT OF SPECULATION and no SCRIPTURE to support your theory that man has 'free will' to choose whatever he wants whenever he wants. The Bible never says that.

[alanmolstad]

The Son only does things he SEES the Father doing!

The Cross, the Baptism are all things the Son came to do.
Jesus talked about laying down his life, and that none were able to actually take it,rather he gave it by choice.
the same is true for the baptism.

What is really going on is that like with the cross, Jesus gathers all men to himself as he is baptized.
The "righteousness" that Jesus talked about fulfilling, is to ours!.....ours, though him.


It works out in such a way as when Christ went onto the cross, he did so for me and you.





So rather than the idea of Jesus fulfilling a command of the father, a more correct understanding of the story of the Baptism of Jesus would be to see it as a story of the Holy Trinity in united action....

The Son in the water,
The Voice from heaven,
and The Dove descending ...

[Christian]

mickey posted:


Originally Posted by Christian http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/images/****ons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?p=165653#post165653)
Wouldn't that mean that GOD FAILED in setting up HIS CHURCH 2,000 years ago?

Wouldn't that ALSO MEAN that GOD FAILED to understand that the Apostles would all die?

Did GOD FAIL to set up a system in which HIS WORD, THE SCRIPTURES would remain intact?

What kind of stupid LITTLE god would do those things?

Oh yes, the MORMON god. . .

Why would God need to 'restore' Christ's church?

Joseph smith's whole religion is built upon a god who failed. . .

WHY should we believe their religion at all?


God could "set up" the PERFECT "system"...but He still has to hand the reigns over to HUMANS. And humans aren't perfect. Do you believe God forced man to keep His Gospel intact?

Do MORMONS have to be 'forced' to keep THEIR religious books intact? WHY do you think God would NEED to force FAITHFUL CHRISTIANS to keep His Gospel intact? What an ignorant question you asked!

Actually, I know for a fact you don't believe God forced man to keep His Gospel intact because you don't believe the Catholic Church is true either....
Do YOU believe the catholic religion is Christ's church today? IF SO, WHY ARE YOU NOT CATHOLIC? In other words, you believe what I do, that the catholic religion apostatized (left Christ's church)

and it was "allowed" full reign of Christianity for a long time...why did God allow that??


??? I have NO IDEA what your strawman argument here is about. Perhaps if you re-wrote it to tell us what 'it" refers to? There has NEVER in all of the History of CHRIST'S CHURCH been a time when all CHRISTIANS were roman OR catholics.

The rcc was PART of Christ's church until it apostatized. BUT ONLY a part.

If He wouldn't allow His word or His scripture to be twisted or changed...why are there SO MANY translations of the Bible?

Multiple translations exist because LANGUAGE CHANGES. What 'gay' meant 50 years ago is NOT what it means today. What 'mouse' meant has changed too.

Of course YOU COULD NOT READ the original King James Bible. What you read today is the 7th REVISION of it.

We have over 5,200 partials and m****cript copies of the New Testament today, some as old as AD 120.
We have complete Old Testament copies older than that, including the Greek Septuagint that Jesus quoted from repeatedly. We have vast libraries from Biblical times, including lexical tools, so translation is not a problem.

Of course MORMONS HAVE NONE OF THIS. They cannot go to early documents to CHECK TO SEE IF JOEY EVER TRANSLATED ANYTHING AT ALL. No language tools are available for joey smith's imaginary 'reformed egyptian' language. All YOU HAVE is . . .nothing.

Do you believe God is a failure?

Nope.

Do you believe God failed to make it clear what church was in charge?

You are wrong again. JESUS has always been in charge of HIS CHURCH. Not some new cult invented about 200 years ago by joey smith. Jesus NEVER put ANY RELIGIOUS CORPORATION (rcc OR mormon) in charge of His church. HIS church has ALWAYS BEEN HIS OWN.

Because as far as history goes....you're a Protestant...which means your sect of Christianity either broke off from the Catholic Church or was attempting to reform the Catholic Church 1,000 years after it was formed.

Let's see now. . .I am a CHRISTIAN (not a 'protestant' at all), CHRISTIANITY has been here for about 2,000 years now. Your 'new religion' has only been around for about 200. I worship the same Jesus that has been the head of HIS church for about 2,000 years. HE NEVER FAILED.

I can worship with a Lutheran, ***emblies of God, Bible church, presbyterian, or evangelical free church in Spirit and in Truth. Jesus didn't built a 'religious government.' He built a church (CONGREGATION OF CONGREGATIONS). Your religious government will lead you to a very hot place if you follow it.

Wow....that's a long time for God to "allow" His church to be lead astray. Except according to you it never was lead astray..so you DO believe the Catholic Church true then? I thought you didn't believe they were Christian...

Your fourth-grade-level rhetoric is not worth responding to. You KNOW IT IS NOTHING BUT YOUR OWN TRASHTALK.


HOW STUPID IS THAT?

[Christian]

That's what I said.

No 'protestant' anything there. No 'protestant God.' Simply GOD.

I am a CHRISTIAN, not a 'protestant,' btw.

[Erundur]

No 'protestant' anything there. No 'protestant God.'
Yes, I know the Protestant god doesn't exist. Protestants believe he does, though.

[theway]

I re-read the question,and I got to that part where it was suggested that one of the reasons that Jesus was baptized was because the "Father commanded him to be"....and I had to stop there and ask....


Where is that?
John 14:31 but he comes so that the world may learn that I love the Father and do exactly what my Father has commanded me. "Come now; let us leave.


John 6:38 "For I have come down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

John 4:34 Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to finish His work.

John 12:49 For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak.

[Christian]

Yes, I know the Protestant god doesn't exist. Protestants believe he does, though.

Your imaginary 'protestant god' is the same god as your imaginary 'mormon god.' Your imagination makes you look ignorant. The God of the Bible is alive and well and living in Every Christian everywhere. Too bad mormons, white suprememcists and other cultists are left out. . .

The Christian God is not a man who 'exalted himself' and made himself into a god like the mormon gods supposedly are. And no, you cannot become one.

You can obey all the rules and 'ordinances' you wish, but since you follow the wrong christ, all of your 'ordinance-keeping' is for naught!

In other words,your religion has Nothing to offer anyone in relationship to the True God.

We Christians will continue to pray for your lost souls.

[MickeyS]

I re-readthe question,and I got to that part where it was suggestedthatone of the reasons that Jesus was baptised was because the "Father commanded him to be"....and I hadtostop there and ask....


Where ?


Where would you get the idea that the father commanded the Son to be baptized?

That is clearly NOT why Jesus went to John to be baptized.

Oh, I'm sorry, again, something I take for granted. I believe everything Jesus did was by the commandment of the Father.

John 6:38 "For I have come down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me

But yes...in Matthew, He was baptized
"...to fulfill all righteousness...
(To do the will of The Father)

Why is it you believe that Jesus was baptized?

[Erundur]

Your imaginary 'protestant god' is the same god as your imaginary 'mormon god.'
Then why do Protestants insist that they're different?

[MickeyS]

mickey posted:



God could "set up" the PERFECT "system"...but He still has to hand the reigns over to HUMANS. And humans aren't perfect. Do you believe God forced man to keep His Gospel intact?

Do MORMONS have to be 'forced' to keep THEIR religious books intact? WHY do you think God would NEED to force FAITHFUL CHRISTIANS to keep His Gospel intact? What an ignorant question you asked!

Actually, I know for a fact you don't believe God forced man to keep His Gospel intact because you don't believe the Catholic Church is true either....
Do YOU believe the catholic religion is Christ's church today? IF SO, WHY ARE YOU NOT CATHOLIC? In other words, you believe what I do, that the catholic religion apostatized (left Christ's church)

and it was "allowed" full reign of Christianity for a long time...why did God allow that??


??? I have NO IDEA what your strawman argument here is about. Perhaps if you re-wrote it to tell us what 'it" refers to? There has NEVER in all of the History of CHRIST'S CHURCH been a time when all CHRISTIANS were roman OR catholics.

The rcc was PART of Christ's church until it apostatized. BUT ONLY a part.

If He wouldn't allow His word or His scripture to be twisted or changed...why are there SO MANY translations of the Bible?

Multiple translations exist because LANGUAGE CHANGES. What 'gay' meant 50 years ago is NOT what it means today. What 'mouse' meant has changed too.

Of course YOU COULD NOT READ the original King James Bible. What you read today is the 7th REVISION of it.

We have over 5,200 partials and m****cript copies of the New Testament today, some as old as AD 120.
We have complete Old Testament copies older than that, including the Greek Septuagint that Jesus quoted from repeatedly. We have vast libraries from Biblical times, including lexical tools, so translation is not a problem.

Of course MORMONS HAVE NONE OF THIS. They cannot go to early documents to CHECK TO SEE IF JOEY EVER TRANSLATED ANYTHING AT ALL. No language tools are available for joey smith's imaginary 'reformed egyptian' language. All YOU HAVE is . . .nothing.

Do you believe God is a failure?

Nope.

Do you believe God failed to make it clear what church was in charge?

You are wrong again. JESUS has always been in charge of HIS CHURCH. Not some new cult invented about 200 years ago by joey smith. Jesus NEVER put ANY RELIGIOUS CORPORATION (rcc OR mormon) in charge of His church. HIS church has ALWAYS BEEN HIS OWN.

Because as far as history goes....you're a Protestant...which means your sect of Christianity either broke off from the Catholic Church or was attempting to reform the Catholic Church 1,000 years after it was formed.

Let's see now. . .I am a CHRISTIAN (not a 'protestant' at all), CHRISTIANITY has been here for about 2,000 years now. Your 'new religion' has only been around for about 200. I worship the same Jesus that has been the head of HIS church for about 2,000 years. HE NEVER FAILED.

I can worship with a Lutheran, ***emblies of God, Bible church, presbyterian, or evangelical free church in Spirit and in Truth. Jesus didn't built a 'religious government.' He built a church (CONGREGATION OF CONGREGATIONS). Your religious government will lead you to a very hot place if you follow it.

Wow....that's a long time for God to "allow" His church to be lead astray. Except according to you it never was lead astray..so you DO believe the Catholic Church true then? I thought you didn't believe they were Christian...

Your fourth-grade-level rhetoric is not worth responding to. You KNOW IT IS NOTHING BUT YOUR OWN TRASHTALK.


HOW STUPID IS THAT?

Yeah....I didn't give you scripture, you have a tendency to ignore it lol. I gave scripture verses in direct response to your Isaiah verses like I told you I would. It was a big response, and even provided a link to the thread when you asked why I wasn't responding, you never said one word about it, I have on some of your other comments too (just recently I was trying to discuss a scripture with you and you stopped responding)...I do try, but it's a lot of effort to go through when nobody addresses them. I'm not being rude, just being honest.

But that's ok Christian, I'm used to your responses, not a big deal :)
I understand your fervent intense testimony. I truly do. I appreciate that The Savior has changed your life, you've born witness to that a few times. And I know you're not a "Hey look at me I'm a Christian!" Christian by the way you carry a simple cross around your neck next to your heart as a reminder of our Savior's sacrifice and what that means to you personally (I was touched by that) I have experienced that great change as well, my life was quite literally in the gutter when I completely handed it all over to Him, He LITERALLY saved my life (both temporal and spiritual) I do know how that makes someone fiercely protective of their beliefs, so I can be prone to being snide with my responses...but I truly don't like to do that, I'll try to keep the snarkiness to a minimum, it's not productive.

So then you believe there are no leaders or an organized church, just certain Christian churches, but not all Christian churches? I'm just simply trying to get a good bead on what your beliefs are. My beliefs are that Christ established a church unified in congregations that were separated by locations but not by doctrinal differences...but it was still one organized church. With Jesus at the head, His twelve apostles (one of which was replaced when Judas left) and other leaders ordained with priesthood authority...as found in the Bible
Ephesians 2:20
Luke 10:1
Ephesians 4:11-13
Matthew 16:19
John 15:16
Luke 9:1-2
Etc...These are a few, I don't have time to list the full scripture, I can do so later.

I do have ONE question for you. Do you believe every single man who has handled and translated the bible (and the doctrine that has been handed down from it) was ABSOLUTELY perfect? (Like Christ perfect) and made NO mistakes? That they were completely infallible?

Again, not fighting, just a sincere question. Thanks~

[alanmolstad]

Why is it you believe that Jesus was baptized?basically the answer is as with the cross too.

That though faith in him we receive his righteousness.



So the question "Why did he need to be baptized if he was without sin?"is just as off-base as asking "Why did he have to die like a sinner when he was sinless?" for these types of questions miss the mark as to why Jesus did such things on our behalf.



This is very much connected with the idea that Jesus did not come to this Earth to destroy the Law, rather he said that he came to "fulfill" the law.

So who did he fulfill the Law for?.........Us!

Its the same when confronted by John at the baptism and he said that he must "fulfill all righteousness"
This "righteousness" he speaks of is ours though faith in Him!

[Christian]

mickey posted:

Yeah....I didn't give you scripture, you have a tendency to ignore it lol.

Never once. You do have a tendency to prevaricate about that tho. . .

I gave scripture verses in direct response to your Isaiah verses like I told you I would. It was a big response, and even provided a link to the thread when you asked why I wasn't responding, you never said one word about it,

So far I have seen NO RESPONSE, NO HONEST DISCUSSION ABOUT Isaiah 43:10, 44:6, 44:8 where the God of the BIBLE says HE IS THE ONLY REAL GOD ANYWHERE; HE DOESN'T EVEN KNOW OF ANY OTHERS. Yet in joey smith's pgp abraham 3, YOUR god claims to meet with OTHER gods to determine WHICH of your gods will 'organize the earth,' THEN joey's garbage goes on in chapter 4 to repeat 'and they (that is the gods. . .)' over and over again.

TOTAL CONTRADICTION between joey smith's 'gods' and the ONLY GOD, the GOD OF THE BIBLE.

IF you had the guts to try to HONESTLY DISCUSS the differences, I would CERTAINLY BE INTERESTED.

I have on some of your other comments too (just recently I was trying to discuss a scripture with you and you stopped responding)...I do try, but it's a lot of effort to go through when nobody addresses them. I'm not being rude, just being honest.

When you falsely claim that I don't respond, it makes it less likely that I will WANT to respond next time.

But that's ok Christian, I'm used to your responses, not a big deal :)

Now you admit that I DO respond. Not very consistant, are you.

I understand your fervent intense testimony. I truly do. I appreciate that The Savior has changed your life, you've born witness to that a few times. And I know you're not a "Hey look at me I'm a Christian!" Christian by the way you carry a simple cross around your neck next to your heart as a reminder of our Savior's sacrifice and what that means to you personally (I was touched by that) I have experienced that great change as well, my life was quite literally in the gutter when I completely handed it all over to Him, He LITERALLY saved my life (both temporal and spiritual) I do know how that makes someone fiercely protective of their beliefs, so I can be prone to being snide with my responses...but I truly don't like to do that, I'll try to keep the snarkiness to a minimum, it's not productive.

If that is an apology, your apology is accepted. I do know that you do believe the false religion you have been conned by; you are convinced and sincere in your belief.

So then you believe there are no leaders or an organized church, just certain Christian churches, but not all Christian churches? I'm just simply trying to get a good bead on what your beliefs are.

Each congregation has its eldership (ADULT leaders, not 12 or 19 year old kids), pastors, deacons, deaconesses, etc. No 'central corporation' was set up by Jesus Christ beyond HIMSELF and His Apostles (of which you have none)

My beliefs are that Christ established a church unified in congregations that were separated by locations but not by doctrinal differences...but it was still one organized church. With Jesus at the head, His twelve apostles (one of which was replaced when Judas left) and other leaders ordained with priesthood authority...as found in the Bible
Ephesians 2:20

No 'priesthood authority' there.

Luke 10:1

Jesus sent out 70 missionaries BEFORE HIS CRUCIFIXION. They were NOT 'positions in the church' since His church had not yet been built. No 'priesthood authority' in CHRIST'S CHURCH there either.

Ephesians 4:11-13

Jesus set up His original church. The Apostles were still alive. Joey smith's religion wasn't there.

All the rest of those things will be found in our Evangelical Christian churches.

Matthew 16:19

God gave PETER the keys to HIS CHURCH, Peter used them to open the church at Pentecost. Just because joey smith PRETENDED TO HAVE 'KEYS' does NOT MAKE what joey smith claimed become True.

John 15:16

JESUS chose His people, we didn't choose HIM. Ephesians 1 tells us HE chose US before the beginning of the world.

Of course this p***age HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY "priestly authority" within Christ's church EXCEPT THAT JESUS IS IN CHARGE.

Luke 9:1-2

Jesus sent out His 12 Apostles with power and authority over all demons and to cure deseases. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about your manmade 'priesthood authority' within His church which had NOT BEEN BUILT AT THAT TIME.


Etc...These are a few, I don't have time to list the full scripture, I can do so later.

SO FAR you have not offered ONE SCRIPTURE that allows for or builds the 'priesthood authority' joey smith invented within your own organization. YOU HAVEN'T EVEN DEMONSTRATED THAT JOEY SMITH EVER HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH GOD.

I do have ONE question for you. Do you believe every single man who has handled and translated the bible (and the doctrine that has been handed down from it) was ABSOLUTELY perfect? (Like Christ perfect) and made NO mistakes? That they were completely infallible?

OF COURSE NOT. BUT the originals (autographs) were, and many many multiple copieists and type-setters wouldn't all make the same mistakes.

Do YOU believe joey smith was ABSOLUTELY PERFECT? OR that the original printing of the bom was perfect? Were THEY completely infallible?

Again, not fighting, just a sincere question. Thanks~

​Likewise.

[alanmolstad]

Then why do Protestants insist that they're different?

The God of the Catholic and Protestant believer is real...its the true God of the Bible.

However everything even slightly connected to Mormonism is tainted and false.
So not only is Joe Smith's teachings on his god false, all his point of views on Christian denominations is also tainted and false.

So that is why you cant really ask a Mormon "What type of God do Catholics and Protestants believe in?", as they get their answers from the tainted source of Smith's invented ideas about the Catholic and Protestant churches.




So to review:
The god of Smith was just a bunch of silly ideas that Smith came up with on his own that tended to slant his other teachings into supporting his authority over other people who put their trust in him, as well as giving him a means to share the affections of other women besides his own wife.



and that's why they shot him.....

[theway]

basically the answer is as with the cross too.

That though faith in him we receive his righteousness.



So the question "Why did he need to be baptized if he was without sin?"is just as off-base as asking "Why did he have to die like a sinner when he was sinless?" for these types of questions miss the mark as to why Jesus did such things on our behalf.



This is very much connected with the idea that Jesus did not come to this Earth to destroy the Law, rather he said that he came to "fulfill" the law.

So who did he fulfill the Law for?.........Us!

Its the same when confronted by John at the baptism and he said that he must "fulfill all righteousness"
This "righteousness" he speaks of is ours though faith in Him!Darn.... My post got deleted....

Bottom line is you are wrong!

The righteousness spoken of is willingly being submissive to all covenants, ordinances and commandments that the Father had commanded of men. Christ could not be an exception to those commandments of the Father (this has the same connotation as Christ washing the Disciples feet) even if it was His own will to do so. (Think Christ in the Garden) Christ had to submit to the Father's Will.

[MickeyS]

mickey posted:

Yeah....I didn't give you scripture, you have a tendency to ignore it lol.

Never once. You do have a tendency to prevaricate about that tho. . .

I gave scripture verses in direct response to your Isaiah verses like I told you I would. It was a big response, and even provided a link to the thread when you asked why I wasn't responding, you never said one word about it,

So far I have seen NO RESPONSE, NO HONEST DISCUSSION ABOUT Isaiah 43:10, 44:6, 44:8 where the God of the BIBLE says HE IS THE ONLY REAL GOD ANYWHERE; HE DOESN'T EVEN KNOW OF ANY OTHERS. Yet in joey smith's pgp abraham 3, YOUR god claims to meet with OTHER gods to determine WHICH of your gods will 'organize the earth,' THEN joey's garbage goes on in chapter 4 to repeat 'and they (that is the gods. . .)' over and over again.

TOTAL CONTRADICTION between joey smith's 'gods' and the ONLY GOD, the GOD OF THE BIBLE.

IF you had the guts to try to HONESTLY DISCUSS the differences, I would CERTAINLY BE INTERESTED.

I have on some of your other comments too (just recently I was trying to discuss a scripture with you and you stopped responding)...I do try, but it's a lot of effort to go through when nobody addresses them. I'm not being rude, just being honest.

When you falsely claim that I don't respond, it makes it less likely that I will WANT to respond next time.

But that's ok Christian, I'm used to your responses, not a big deal :)

Now you admit that I DO respond. Not very consistant, are you.

I understand your fervent intense testimony. I truly do. I appreciate that The Savior has changed your life, you've born witness to that a few times. And I know you're not a "Hey look at me I'm a Christian!" Christian by the way you carry a simple cross around your neck next to your heart as a reminder of our Savior's sacrifice and what that means to you personally (I was touched by that) I have experienced that great change as well, my life was quite literally in the gutter when I completely handed it all over to Him, He LITERALLY saved my life (both temporal and spiritual) I do know how that makes someone fiercely protective of their beliefs, so I can be prone to being snide with my responses...but I truly don't like to do that, I'll try to keep the snarkiness to a minimum, it's not productive.

If that is an apology, your apology is accepted. I do know that you do believe the false religion you have been conned by; you are convinced and sincere in your belief.

So then you believe there are no leaders or an organized church, just certain Christian churches, but not all Christian churches? I'm just simply trying to get a good bead on what your beliefs are.

Each congregation has its eldership (ADULT leaders, not 12 or 19 year old kids), pastors, deacons, deaconesses, etc. No 'central corporation' was set up by Jesus Christ beyond HIMSELF and His Apostles (of which you have none)

My beliefs are that Christ established a church unified in congregations that were separated by locations but not by doctrinal differences...but it was still one organized church. With Jesus at the head, His twelve apostles (one of which was replaced when Judas left) and other leaders ordained with priesthood authority...as found in the Bible
Ephesians 2:20

No 'priesthood authority' there.

Luke 10:1

Jesus sent out 70 missionaries BEFORE HIS CRUCIFIXION. They were NOT 'positions in the church' since His church had not yet been built. No 'priesthood authority' in CHRIST'S CHURCH there either.

Ephesians 4:11-13

Jesus set up His original church. The Apostles were still alive. Joey smith's religion wasn't there.

All the rest of those things will be found in our Evangelical Christian churches.

Matthew 16:19

God gave PETER the keys to HIS CHURCH, Peter used them to open the church at Pentecost. Just because joey smith PRETENDED TO HAVE 'KEYS' does NOT MAKE what joey smith claimed become True.

John 15:16

JESUS chose His people, we didn't choose HIM. Ephesians 1 tells us HE chose US before the beginning of the world.

Of course this p***age HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY "priestly authority" within Christ's church EXCEPT THAT JESUS IS IN CHARGE.

Luke 9:1-2

Jesus sent out His 12 Apostles with power and authority over all demons and to cure deseases. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about your manmade 'priesthood authority' within His church which had NOT BEEN BUILT AT THAT TIME.


Etc...These are a few, I don't have time to list the full scripture, I can do so later.

SO FAR you have not offered ONE SCRIPTURE that allows for or builds the 'priesthood authority' joey smith invented within your own organization. YOU HAVEN'T EVEN DEMONSTRATED THAT JOEY SMITH EVER HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH GOD.

I do have ONE question for you. Do you believe every single man who has handled and translated the bible (and the doctrine that has been handed down from it) was ABSOLUTELY perfect? (Like Christ perfect) and made NO mistakes? That they were completely infallible?

OF COURSE NOT. BUT the originals (autographs) were, and many many multiple copieists and type-setters wouldn't all make the same mistakes.

Do YOU believe joey smith was ABSOLUTELY PERFECT? OR that the original printing of the bom was perfect? Were THEY completely infallible?

Again, not fighting, just a sincere question. Thanks~

​Likewise.

I didn't say you don't respond...I said you don't usually respond to my scripture, I wasn't trying to be rude. And I was trying to be funny about your responses when I said I was used to them...just stating that I understand your intensity...I don't think I conveyed that very well. I was sincerely trying to open a dialogue and show respect for your testimony and beliefs. I know there's a nice guy in there, what do I need to do to bring him out? I'm not trying to fight and bicker, I'm really not. And I'm not being facetious or condescending either (discussing through written word loses all inflection) I'm discussing my take on doctrine and scripture and inquiring about yours, that's all.

[MickeyS]

basically the answer is as with the cross too.

That though faith in him we receive his righteousness.



So the question "Why did he need to be baptized if he was without sin?"is just as off-base as asking "Why did he have to die like a sinner when he was sinless?" for these types of questions miss the mark as to why Jesus did such things on our behalf.



This is very much connected with the idea that Jesus did not come to this Earth to destroy the Law, rather he said that he came to "fulfill" the law.

So who did he fulfill the Law for?.........Us!

Its the same when confronted by John at the baptism and he said that he must "fulfill all righteousness"
This "righteousness" he speaks of is ours though faith in Him!

I know He had to suffer to atone for our sins, and I understand that satisfied the law of sacrifice. I don't believe He suffered for our sins because He had sin....He had to be sinless to be the perfect sacrifice. But He did nothing save God commanded it. I understand that what He did, He did for us, but again it was because The Father commanded Him to. I believe one of the main purposes of Christ's mission was to provide us with a perfect example of humility, love and obedience.

So, His baptism was like the crucifixion...it was done to fulfill righteousness so we wouldn't have to?

Why do you believe others were baptized, and commanded to be baptized?

[MickeyS]

and that's why they shot him.....

Please don't tell me he deserved to die....Do you believe he deserved to die? :(

[MickeyS]

Christian said

So far I have seen NO RESPONSE, NO HONEST DISCUSSION ABOUT Isaiah 43:10, 44:6, 44:8 where the God of the BIBLE says HE IS THE ONLY REAL GOD ANYWHERE; HE DOESN'T EVEN KNOW OF ANY OTHERS. Yet in joey smith's pgp abraham 3, YOUR god claims to meet with OTHER gods to determine WHICH of your gods will 'organize the earth,' THEN joey's garbage goes on in chapter 4 to repeat 'and they (that is the gods. . .)' over and over again.

TOTAL CONTRADICTION between joey smith's 'gods' and the ONLY GOD, the GOD OF THE BIBLE.

IF you had the guts to try to HONESTLY DISCUSS the differences, I would CERTAINLY BE INTERESTED.



I really shouldn't have said what I did, I was kinda trying to be funny, and failed miserably. But Christian, if you could please let me know what I can do to show you I am interested in a sincere discussion, I would appreciate it. I'm trying to tell you why I believe what I believe and asking you what you believe as well. I'm really trying. So just let me know what I'm missing that you'd like to see. Thank you, sincerely... I'm trying to put that word in there as much as possible to let you know I am NOT being sarcastic or facetious...I'm really not.

http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?3635-Mormons-are-christians-they-follow-a-christ/page4
See post #76

http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?3605-no-need-to-restore-the-truth/page4
Post #77-80

[alanmolstad]

Please don't tell me he deserved to die....Do you believe he deserved to die? :(

Joe Smith was a full grown man, and one of his so-called "wives"was a little 14 year old girl.
Think about it...


Enough said...


(Some people just need shooting)

[MickeyS]

Joe Smith was a full grown man, and one of his so-called "wives"was a little 14 year old girl.
Think about it...


Enough said...


(Some people just need shooting)

Ok....do you know if Joseph Smith had sexual relations with this girl?

[alanmolstad]

Ok....do you know if Joseph Smith had sexual relations with this girl?would that make a difference to you?

[alanmolstad]

Ok....do you know if Joseph Smith had sexual relations with this girl?would that make a difference to you?


Here is a story.

Not long ago a guy named "Jim"and another guy named "Billy" used to post here all the time.
They seemed to always end up in the very same debate over the sex life of Smith with the same nice Mormon lady that also used to post here very often.

Jim and Billy used to say that Smith had many wives.
The nice Mormon lady condemned this idea and said it was all lies from the Anti-Mormon factions who left the Mormon church and are now just very bitter.

I was reading the posts, and the same old arguement was going back and forth, and then Jim started to press the nice Mormon lady on the question of "What if?"
They were asking her "What if Smith did have many more wives?"
"What if some of the wives were under age?"
"What if it was a sexual incounter he was engaged in with the underage girls?"

I think Jim and Billy wanted the nice Mormon lady to state that if it ever came out that Smith had more than one wife, or if it came out that he had sex with underage girls, that she would stop believing in his testimony and consider the Christian church anew.

But....try as they might, Jim and Billy could never get the nice Mormon lady to state that she would quite the Mormon church if it ever came out he had more than one wife, or had sex with underage girls he called is "wife"


Then....one day....

I had a person who was a guest, who is Mormon, but also was married to a Christian, and this person wrote to me a Private Message and told me that a change had happened to the standard teaching about Smith and the issue of "other wives".

I did not really know what to make of this...But Jim and Billy did!

And we never really saw that nice Mormon lady around the forum anymore. :(

She had openly stated over and over that the idea that Smith had other women was only an Anti-Mormon lie, to the point that it must have been too much of a shock to now try to defend that very same idea she had attacked others for holding...






Now we skip ahead in time to today.
The Mormons I run into now are very open and proud of the other women that Smith had.
But they also know that there is a big problem getting people to look the other way when the issue of a little 14 year old child comes up.
Mormons know full well that its hard to put a better "spin" on the idea of a full grown man taking a little girl into his bed to perform sex with..

So the current way of putting a better spin on the situation is to ask for proof that all the so-called "Smith marriages" were always sexual?

This defense hinges on the fact that, "We dont have a sex tape of Smith and the little girl" and so the hope is that in this current age of sex tapes being so openly discussed in the media that people will think, "If there is no sex tape,then it did not happen"


That is the defense Im hearing from the Mormons.
Perhaps that is the defense you seek to use now with me?
You can try to use it, after all it's what Im hearing on this forum too from time to time from other Mormons.
So go for it!
Use it!

Thats what Im hearing.
But what Im not hearing , is actually what is speaking louder on this issue.


We are not hearing a direct statement that "SMITH never married a 14 year old little child!"...

We are not hearing, "If it comes out later that Smith did have sex with that little 14 year old girl it would mean his whole testimony was a big lie"



"If it was sexual, he could not have been a true prophet!"



that's what Im not hearing...
The Mormon church is not saying that officially because they know of other shoes left to drop on the matter.

The average Mormon is not saying that to me, because like the nice Mormon lady, they dont want to end up on the wrong side of this should the church suddenly change the official position on the sexual status of Smith's marriages to underage girls.







So I ask you the question again I asked at the top of this:

"Would it matter to you?"




We have already seen firsthand how a teaching long debated was suddenly switched as if it was the same position they had held all along, so I got to wonder what you would think should the official teaching about the sexual natures of Smith's marriages to underage girls start to evolve into openly stating that : "Yes of course it was a normal sexual marriage."



Would that matter to you?

[MickeyS]

would that make a difference to you?


Here is a story.

Not long ago a guy named "Jim"and another guy named "Billy" used to post here all the time.
They seemed to always end up in the very same debate over the sex life of Smith with the same nice Mormon lady that also used to post here very often.

Jim and Billy used to say that Smith had many wives.
The nice Mormon lady condemned this idea and said it was all lies from the Anti-Mormon factions who left the Mormon church and are now just very bitter.

I was reading the posts, and the same old arguement was going back and forth, and then Jim started to press the nice Mormon lady on the question of "What if?"
They were asking her "What if Smith did have many more wives?"
"What if some of the wives were under age?"
"What if it was a sexual incounter he was engaged in with the underage girls?"

I think Jim and Billy wanted the nice Mormon lady to state that if it ever came out that Smith had more than one wife, or if it came out that he had sex with underage girls, that she would stop believing in his testimony and consider the Christian church anew.

But....try as they might, Jim and Billy could never get the nice Mormon lady to state that she would quite the Mormon church if it ever came out he had more than one wife, or had sex with underage girls he called is "wife"


Then....one day....

I had a person who was a guest, who is Mormon, but also was married to a Christian, and this person wrote to me a Private Message and told me that a change had happened to the standard teaching about Smith and the issue of "other wives".

I did not really know what to make of this...But Jim and Billy did!

And we never really saw that nice Mormon lady around the forum anymore. :(

She had openly stated over and over that the idea that Smith had other women was only an Anti-Mormon lie, to the point that it must have been too much of a shock to now try to defend that very same idea she had attacked others for holding...






Now we skip ahead in time to today.
The Mormons I run into now are very open and proud of the other women that Smith had.
But they also know that there is a big problem getting people to look the other way when the issue of a little 14 year old child comes up.
Mormons know full well that its hard to put a better "spin" on the idea of a full grown man taking a little girl into his bed to perform sex with..

So the current way of putting a better spin on the situation is to ask for proof that all the so-called "Smith marriages" were always sexual?

This defense hinges on the fact that, "We dont have a sex tape of Smith and the little girl" and so the hope is that in this current age of sex tapes being so openly discussed in the media that people will think, "If there is no sex tape,then it did not happen"


That is the defense Im hearing from the Mormons.
Perhaps that is the defense you seek to use now with me?
You can try to use it, after all it's what Im hearing on this forum too from time to time from other Mormons.
So go for it!
Use it!

Thats what Im hearing.
But what Im not hearing , is actually what is speaking louder on this issue.


We are not hearing a direct statement that "SMITH never married a 14 year old little child!"...

We are not hearing, "If it comes out later that Smith did have sex with that little 14 year old girl it would mean his whole testimony was a big lie"



"If it was sexual, he could not have been a true prophet!"



that's what Im not hearing...
The Mormon church is not saying that officially because they know of other shoes left to drop on the matter.

The average Mormon is not saying that to me, because like the nice Mormon lady, they dont want to end up on the wrong side of this should the church suddenly change the official position on the sexual status of Smith's marriages to underage girls.







So I ask you the question again I asked at the top of this:

"Would it matter to you?"




We have already seen firsthand how a teaching long debated was suddenly switched as if it was the same position they had held all along, so I got to wonder what you would think should the official teaching about the sexual natures of Smith's marriages to underage girls start to evolve into openly stating that : "Yes of course it was a normal sexual marriage."



Would that matter to you?

Thank you for asking that question. My testimony does not hinge on who Joseph Smith was married to and why. I do not have all of that information, but I can see how it is a HUGE stumbling block for others. I'm not saying for one second that it wouldn't be, you would be naive to believe it wouldn't be a big deal. I was merely addressing the fact the you stated he deserved to die for his marriage to a 14 year old girl. I was just trying to get to the root of why he needed to die. Is it because of the marriage, or because you thought he was having sex with her...I was just asking. Because death is a pretty harsh judgment for somebody when, like you said, ALL the facts have not been revealed, including WHY he did it, and if he was in fact acting under God's direction. But I can see the contempt simply looking at that.

Now, if you were to find out that Joseph Smith did indeed see God The Father and His Son..that the Book Of Mormon was brought forth from God, and that we are all literal spirit children of a Heavenly Father who has a plan for us...

Would it matter to you?

I'm not clueless and I'm not sitting here with my blinders on....like I said before..I have my own questions regarding church history. And being a non active, non interested member of the church for my entire adult life (until 10 years ago) in a place like Utah...I had little good to say about any of it. And I had read the Book of Mormon before with no intention of believing it...and had little good to say about that either. When I abandoned my sinful life and handed my entire recovery over to God through the atonement of His Son Jesus Christ...and felt that power and grace truly TRANSFORM who I was, I literally became a new person. My memories of those 20+ years feel like they were a previous life, I am never ashamed to give excruciating details of the things I had done because I know they were done by a completely different person. Plus I know also that my desire to be that person again...is GONE. Absolutely gone.

Matthew 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

I can only guarantee you the fruit of what is inside me, the fruit of how I behave, and the fruit of what I desire. I have had my testimony added upon again, and again, and again. (Is my behavior always perfect? I would never claim that it is, but I make daily efforts to walk in The Saviors path...some days are better than others ;))My blessings have been abundant, and my direction is focused. And the more I continue down this path, the more remote and distant that previous life becomes. I could have sat in my destruction unmoving (because believe me, I was definitely at the end of the path) ruined my own life (however long that life would have been), as well as the lives of my children, it would have been quite easy...but each step I took towards the gospel (which required great effort), The Lord carried me four more. And He continues to do so. And this all came about from gaining and growing a testimony of the gospel and doctrine of Jesus Christ through prayer, study of ALL scriptures, my callings as a Young Women's advisor & Sunday School teacher, as well as doctrinal study and my continued experimentation on my faith, through which I continually receive my evidence. And I know without a doubt....Satan would not have had to go through all this trouble to get me....he already had me.

With all of that being a part of who I am....no, I can't let information on who Joseph Smith was married to alter any of that. I can't destroy what I KNOW to be true....because of something I DON'T know. But I couldn't turn my back on all of what has been confirmed to me time and again...I couldn't. I am confident and comforted that all things will be revealed about WHY .... Because that's the question I seek when learning any doctrine...not just the what and the how...but the why...that's how knowledge of the gospel becomes a part of you. But we don't have all the why's and that's where faith is necessary...if we knew ALL things, this whole earthly experience would be pointless. And some "why's" are harder than others, but believe me, my list of "why's" and truths WAY outnumbers my list of things not confirmed to me. How can I deny those things? It would be like a member of ISIS putting my head on a block and trying to force me to deny Christ. I can't do it.

I ponder often what I expect to accomplish on this forum...I don't know for sure. One thing I believe I am accomplishing is looking at aspects of what I know and take for granted and confirming the "WHY'S" It's been an eye opener and has been good for me. But please know I do fully appreciate what you think about Joseph Smith....I truly do.

[alanmolstad]

Would it matter to you?

.

well, its like this -


knowing what type of person Smith was...

knowing about his teachings of sex with other women...

Knowing his teachings on God being a man that evolved to be a god..>Im forced to say that

"If it ever turned out that Smith was right?...I would reject that god!"



Simply put, "That god is not worth worshiping."


I want no part of that god
I want no part of Smith...

I do not want to share in an afterlife where Smith has gotten away with it.

[alanmolstad]

Would it matter to you?

.
Im not sure I have answered yes or no to your question....
But Im sure you can tell how I feel about the teachings of Smith and of him as a person....


The Smith ideas about sex with other women besides your own wife...the secret handshakes...the secret names, the secret underwear...


I totally reject that junk and reject it even ifit turned out to be true.
Such things are not worth my time, i totally reject the god that would think they have merit.

I also would reject a Jesus that turned out to be Satan's brother...

[alanmolstad]

so......any questions about that?

[MickeyS]

so......any questions about that?

Not at all...you have made yourself perfectly clear.

[Christian]

I didn't say you don't respond...I said you don't usually respond to my scripture, I wasn't trying to be rude. And I was trying to be funny about your responses when I said I was used to them...just stating that I understand your intensity...I don't think I conveyed that very well. I was sincerely trying to open a dialogue and show respect for your testimony and beliefs. I know there's a nice guy in there, what do I need to do to bring him out? I'm not trying to fight and bicker, I'm really not. And I'm not being facetious or condescending either (discussing through written word loses all inflection) I'm discussing my take on doctrine and scripture and inquiring about yours, that's all.

I agree fully and hope we can continue in this vein.

I do try to respond to your every scripture reference, but when they don't say what you are trying to prove. . .I don't accept them as legitimate 'proof texts.' Much of your theological beliefs seem to come from eisegesis (to put into) rather than exegesis (to pull out of) doctrines in relation to the texts you choose. In other words (like joe smith did), a p***age mentions 3 'glories,' one of the sun, another of the moon, and another of the stars, you try to make the word "glories" (which legitimately means 'beauty' or 'splendor') into a whole made-up doctrine about 3 places where people supposedly go when they die, which the BIBLE VERSES DO NOT SUPPORT AT ALL. Using your eisegesis method you could take a p***age about a shepherd tending a flock of sheep, and make up a whole doctrine about everyone being required to wear wool underwear wherever they go to ward off evil spirits. . .the BIBLE JUST DOES NOT SUPPORT THAT, just like your three 'glories' as places for folks to go when they die is NOT SUPPORTED BY THE BIBLE AT ALL. Joey just made it up.

I hope you realize the difference between how your religion invents its doctrines and how CHRISTIANITY gets ours. We take what the Bible SAYS and determine what IT MEANS. We don't just use a few 'proof-texts' to 'justify' something we have made up as smith and company do.

Would you like to discuss any of your 'mormon-specific' doctrines in light of that?

[MickeyS]

I agree fully and hope we can continue in this vein.

I do try to respond to your every scripture reference, but when they don't say what you are trying to prove. . .I don't accept them as legitimate 'proof texts.' Much of your theological beliefs seem to come from eisegesis (to put into) rather than exegesis (to pull out of) doctrines in relation to the texts you choose. In other words (like joe smith did), a p***age mentions 3 'glories,' one of the sun, another of the moon, and another of the stars, you try to make the word "glories" (which legitimately means 'beauty' or 'splendor') into a whole made-up doctrine about 3 places where people supposedly go when they die, which the BIBLE VERSES DO NOT SUPPORT AT ALL. Using your eisegesis method you could take a p***age about a shepherd tending a flock of sheep, and make up a whole doctrine about everyone being required to wear wool underwear wherever they go to ward off evil spirits. . .the BIBLE JUST DOES NOT SUPPORT THAT, just like your three 'glories' as places for folks to go when they die is NOT SUPPORTED BY THE BIBLE AT ALL. Joey just made it up.

I hope you realize the difference between how your religion invents its doctrines and how CHRISTIANITY gets ours. We take what the Bible SAYS and determine what IT MEANS. We don't just use a few 'proof-texts' to 'justify' something we have made up as smith and company do.

Would you like to discuss any of your 'mormon-specific' doctrines in light of that?


Well, some of the eisegesis would be by revelation, but I do fully understand you don't believe that for a minute,(commonly referred to as "invention", "made up" etc etc lol) sorry, me trying to be funny again..:p...not so much right? So, we will focus on the biblical portions. Thank you for responding...it's getting late and I'm still unpacking from our harried trip home yesterday. I will get back in touch with you tomorrow, okay?

Thanks again Christian :)

[Erundur]

The God of the Catholic and Protestant believer is real...its the true God of the Bible.
Weird. They keep telling me they're different; now you're telling me they're the same.

[MickeyS]

Weird. They keep telling me they're different; now you're telling me they're the same.

Yeah, Chris and Alan don't agree on this, there are a few things they see differently, which is fine, you just need to pay attention to who you're addressing.

[alanmolstad]

Not at all...you have made yourself perfectly clear.

While I never write and demand people believe my words I do attempt to make my own words easy to read.

I try to make even the way my words appear on the computer screen easy to read and follow along with.

[alanmolstad]

information on who Joseph Smith was married to alter any of that. .......

This is like what the Mormon church seems also to be getting their followers ready to face....Getting ready to deal with the next shoe to drop
The shoe that Joe Smith did in-fact sleep around with underage girls, and that this should not matter to Mormon people still putting their trust in his motives.


This means that regardless of what shoe falls next when dealing with the sexual exploitation of children that Smith will be shown guilty of, it does not matter.

The true follower of the Mormon teachings is being some how "insulated" from facing the fact that the guy was a pedophile, a child molester, who abused his position within a religion that he came up with for self-promotion....




So, at that point what else could a Christin say to a Mormon in an effort to reach them?

Once a Mormon states that it really does not matter to them about Smith's sexual history with children, what point is there in thinking any other argument I might bring up would matter to them?...............

[Christian]

Well, some of the eisegesis would be by revelation, but I do fully understand you don't believe that for a minute,(commonly referred to as "invention", "made up" etc etc lol) sorry, me trying to be funny again..:p...not so much right? So, we will focus on the biblical portions. Thank you for responding...it's getting late and I'm still unpacking from our harried trip home yesterday. I will get back in touch with you tomorrow, okay?

Thanks again Christian :)

Perhaps discussing joseph smith's 'revelations' and your 'modern-day' revelations would be a good place for us to begin. I have to 'go up north' today, so won't be home until later. I'll travel about 250 miles today for business.

I may get home late afternoon at which time I may post something.

[MickeyS]

Perhaps discussing joseph smith's 'revelations' and your 'modern-day' revelations would be a good place for us to begin. I have to 'go up north' today, so won't be home until later. I'll travel about 250 miles today for business.

I may get home late afternoon at which time I may post something.


Ok...looks like I've got a super busy work week at the flower shop so I'll get back with you. I would actually like to further discuss biblical interpretation if that's ok. I'm quite aware of your take on revelation. That will be a short discussion lol. Thanks Christian

[MickeyS]

This is like what the Mormon church seems also to be getting their followers ready to face....Getting ready to deal with the next shoe to drop
The shoe that Joe Smith did in-fact sleep around with underage girls, and that this should not matter to Mormon people still putting their trust in his motives.


This means that regardless of what shoe falls next when dealing with the sexual exploitation of children that Smith will be shown guilty of, it does not matter.

The true follower of the Mormon teachings is being some how "insulated" from facing the fact that the guy was a pedophile, a child molester, who abused his position within a religion that he came up with for self-promotion....




So, at that point what else could a Christin say to a Mormon in an effort to reach them?

Once a Mormon states that it really does not matter to them about Smith's sexual history with children, what point is there in thinking any other argument I might bring up would matter to them?...............

Did you just infer that I would condone pedophilia? Do you really believe that? When did I say it didn't matter if Joseph Smith were a pedophile? I thought i made my words clear as well. I never stated that. I would never follow the teachings of a sexual deviant. I think you misunderstood...I can't let the information I do not have affect the testimony that I DO have. I do not believe him to be a pedophile. In regards to Helen Mar Kimball...this wasn't a "marriage" in earthly terms or for "time" it was a sealing for eternity. There is no indication that they consummated said marriage (it's never been stated, inferred, suggested, or implied) as she, again, was not married to Smith in a conventional earthly way, and did not even live with Smith, but continued to live with her parents up until Joseph's death. This was dynastical in nature to link the families in the eternities. This was not some underage sex circle...she didn't live with him, she was not married to him for "time" but sealed for "eternity". Why would she continue to live with her parents if the goal was to purely to have sex with underage girls??

I am more likely than not wasting my time explaining this to you because you seem pretty hung up on sex... And I just feel it necessary to clarify what I meant by the plural marriage and that it would not sway my testimony. I never said anything about sex (except to ask YOU if that's what YOU were hung up on...and it appears it is) I suppose I can still see how it would appear, especially if you have a shallow perception on the practice and view it strictly as a physical sex fest. Maybe you should look into why you are so hung up on the multiple underage girls you believe Joseph Smith had sex with. I hope it's not something you think about regularly...that's just not healthy Alan. I'm not going to ***ume you are a sexual deviant, just like I would appreciate you not implying that I condone pedophilia.

Now....as far as the historical practice of polygamy in general...yes, I have unanswered questions, absolutely. But I do have speculations (that I truly believe are very possible) that I will not share, simply because you may take them and use them for a future story for another forum member, I don't speculate when it can be misconstrued as "doctrine". But I have some strong ideas. It would not be the first time God has commanded His children to do things that were not popular in worldly views or considered socially acceptable. That's where I say "....lean not unto thine own understanding" "...If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you.." "And be not conformed to this world:" The road to discipleship is not going to be easy...it's going to be accompanied by persecution, it has always been that way, and will always be so. So, again, I cannot let the opinions of man interfere with my testimony of God.

However...You made your words clear as well...that it wouldn't matter to you if he was or wasn't a sexual
deviant...that you would flatly reject God if He isn't who you want Him to be, or if He required anything of you that you believe to be silly or a waste of your time...simply put, you would reject God if He did not fit your criteria of who you believe He should be. You have created God in YOUR image, in your little box labeled "God"
And He must fit your image of Him to be worthy of your worship. That's a bold statement to make...very bold. But yes...you have made yourself perfectly clear.

[Christian]

Originally Posted by Christian


Perhaps discussing joseph smith's 'revelations' and your 'modern-day' revelations would be a good place for us to begin. I have to 'go up north' today, so won't be home until later. I'll travel about 250 miles today for business.

I may get home late afternoon at which time I may post something.


Ok...looks like I've got a super busy work week at the flower shop so I'll get back with you. I would actually like to further discuss biblical interpretation if that's ok. I'm quite aware of your take on revelation. That will be a short discussion lol. Thanks Christian


Biblical interpretation (the art and science of Hermeneutics) is just fine with me.

As for my 'take' on revelation. . .I believe that. . .

1) New revelation cannot contradict what God has already revealed to us (smith's stuff contradicts the Bible)
2) New revelation has to come true or the so-called 'prophet' is NOT from God (the Temple Lot does not belong to your church any more, though it was supposedly 'revealed' to joe smith that it always would belong to HIS church).
3) God does not lie or contradict Himself (The Biblical God said HE IS THE ONLY ONE, invisible, not a man nor a son of man. . .smith's religion teaches there are MANY GODS extant and that their god used to be a man)

Smith's religion violates all three of the BIBLICAL mandates as well as my own.

So how do you think we should study the Bible for proper understanding (interpretation)? Who do you think can help you? What is the ultimate 'decider' for you?

Do you think Biblical faith is a 'blind leap' of faith, something you do? Where do you think faith comes from? Do you think you just 'decide' to believe something?

[MickeyS]

Biblical interpretation (the art and science of Hermeneutics) is just fine with me.

As for my 'take' on revelation. . .I believe that. . .

1) New revelation cannot contradict what God has already revealed to us (smith's stuff contradicts the Bible)
2) New revelation has to come true or the so-called 'prophet' is NOT from God (the Temple Lot does not belong to your church any more, though it was supposedly 'revealed' to joe smith that it always would belong to HIS church).
3) God does not lie or contradict Himself (The Biblical God said HE IS THE ONLY ONE, invisible, not a man nor a son of man. . .smith's religion teaches there are MANY GODS extant and that their god used to be a man)

Smith's religion violates all three of the BIBLICAL mandates as well as my own.

So how do you think we should study the Bible for proper understanding (interpretation)? Who do you think can help you? What is the ultimate 'decider' for you?

Do you think Biblical faith is a 'blind leap' of faith, something you do? Where do you think faith comes from? Do you think you just 'decide' to believe something?


Sigh.....I almost thought we were going to get somewhere...

I'm not going to go through and try to defend each one of these statements...it will likely end up in the same place it usually does, focusing on all the same things about Joseph Smith that I've already heard.

I see biblical evidence for the things I believe...I wanted to discuss those things to see what you believe certain verses to mean, and find out where the contradiction lies. Like with the verses attached to the link I provided to you in another reply. But I just wanted to have an honest discussion...a fair back and forth exchange ...I know where YOUR beliefs lie, you know where MY beliefs lie....I really don't what to keep beating up that poor horse...it's already dead. I just wanted a no-frills, exchange free of added expletives and excessive critiques. I get it....you can't stand Joseph Smith, I accept that. I wanted to get into more of specific biblical interpretations that back up what you believe and why without it continually falling back on the same statements about Bro Smith that have already been continually voiced. There are still things in the Bible that I'm unsure on...I wanted to know what you believed about the verses that seem to contradict what you are saying to be true. Not to prove you "wrong", not to criticize, belittle, condescend...blah blah...but to determine where these differences are and why. I am not an especially learned woman, but I feel I'm pretty intelligent and can understand things quickly enough...I do want to learn all I can. I thought I may have been getting somewhere with Alan as well...but I just want to discuss and exchange information without the added time and energy of going through all this additional verbiage of what I already know you both think of ole "Joey Smith" and it seems to continually land there, then I get sidetracked (blame it on my ADD lol).

Maybe I'll come back around in the future, when I feel like I have the time and energy to get through the additional commentary and to the meat of the discussion. But I really don't know...I've honestly been taking way too much time in this forum, I've got to take a break.

I don't know if it's lack of communication, or maybe your perception about what my intentions have been....I don't know. I am well aware that I have been my own worst enemy several times (blame it on my PMS..hahahaha) and have sabotaged myself. I thought making a concerted effort to put all that drama queen stuff aside would help, but, I'm just tired...I need a break.

But to answer your last question...I read each chapter/section etc and look at the "why"... Why is this being discussed? What's the context in which it is directed...basically - What's the point of this being in the Bible? What is being taught? I research certain things I have questions understanding, and I do apply it to my ongoing belief system..and determine if it is consistent. I pray...before I read...every time..to have my mind and heart open to the Spirit...I pray with a question in mind about things going on in my life...to receive guidance and personal revelation. And i try to apply any knowledge or confirmation that I may receive to my daily life and experiences where I can...testing my faith and receiving my evidence. I know there's this whole faith vs works thing going on...I don't let all that get to me too much...my personal belief is that faith IS the work, and is in constant motion "ask, seek, knock, find, receive" it's an ongoing process. That's how I feel. Faith is not a work that will "earn" me Heaven, it's the key by which I access the grace necessary to my continued renewal in Him. Not a score card, not a checklist of salvation. For me, as a recovering sinner and drug addict...it is a necessity to my SURVIVAL. I feel like there are two simple reasons that I do the things I do (that encomp***es all else)

1-Because I know God loves me

2-And because I know He wants me to be happy.

And because of my continuing faith in Him...I trust Him completely.

I pray that you may put aside the theology of what I believe to recognize the person underneath it.

Best of love and blessings to you Christian

[alanmolstad]

Did you just infer that I would condone pedophilia?I try to use the past history of a nice Mormon lady on this forum and her decision to keep following the teachings of Joe Smith, even after she had to adopt a position on Smith's past that I personally saw her over and over beforehand criticize as being nothing more that anti-Mormon tripe.


She said over and over that there simply was no proof at all to the myth that Smith had other wives...

Then........all the sudden she had to change what she was saying was "the truth"




I want to just point out to all Mormons (like yourself) that when some Mormons here are saying things like "Not all Smith's marriages had to be sexual" that they are actually preparing themselves and other Mormons for the other shoe to fall...


and we all know what the other shoe that is about to fall will be about...


that is why they dont say, "Smith never married an underage child"....

That is why they never say, "He never had sex with a 14 year old girl"



They dont say that because they dont dare given what just happened to the Mormon claim of Smith's "one wife".


You are smart enough to see this...




You also know that many if not most Mormons will be able to insulate themselves from seeing the truth of what it means.

[MickeyS]

I try to use the past history of a nice Mormon lady on this forum and her decision to keep following the teachings of Joe Smith, even after she had to adopt a position on Smith's past that I personally saw her over and over beforehand criticize as being nothing more that anti-Mormon tripe.


She said over and over that there simply was no proof at all to the myth that Smith had other wives...

Then........all the sudden she had to change what she was saying was "the truth"




I want to just point out to all Mormons (like yourself) that when some Mormons here are saying things like "Not all Smith's marriages had to be sexual" that they are actually preparing themselves and other Mormons for the other shoe to fall...


and we all know what the other shoe that is about to fall will be about...


that is why they dont say, "Smith never married an underage child"....

That is why they never say, "He never had sex with a 14 year old girl"



They dont say that because they dont dare given what just happened to the Mormon claim of Smith's "one wife".


You are smart enough to see this...




You also know that many if not most Mormons will be able to insulate themselves from seeing the truth of what it means.


Omygosh....you really are obsessed with this aren't you? I'd seek some help for that. You are so funny the way you "technically" don't insult me to my face to satisfy your "rules" *** it's so funny.

I'm happy for you that you have your story to tell about a "nice Mormon lady" who stepped into it. You will cling to that one story for all it's worth, good for you

Smith never had sex with a 14 year old girl...got it? I was actually presenting the absolute facts that are available....you're the one creating the fantasy...but no...he did not have sex with a 14 year old girl.

And does it matter to you? If he never even had the whole polygamy thing going on....you still would reject God because He doesn't fit in your box and may require some effort on your part....but I can understand that you're making this huge deal about it if you're looking to insulate yourself from the fact that you will only worship your little boxed god. So go ahead and wait for the other shoe to drop, in the meantime I hope for your sake, that you're REALLY sure your god is the right one....because if it's not.....eeeesh... It would suck to be you lol

So my experience with "other Christians" on this board (I won't mention any names, but his initials are alanmolstad hahaha) only engage Mormons in civil conversation if they believe they have a chance at getting them to deny their faith...if they see they really are serious about what they believe, they pull out the "ugly truth" about the founder.

(If Christian is reading this, I do not mean you...you have been nothing but sincere and consistent about your beliefs and testimony...I actually respect that)

But honestly...I'm simply not going to sit here and be accused of turning a blind eye to pedophilia...it has happened in my family...and I take great offense in being labeled as such that I would condone it. I know you were "technically" talking about "other Mormons" but I'm not going to play these games with you. I was actually trying to be sincere and civil, and discuss biblical doctrine on both sides...I really was..but I don't play games, alrighty then? :)

I won't see you around

PS - for anyone cruising through here...no...Alan did not s/care me off with "ugly facts" , because he has none lol. I just truly have better things to do then play games

[Christian]

Mickey posted:

Sigh.....I almost thought we were going to get somewhere...

I'm not going to go through and try to defend each one of these statements...it will likely end up in the same place it usually does, focusing on all the same things about Joseph Smith that I've already heard.

I see biblical evidence for the things I believe...I wanted to discuss those things to see what you believe certain verses to mean, and find out where the contradiction lies. Like with the verses attached to the link I provided to you in another reply.

The problems you have are that
1) I don't go 'link-hopping' to 'prove' someone else's point. If they are unable to defend their own beliefs, I am not interested.

2) I do NOT see REAL evidence for such 'stuff' that you belief such as:
a) Christ's church ever losing any of Christ's Gospel, the authority to act and speak for Jesus, or any of the other 'stuff' that joe smith's entire religion falls from if it is not true.

b) Any evidence at all of joe smith's 'priesthood authority system' being present in Christ's church in the Bible

c) Any evidence in SCRIPTURE that joe smith's description of the GOD of the Bible is accurate or true. No physical body, no 'former humanhood exalted to godhood,' NONE of that stuff existed in Jesus Church

UNTIL we can establish any NEED for joe smith's supposed revelation, to discuss other things will always lead back to joe smith and his supposed revelation. If we cannot confirm that his revelation is true, then we are 'talking past' each other rather than 'talking TO' each other.

But I just wanted to have an honest discussion...a fair back and forth exchange ...

I do too.

I know where YOUR beliefs lie, you know where MY beliefs lie....I really don't what to keep beating up that poor horse...it's already dead.

You SAY you know what I believe, then you demonstrate that you don't.

If you don't want to discuss the important things of your religion with me such as whether or not it needed to exist at all, then what is there to discuss?

Wife just reminded me, time to go to breakfast with her at McDonalds. I'll try to address this later.

[MickeyS]

Mickey posted:

Sigh.....I almost thought we were going to get somewhere...

I'm not going to go through and try to defend each one of these statements...it will likely end up in the same place it usually does, focusing on all the same things about Joseph Smith that I've already heard.

I see biblical evidence for the things I believe...I wanted to discuss those things to see what you believe certain verses to mean, and find out where the contradiction lies. Like with the verses attached to the link I provided to you in another reply.

The problems you have are that
1) I don't go 'link-hopping' to 'prove' someone else's point. If they are unable to defend their own beliefs, I am not interested.

2) I do NOT see REAL evidence for such 'stuff' that you belief such as:
a) Christ's church ever losing any of Christ's Gospel, the authority to act and speak for Jesus, or any of the other 'stuff' that joe smith's entire religion falls from if it is not true.

b) Any evidence at all of joe smith's 'priesthood authority system' being present in Christ's church in the Bible

c) Any evidence in SCRIPTURE that joe smith's description of the GOD of the Bible is accurate or true. No physical body, no 'former humanhood exalted to godhood,' NONE of that stuff existed in Jesus Church

UNTIL we can establish any NEED for joe smith's supposed revelation, to discuss other things will always lead back to joe smith and his supposed revelation. If we cannot confirm that his revelation is true, then we are 'talking past' each other rather than 'talking TO' each other.

But I just wanted to have an honest discussion...a fair back and forth exchange ...

I do too.

I know where YOUR beliefs lie, you know where MY beliefs lie....I really don't what to keep beating up that poor horse...it's already dead.

You SAY you know what I believe, then you demonstrate that you don't.

If you don't want to discuss the important things of your religion with me such as whether or not it needed to exist at all, then what is there to discuss?

Wife just reminded me, time to go to breakfast with her at McDonalds. I'll try to address this later.

I meant that I know what you believe about MY faith...I think you've been really vocal about that. And the "link" I mentioned was just a link to other threads in this forum that I responded on...it was easier to copy and paste the link to the response I had already given then to have to re-write the entire response. I wasn't referring to any outside links...I know how you feel about those.

I don't want to fight anymore. I wasn't accusing you of anything, I just know how you feel about the restoration, Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon. I do, it's ok though...it really is. I don't want up fight anymore.

I wanted to discuss the bible because that's the one place that we both have the same dog in the fight...I would discuss what I believe or been taught verses to show, you could explain the same. Plus I believe discussing all those requirements to be completely based on interpretation of the Bible, because that's what you base all of your knowledge on.

No offense...please...no offense...but you telling me all the things wrong with my faith and me sitting here listening to it...I wouldn't personally consider that a discussion. So, if that was what you had in mind, then I'm not interested, but thank you for taking the time to talk to me.

Sincerely the best to you..,I really really mean that

[alanmolstad]

I want to just point out to all Mormons (like yourself) that when some Mormons here are saying things like "Not all Smith's marriages had to be sexual" that they are actually preparing themselves and other Mormons for the other shoe to fall...


and we all know what the other shoe that is about to fall will be about...


that is why they dont say, "Smith never married an underage child"....

That is why they never say, "He never had sex with a 14 year old girl"





To answer a question from a private message:
No, I have no idea if the nice Mormon lady gave up her membership in the Mormon church over this issue or not?

But I did do a bit of searching and yes I can support all I have said here on this or any other topic.

To that end, this is a story I found on the web that deals with the 'changing truth" that the Mormon church pulled on their followers.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/27/mormon-joseph-smith-teen-bride_n_6054272.html


Now as you can see from the text of the story about the 14 year old wife that Smith took, the link's information of the Mormon church's founder reads very closely to what I have been saying about him.

As it reads the Mormon's current leadership does seem to be getting their members ready for the next shoe to fall.


Let me quote :
"He and his first plural wife separated, but he renewed the practice a decade later in Illinois. That's where he married the teenager."

The link goes on to say;
"But, research has indicated that Smith's marriage to the young girl might not have involved sex."


So as of right now, the position of the Mormon church is that Smith "might not" be a pedophile.

[alanmolstad]

One interesting note on this topic:


I found a link to The Salt Lake Tribune, that has a very interesting point of view as written by a Mormon.

it seems to be in-line with what I have been saying that the Mormons seem to be getting things ready to have it come out that Smith did have sex with a underage child, and that this was a sin, and yet it should not matter to Mormons .



here is the link-
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/1764577-155/essay-church-joseph-polygamy-women-consider





I think the Salt Lake Tribune is helping the church set the groundwork to get the members of the church comfortable with the idea that they should be able to overlook the actions of a pedophile as long as the story of finding the Golden Plates is not cast in doubt.




Building on this point of getting people to overlook sick things in Smith's sexual history, consider the words that the writer in the SLT talks about - "The essay acknowledged that Joseph told ***ociates (read: young women he proposed to) that an angel with a sword was compelling him to marry them. I personally feel that a teenager's ***ent under such conditions is not true consent.

Basically the writer in the Salt Lake Tribune is talking about a form of non-"consent" rape that Smith employed to get the girls to marry him

[theway]

One interesting note on this topic:


I found a link to The Salt Lake Tribune, that has a very interesting point of view as written by a Mormon.

it seems to be in-line with what I have been saying that the Mormons seem to be getting things ready to have it come out that Smith did have sex with a underage child, and that this was a sin, and yet it should not matter to Mormons .



here is the link-
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/1764577-155/essay-church-joseph-polygamy-women-consider





I think the Salt Lake Tribune is helping the church set the groundwork to get the members of the church comfortable with the idea that they should be able to overlook the actions of a pedophile as long as the story of finding the Golden Plates is not cast in doubt.




Building on this point of getting people to overlook sick things in Smith's sexual history, consider the words that the writer in the SLT talks about - "The essay acknowledged that Joseph told ***ociates (read: young women he proposed to) that an angel with a sword was compelling him to marry them. I personally feel that a teenager's ***ent under such conditions is not true consent.

Basically the writer in the Salt Lake Tribune is talking about a form of non-"consent" rape that Smith employed to get the girls to marry himSo let me see if I got this straight....

Based on the meaning of the word, "Pedophile" is a false accusation to make....... But you continue to use it.

Even though with all the evidence there ever has been on the subject, the most that can be said is that Joseph "MIGHT HAVE" had sex with his bride.........
You are going to continue to make statements that "HE DID" have sex with her, as though it were a fact.

Instead of remaing silent when there is no evidence.....
You are going ***ert "YOUR OPINIONS" as fact, and then based on your opinion and claimed mind reading abilities, accuse someone else of rape.

Instead of letting the article speak for itself.....
You are going to claim to be able to read the mind of the Author in order to reconstruct and twist someone else's comments into solicitous gossip, in which was never intended by the Author.

Nice.... However I would be very careful.... For God said, the exact same type of judgement you judge others by, will be the exact same type of judgement that you will be judged by. Your faith is not in Christ... Your faith is in the opinions, gossip, misquoted and misapplied evidence, and lies of men. May God have mercy on you; at least more than you have for others.

[MickeyS]

One interesting note on this topic:


I found a link to The Salt Lake Tribune, that has a very interesting point of view as written by a Mormon.

it seems to be in-line with what I have been saying that the Mormons seem to be getting things ready to have it come out that Smith did have sex with a underage child, and that this was a sin, and yet it should not matter to Mormons .



here is the link-
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/1764577-155/essay-church-joseph-polygamy-women-consider





I think the Salt Lake Tribune is helping the church set the groundwork to get the members of the church comfortable with the idea that they should be able to overlook the actions of a pedophile as long as the story of finding the Golden Plates is not cast in doubt.




Building on this point of getting people to overlook sick things in Smith's sexual history, consider the words that the writer in the SLT talks about - "The essay acknowledged that Joseph told ***ociates (read: young women he proposed to) that an angel with a sword was compelling him to marry them. I personally feel that a teenager's ***ent under such conditions is not true consent.

Basically the writer in the Salt Lake Tribune is talking about a form of non-"consent" rape that Smith employed to get the girls to marry him

Lol....yeah, this Tribune article is hard hitting news....it's an opinion article by a member of the church who is involved in an organization that's trying to make God change current doctrine of women not holding the priesthood because of what THEY want, (sounds familiar...I can see why you would like this article lol) this women does NOT represent the church and her beliefs aren't even in line with church teachings, especially since she basically called God a rapist. Plus she makes errors and ***umptions in her "well meaning" piece. First...there were no "14 year olds" there was one (I've addressed that below) secondly, where was anybody commanded to HAVE SEX against their will? There IS NO PROOF OF SEX against anyone's will. Those getting hung up on SEX as the purpose of polygamy in the church, has SEX on the brain. Also, she cannot ***ert that Joseph Smith was LYING about a commandment he received and still consider herself LDS. It's one thing for a prophet to err, misinterpret or misunderstand a revelation...***ert their own opinion into doctrine..say something stupid ...etc... It's quite another thing to flat out lie about an angel visiting you with a commandment. There's no misinterpreting that...either he did or he didn't. If she believes he lied about that, I don't understand why she's still a member. Joseph Smith not being completely forthcoming to his wife, or the public due to very human shame and confusion...that is erring as a man...he's still human, and would have to repent and find forgiveness for that, if it wasn't done under Gods command. Also, she contends that the essay itself will lead to sexual abuse within the church. That's absurd because the practice is nullified...it is against policy, doctrine and Gods command. And was NEVER intended as a way to impose sexual dominion over women. If somebody is going to use their priesthood power to ***ert themselves sexually on anybody (which applies to ALL men with ONE wife)...they will answer for it. (I'd like to see the day my husband tries to pull that **** with me lol...Lorena Bobbitt come to mind? ;)) And THAT is taught within the church and by the prophets. But in the end, it's an OPINION piece. She is ***erting her opinion on how things should be handled. Just like the organization she is a member of (Ordain Women) is demanding the church make women priesthood holders, which is essentially demanding it of God. Do you think the church is in charge of the Salt Lake Tribune?? Do you think the Tribune and the church are working together to "prepare" members for revelation really? Are you serious? Its a NEWSPAPER. These are not church publications. But the fact that you think the author of this article is a credible source simply because she says she's a member, oh man "A Mormon said it!!! It must be true!!" Which is even MORE hilarious because of how dishonest you believe Mormons to be. As we they say down here in the south "Bless your heart"

But you probably should read something that's neither from whitewashed apologists or "progressive" Mormon feminists. How about this link to an article by the author of "In Sacred Lonliness" Todd Compton. A book that meticulously reviews the actual evidence while focusing on the hardships of the women involved (and I can imagine it WAS hard) While he is a member of the church, his presentation of the facts focus on all the actual evidence (and any educated guesses he makes, are actually educated and have evidence as well) Plus he gives the methods with which he reached his conclusions and why. This is NOT based on opinion. It is unapologetic and does not whitewash. It's simply the facts.

http://toddmcompton.com/revhmk5.html

In response to others claiming he said there probably was sex involved in the Helen Kimball marriage

"My position, actually, is that there is no evidence, pro or con, for sexual relations. You cannot prove that there were sexual relations; you cannot prove that there were no sexual relations. Notice that I do not simply say "ambiguous"; I say "entirely ambiguous.""

So NO evidence...aha you say?? Read further

"But, the reader may ask, what is my best guess? I remember talking with my publisher Gary Bergera on the phone once during the editorial process and I restated the cautious "no evidence either way" position. But Gary pressed: "But what do you think? What is your best guess?" And I answered that my best guess was that there were no sexual relations, based on parallels from some marriages to underage women in Utah polygamy."

What are these parallels to the Utah polygamy? That when younger girls were married, it was in name only until they were old enough to have actual relations.

He goes on to say

"My view, based on Helen's short 1881 reminiscence, is that she married Joseph thinking the marriage would be "for eternity alone," linking the houses of Heber and Joseph."

In the end....your pedophiliac fantasy holds no water. But I do find it very disturbing that you are looking forward to and HOPING to hear these sordid details to back your claims. I'm sorry, but that's kinda sick.

Do I like the idea of polygamy? No. Do I understand it? No...But I also don't like the idea of innocent children being killed for the wickedness of their fathers...I don't like a righteous man being plagued by great hardship because of a wager...I certainly don't like the idea of a man being killed because he had done NO wrong and was completely without sin...yes all of those things sound absolutely unfair and horrible...and atheists eat that stuff up and love pointing those things out to Christians...how do you explain all that away to them? Did everybody believe Moses was a prophet? Did everyone accept the things Noah said? How did that turn out for them?

If you're looking for me to get upset and make wild speculations or get flustered trying to defend my faith, that's not going to happen lol. There is an extensive history throughout the ages of mankind of God requiring things that do not make sense to man...plenty of things that were embarr***ing and difficult to defend. But I have complete faith in a God who blesses those who are obedient, and I can't worry about whether or not you like it. You think being a true disciple is supposed to be easy, and that may be your complete downfall. It has never been easy...why would that change?

But in the end...again...it makes no difference to you...at all...no matter what he did or didn't do you reject everything anyway.

In your own words .. GOD HIMSELF could appear to you and confirm the His exact nature and all the doctrine that accompany it, and you would refuse Him for not being who you want Him to be. So I really don't understand why you care about Joseph Smith's credibility, he could literally be the most credible person in the history of man, approved by God Himself...and you would still reject what he had to say. Which really makes me wonder why...why you keep obsessing on this pedophilia thing.....I just.....ick....really...gross.

Carry on with your...whatever it is you're doing...maybe another "nice Mormon lady" will come along and fall for it. Someone who leaves the church simply because of what you have to say...had no testimony...sorry.
That's why it's important to truly study and seek knowledge always and build your OWN faith. I really am done here, I just thought maybe you needed some real reading material if you were going to continue with your "facts"

[alanmolstad]

I read the first section..

The guy's basic conclusion is that Smith might not be a pedophile....

that is in agreement with other pro-Mormon sources...





its like they are all hedging their bets, not wanting to go too far with their defense of Smith, as they know full well there are other shoes to drop yet...


When you read things its like the person writing about Smith can just "feel" the tide turning against Smith.


Now if there is something different in the rest of the text?..let me know.

But so far all i get from the link is that all the best the Mormon church can do to defend the sick sexual history of Smith marring underage children is to say that he might not be guilty of being a pedophile.....



I glanced at the rest of your link and if there is a point in it you think is something that is different than what i have said?,,,,just point it out and I will have a look...


But its a long thing to read, and its not that easy on a computer screen to read in the first place -

And, Im not going to spend time reading things that in the end simply say the very same stuff I have said from the beginning that is> "Mormons teach now about Smith that he "might not"be a Pedophile

[MickeyS]

Oh boy, here we go...


I read the first section..

The guy's basic conclusion is that Smith might not be a pedophile....


Where is any of that stated in any of the articles presented?? Absolutely nothing has been said anywhere about Joseph being a pedophile... AT ALL.


that is in agreement with other pro-Mormon sources...

It's a history of the evidence involved. And since FARMS actually accused Compton of being atheist because of his unbiased presentation of the facts...I wouldn't call it a typical "pro-Mormon" source



its like they are all hedging their bets, not wanting to go too far with their defense of Smith, as they know full well there are other shoes to drop yet...


When you read things its like the person writing about Smith can just "feel" the tide turning against Smith.
***, PLEASE tell me how you came to this astute conclusion...is the Illuminati involved?


Now if there is something different in the rest of the text?..let me know.
You can lead a horse to water....blah blah


But so far all i get from the link is that all the best the Mormon church can do to defend the sick sexual history of Smith marring underage children is to say that he might not be guilty of being a pedophile.....

The only sick sexual history is in your mind Alan. The church says he "might not" have CONSUMMATED his MARRIAGE (no pedophilia) because they cannot show direct witness testimony to cooberate the comings and goings of these two individuals during the year they were married. since everybody's been hollering for honesty and complete transparency...they could not state FOR A FACT that they did not consummate the marriage. if they were to say he "did not", all the freaks would come out of the woodwork demanding proof. If they took that position Alan...would that be your reaction? What would you say to that?

But this is what I see....you criticized a "nice Mormon lady" for stating ***umption as fact.
Now you criticize the church for NOT stating ***umption as fact.


I glanced at the rest of your link and if there is a point in it you think is something that is different than what i have said?,,,,just point it out and I will have a look...

Again...horse...water...pointless since you're not reading anything anyway


But its a long thing to read, and its not that easy on a computer screen to read in the first place -

And, Im not going to spend time reading things that in the end simply say the very same stuff I have said from the beginning that is> "Mormons teach now about Smith that he "might not"be a Pedophile

Well....I'm sorry....but you're obviously not spending the time reading ANY of it...Nobody anywhere....at all....ever....said Joseph Smith might have or not have been a pedophile. Yet you continue to use that word. As Inigo Montoya once said "I don't think it means what you think it means."

Let's pretend (since you're already doing so in your twisted mind) that Joseph Smith consummated his MARRIAGE to Helen Kimball.

Pedophilia - a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to pre****scent children, generally age 11 years or younger.As a medical diagnosis, specific criteria for the disorder extend the cut-off point for pre****scence to age 13.

Age of consent in 19th century America- In 1880, the age of consent was set at 10 or 12 in most states, with the exception of Delaware where it was 7.

Please provide YOUR evidence that Smith "might have" been a pedophile....there is none.

But let's review...
There is...no...other...shoe
There is...no..more history

It's all out there...

You'll be literally waiting forever to hear all the sick details of Joseph Smith's secret pedophiliac sex ring...but fortunately for you, if you really need to satisfy your desires for that ...kind of entertainment....I'm sure there are sources out there if you looked...

[alanmolstad]

Building on this point of getting people to overlook sick things in Smith's sexual history, consider the words that the writer in the SLT talks about -

"The essay acknowledged that Joseph told ***ociates (read: young women he proposed to) that an angel with a sword was compelling him to marry them. I personally feel that a teenager's ***ent under such conditions is not true consent.

Basically the writer in the Salt Lake Tribune is talking about a form of non-"consent" rape that Smith employed to get the girls to marry him

Now this is where we truly get to "Peak under the hood" and learn a little about how the Mormon Founder Joe Smith used to convince reluctant younger girls into his bed?

Understand that one of the hallmarks of a known rapist is their use of violence or the threat of violence to get power over young girls that would otherwise never consent.

Smith's idea was to use the threat of an angel nearby holding a sword, that seems to be his Modus Operandi.



More information:
""Soon after this he was at my house again, where he occupied my Sister Almira's room and bed, and also asked me for my youngest sister Esther . "
(Joseph Smith's personal secretary and church patriarch, Elder Benjamin F. Johnson, My Life's Review - http://www.i4m.com/think/history/angel_sword.htm )


"19 year-old Zina remained conflicted until a day in October, apparently, when Joseph sent [her older brother] Dimick to her with a message: an angel with a drawn sword had stood over Smith and told him that if he did not establish polygamy, he would lose "his position and his life." Zina, faced with the responsibility for his position as prophet, and even perhaps his life, finally acquiesced." (In Sacred Loneliness, page 80-81)

And another thing:
I have often wondered how Smith was able to talk loving Mormon fathers into handing over their own daughters into Smith's bed?
It was question #6 at the bottom of the link that showed me just how far Smith went in convincing Fathers to do this...
(see http://www.i4m.com/think/history/angel_sword.htm Question #6)

[Christian]

I meant that I know what you believe about MY faith...I think you've been really vocal about that. And the "link" I mentioned was just a link to other threads in this forum that I responded on...it was easier to copy and paste the link to the response I had already given then to have to re-write the entire response. I wasn't referring to any outside links...I know how you feel about those.

I don't want to fight anymore. I wasn't accusing you of anything, I just know how you feel about the restoration, Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon. I do, it's ok though...it really is. I don't want up fight anymore.

I wanted to discuss the bible because that's the one place that we both have the same dog in the fight...I would discuss what I believe or been taught verses to show, you could explain the same. Plus I believe discussing all those requirements to be completely based on interpretation of the Bible, because that's what you base all of your knowledge on.

No offense...please...no offense...but you telling me all the things wrong with my faith and me sitting here listening to it...I wouldn't personally consider that a discussion. So, if that was what you had in mind, then I'm not interested, but thank you for taking the time to talk to me.

Sincerely the best to you..,I really really mean that

I believe you. I believe you are sincere and that you hold your beliefs tightly, just as I do mine. I am happy to discuss the Bible with you, but be aware that what I believe (what the Bible actually says) often directly opposes what joe smith taught, so it will frequently be joe's theories versus the Bible.

So far, no 'restoration' has happened between joe smith and Biblical Christianity. You cannot find his 'mormon-specific' junk in the New Testament Church in the Bible anywhere. No 'prophet' leading Christ's church, no 'modern-day revelation' that hasn't had a new revelation added to its d&c for over a hundred years, no aaronic priesthood in the New Testament Church anywhere, no Melchizedek priests in the New Testament church besides Jesus Christ Himself

No 'restored gospel,' no lost scriptures, no loss of the authority for every Christian everywhere to speak for and act for God. No need for any of that 'new religion' at all.

For starters, our discussion should start with the Nature of God. Was he ever a man who became 'exalted?' Do other REAL gods exist, does the REAL God even know of any? If He doesn't, how can Jesus be a 'separate god?' Is God the Father a physical being?

Then there is joe's theory of pre-existance. Where in the Bible does that exist at all? Why should I, a Biblical Christian believe any of that? More importantly what did GOD say about it?

I think I have given you enough 'fresh meat' to chew on for a while. To discuss your beliefs and my own in the light of the Bible makes it impossible to keep joe smith's religion out of it since his religion is what you believe.

Suggestions?

[alanmolstad]

The next morning Joseph visited the Kimball home. "[He explained] the principle of Celestial marrage...After which he said to me, ‘If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation & exaltation and that of your father’s household & all of your kindred.[‘] This promise was so great that I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward.

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/26-HelenMarKimball.htm

[alanmolstad]

Smith used the threat of violence to coerce women into his bed.


""19 year-old Zina remained conflicted until a day in October, apparently, when Joseph sent [her older brother] Dimick to her with a message: an angel with a drawn sword had stood over Smith and told him that if he did not establish polygamy, he would lose "his position and his life." Zina, faced with the responsibility for his position as prophet, and even perhaps his life, finally acquiesced." (In Sacred Loneliness, page 80-81)


Smith used coercion including the threat that he had personally seen an angel with a sword who was ready to kill....

His approach is that of a rapist with this threat of an enforcer of his bedroom conquests being ready to use a blade.



Now as bad as that is, his deviousness goes on:

Smith also approached married women when he knew their husbands were out of town.

Sometimes Smith would send the husbands out of town of missions, and then approach the wife when he felt she was most vulnerable.


and as we saw in the SLT link, there also were girls that Smith went after that simply were far too young to be making this type of informed consent.



Smith is guilty of:

Preying on women that were alone,
Preying on the too trusting,
Preying on the frightened....
and, Preying on children...

These are the hallmarks of a sexual deviant.

[Christian]

Yes, I know the Protestant god doesn't exist. Protestants believe he does, though.

And mormon fundamentalists? What do YOU think?

[Christian]

Then why do Protestants insist that they're different?

Why do the 150+ mormon sub-religions insist they are different?

What makes you think CHRISTIAN groups 'think that they are different,' and HOW do you think they think that?

[Erundur]

And mormon fundamentalists?
No idea. You'll have to ask them.

[Erundur]

Why do the 150+ mormon sub-religions insist they are different?
As far as I know, they don't.


What makes you think CHRISTIAN groups 'think that they are different,'
We don't, of course. It's the Protestant groups that do.

[Christian]

erunder posted:


Originally Posted by Christian http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/images/****ons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?p=165758#post165758)
Why do the 150+ mormon sub-religions insist they are different?

As far as I know, they don't.

You don't think they left smith's religion for some specific reason that makes each of them 'different?'

Or

You don't think they ever existed? Which is it that you think?


What makes you think CHRISTIAN groups 'think that they are different,'


We don't, of course. It's the Protestant groups that do.

If you don't think they are different than you, why are you not part of them?

[Christian]

Mormons believe in a restoration. Orthodox Christianity believes in unbroken authority.

As a Protestant, you don't even have a horse in this race.
That what's so funny... In order for Faith Alone and other Protestant beliefs to be true... The Church Christ set up would have had to of failed. You're arguing against yourself.

As a CHRISTIAN my horse IS the race. Why would Christ's church need to fail for it to continue for about 2,000 years. Your claims make no sense at all.

[dberrie2000]

Mormons believe in a restoration. Orthodox Christianity believes in unbroken authority.

As a Protestant, you don't even have a horse in this race.

As a Protestant--their horse race began here:

The Protestant Reformation: Revolution, Reaction, Reform


http://reformationrestoration.blogspot.com/2011/12/protestant-reformation-revolution.html


In the 16th Century, the church was forever changed. The Catholic Church had drifted far away from the truth and was teaching very heretical doctrine, contrary to the Bible, the inerrant Word of God. The sacraments were not being properly administered, and people were actually buying their way into heaven. The church had even been corrupted from its core, the clergy. Pope Leo X was leading this indoctrination in the church and was ready to excommunicate anyone who got in his way. The future of the Catholic Church was in no way looking good. However, despite all the false doctrine and corruption, there was a man named Martin Luther. Martin Luther was a law student, who after a close encounter with death and God, decided to become a priest. Luther bought into all the lies that were being fed to him for a while, but soon began to question some of the things taught by the church. He especially questioned the selling of indulgences. He wrote a document called the “95 Theses” and nailed it to the church door. His 95 Theses stated all the problems with the Catholic Doctrine, especially the selling of indulgences. He nailed it to the church door because that was a way of ensuring that everyone would see it. In doing this, Martin Luther started a revolution, received a reaction from the church clergy, and ultimately reformed the church, creating the greatest historical landmark of the Protestant Church.

Martin Luther reformed the church. He did this by originally trying to fix the church, but when the church rejected his opinion, he began reforming the church to what he believed was the biblical view. He systematically went through changing and reforming the doctrine of the Catholic Church. Luther was an advocate of Augustinianism and his view of salvation. Luther was one of the earliest fathers of reformed theology. People like John Calvin and Jonathan Edwards would come after him and continue to contribute to the teachings of reformed theology, and even today, we have modern day reformers. Martin Luther taught the “Five Solas”. The Five Solas are: Sola scriptura (by scripture alone), Sola fide (by faith alone), Sola gratia (by grace alone), Solus Christus (by Christ alone), and Soli Deo Gloria (glory to God alone). These five solas summarized most of the basic truths advocated by Luther and the later reformers. The reformation of the protestant church brought us a clear teaching of some of the hardest doctrines and concepts uncovered in the scriptures. Another thing Luther did, was translate the Bible into German. This made it possible for everyone to read the Bible and not be forced to believe all that the church taught them, they could actually read scripture and interpret it themselves. This was one of the reasons so many people followed Luther. Originally, they believed whatever the Catholic clergy told them, but now they could read the Bible themselves and it became very clear that a lot of what they had been taught was false. So clearly the reformation really helped the common man of the church. Also, Luther reformed the teachings of the Catholic Church restoring the biblical standard of theology.

Therefore, Martin Luther started a revolution, received a reaction from the church clergy, and ultimately reformed the church, creating the greatest historical landmark of the Protestant Church. This reformation was absolutely necessary and helpful to the church. The Catholic Church had gotten to a point where they were extremely heretical and actually teaching paganism in some of areas of Christian theology, and it desperately needed to be stopped. Martin Luther, along with many others, reformed and restored the church to the biblical standard.

[Christian]

Originally Posted by Christian

The unbroken authority of ALL CHRISTIANS to speak for and act for God. NOT for manmade 'authority'.

I'm curious...not trying to fight...as to what you believe about why Christ ordained men with priesthood authority if that wasn't supposed to be something we were supposed to do ever again? What was the purpose for that?

And also...what was the purpose of Christ being baptized if we weren't supposed to do that either? He didn't need to be baptized, He had no sin, the only reason I could see that He did that was a-because His Father commanded Him and b-to set an example for us to follow. So I really would like to know what you think about that, and where in the Bible it says what you believe.

Thanks~

Christ didn't 'ordain with priesthood authority.' That is joe smith's imaginary 'thing' Jesus ordained DISCIPLES and APOSTLES (those He SENT). EVERY CHRISTIAN EVERYWHERE has the authority of Christ's Royal Priesthood:

1 Peter 2:7-10
7 Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient,


"The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone,"


8 and


"A stone of stumbling
And a rock of offense."


They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.


9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.
NKJV

We CHRISTIANS (not you mormons) have been proclaiming the praises of Jesus Christ for about 2,000 years now.

Mormonism hadn't been invented until just the last couple of centuries.

[theway]

As a Protestant--their horse race began here:

The Protestant Reformation: Revolution, Reaction, Reform


http://reformationrestoration.blogspot.com/2011/12/protestant-reformation-revolution.html


In the 16th Century, the church was forever changed. The Catholic Church had drifted far away from the truth and was teaching very heretical doctrine, contrary to the Bible, the inerrant Word of God. The sacraments were not being properly administered, and people were actually buying their way into heaven. The church had even been corrupted from its core, the clergy. Pope Leo X was leading this indoctrination in the church and was ready to excommunicate anyone who got in his way. The future of the Catholic Church was in no way looking good. However, despite all the false doctrine and corruption, there was a man named Martin Luther. Martin Luther was a law student, who after a close encounter with death and God, decided to become a priest. Luther bought into all the lies that were being fed to him for a while, but soon began to question some of the things taught by the church. He especially questioned the selling of indulgences. He wrote a document called the “95 Theses” and nailed it to the church door. His 95 Theses stated all the problems with the Catholic Doctrine, especially the selling of indulgences. He nailed it to the church door because that was a way of ensuring that everyone would see it. In doing this, Martin Luther started a revolution, received a reaction from the church clergy, and ultimately reformed the church, creating the greatest historical landmark of the Protestant Church.

Martin Luther reformed the church. He did this by originally trying to fix the church, but when the church rejected his opinion, he began reforming the church to what he believed was the biblical view. He systematically went through changing and reforming the doctrine of the Catholic Church. Luther was an advocate of Augustinianism and his view of salvation. Luther was one of the earliest fathers of reformed theology. People like John Calvin and Jonathan Edwards would come after him and continue to contribute to the teachings of reformed theology, and even today, we have modern day reformers. Martin Luther taught the “Five Solas”. The Five Solas are: Sola scriptura (by scripture alone), Sola fide (by faith alone), Sola gratia (by grace alone), Solus Christus (by Christ alone), and Soli Deo Gloria (glory to God alone). These five solas summarized most of the basic truths advocated by Luther and the later reformers. The reformation of the protestant church brought us a clear teaching of some of the hardest doctrines and concepts uncovered in the scriptures. Another thing Luther did, was translate the Bible into German. This made it possible for everyone to read the Bible and not be forced to believe all that the church taught them, they could actually read scripture and interpret it themselves. This was one of the reasons so many people followed Luther. Originally, they believed whatever the Catholic clergy told them, but now they could read the Bible themselves and it became very clear that a lot of what they had been taught was false. So clearly the reformation really helped the common man of the church. Also, Luther reformed the teachings of the Catholic Church restoring the biblical standard of theology.

Therefore, Martin Luther started a revolution, received a reaction from the church clergy, and ultimately reformed the church, creating the greatest historical landmark of the Protestant Church. This reformation was absolutely necessary and helpful to the church. The Catholic Church had gotten to a point where they were extremely heretical and actually teaching paganism in some of areas of Christian theology, and it desperately needed to be stopped. Martin Luther, along with many others, reformed and restored the church to the biblical standard. There is just one error in this... The Protestant Fathers never "reformed any Church" the Orthodox Church rejected their attempts to reform it, and even called them heretics.
What the Protestants did was To start their own religion with their own doctrine.

[Christian]

There is just one error in this... The Protestant Fathers never "reformed any Church" the Orthodox Church rejected their attempts to reform it, and even called them heretics.
What the Protestants did was To start their own religion with their own doctrine.

If you consider returning to the Christian faith and ITS doctrine to be 'start[ing] their own religion with their own doctrine' I pity you. They merely left a cult (catholicism) to come to Christianity. It would be like leaving mormonism to come to Christianity today. . .

Of course with YOUR world view and YOUR biases, you can't understand that.

[theway]

If you consider returning to the Christian faith and ITS doctrine to be 'start[ing] their own religion with their own doctrine' I pity you. They merely left a cult (catholicism) to come to Christianity. It would be like leaving mormonism to come to Christianity today. . .

Of course with YOUR world view and YOUR biases, you can't understand that.


Of course I understand that.... What you just described is called a RESTORATION!;)

[Christian]

Of course I understand that.... What you just described is called a RESTORATION!;)

And yet YOUR RELIGION would pretend those folks needed a SECOND RESTORATION.

Joey smith invented his new religion. NONE of his 'mormon specific junk' was ever believed or practiced by the first century church or "restored" to Christ's church by smith.

Joey 'restored' nothing. He INVENTED a bunch of horse dung though. His 'god was once a man' garbage was the some of the worst of it. So was his 'spirit brother of satan' 'jesus.' The sad reality is (for him anyway) is that the REAL Jesus CREATED satan, and was his CREATOR, NOT HIS BROTHER.

Your false prophet told you many lies.

[theway]

And yet YOUR RELIGION would pretend those folks needed a SECOND RESTORATION.

Joey smith invented his new religion. NONE of his 'mormon specific junk' was ever believed or practiced by the first century church or "restored" to Christ's church by smith.

Joey 'restored' nothing. He INVENTED a bunch of horse dung though. His 'god was once a man' garbage was the some of the worst of it. So was his 'spirit brother of satan' 'jesus.' The sad reality is (for him anyway) is that the REAL Jesus CREATED satan, and was his CREATOR, NOT HIS BROTHER.

Your false prophet told you many lies.

Oh I see..... So you believe Jesus, created, and hence was responsible for EVIL!
<mocking on> Yeah that makes a lot more sense <mocking off>

[dberrie2000]

no aaronic priesthood in the New Testament Church anywhere, no Melchizedek priests in the New Testament church besides [U][B]Jesus Christ Himself

What is your evidence this is not a reference to either the Aaronic nor Melchizedek priesthood?

Revelation 1:6--King James Version (KJV)
6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.


No 'restored gospel,' no lost scriptures, no loss of the authority for every Christian everywhere to speak for and act for God. No need for any of that 'new religion' at all

Then could you explain the need for the Reformation--where numerous new denominations--with a different theology--- were started?


For starters, our discussion should start with the Nature of God. Was he ever a man who became 'exalted?'

Yes--if we believe the Bible:

Acts 5:30-31---King James Version (KJV)
30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.
31 Him hath God[COLOR="#FF0000"] exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

1 Timothy 2:5---King James Version (KJV)
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;


Do other REAL gods exist, does the REAL God even know of any?

Of course--if Paul knew--then God certainly does:

2 Corinthians 4:4---King James Version (KJV)
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.


If He doesn't, how can Jesus be a 'separate god?'

The same way the NT writers always separated out God the Son from the "one god" of the Biblical NT:

1 Corinthians 8:6---King James Version (KJV)
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

1 Timothy 2:5--King James Version (KJV)
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Ephesians 4:4-6--King James Version (KJV)
4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

1 Peter 1:3--King James Version (KJV)
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

John 17:3---King James Version (KJV)
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

[Christian]

berry posted:

What is your evidence this is not a reference to either the Aaronic nor Melchizedek priesthood?

Revelation 1:6--King James Version (KJV)
6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

What is YOUR evidence that it is? GOD never said that it is. HE told us CHRISTIANS this in the Bible:

1 Peter 2:9-10
9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.
NKJV

THIS priesthood of course includes ALL CHRISTIANS EVERYWHERE, not just boys of 12 or older.

What is YOUR evidence THIS priesthood is not what is being referred to.

Then could you explain the need for the Reformation--where numerous new denominations--with a different theology--- were started?

In Christianity as a WHOLE? It was not needed. In the rcc (as in many of your religion's OTHER groups) corruption had occurred and needed 'fixing.' SOME folks LEFT in protest.

But despite the ignorance of joey smith and others, the rcc was NEVER all or even MOST of Christianity. Just because IT moved away from Jesus does not mean that CHRISTIANITY ever 'lost' anything beyond that INDIVIDUAL BODY.

Like your 'School of the Prophets' group that left the utah mormons some 35 years ago because they spoke with your mormon 'jesus' on a hillside and HE said YOUR group was corrupt. . .Did YOUR group 'lose' its doctrines or authority anywhere?

Likewise CHRISTIANITY never lost IT's gospel, doctrines, OR writings just because the rcc left it.

[dberrie2000]

no aaronic priesthood in the New Testament Church anywhere, no Melchizedek priests in the New Testament church besides Jesus Christ Himself


Originally Posted by dberrie2000

What is your evidence this is not a reference to either the Aaronic nor Melchizedek priesthood?

Revelation 1:6--King James Version (KJV)
6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.


What is YOUR evidence that it is?

My evidence would be the terms "kings and priests" were endemic to the Melchizedek priesthood--as both Melchizedek and Christ were kings and priests.

Bump for Christian

[Christian]

erunder posted:


Originally Posted by Christian http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/images/****ons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?p=165758#post165758)
Why do the 150+ mormon sub-religions insist they are different?

As far as I know, they don't.

Oh? Then the UTAH mormons AND the STRANGITES are BOTH the original church smith invented?
I didn't know that. . .


What makes you think CHRISTIAN groups 'think that they are different,'

We don't, of course. It's the Protestant groups that do.

And where is this 'protestant' religion located? WHO is its prime leader?

CHRISTIANS all consider that we are 'different parts of the same FAITH'.

I guess your 150+ mormon groups don't believe that of yourselves, do you? EACH ONE OF THOSE thinks "THEY" are "THE ONE" and the rest are heretical.

CHRISTIAN groups are not all that way.

Your 'adopted-from-the-roman-catholics-imaginary-group' called 'the protestants' is a farce. It doesn't exist amongst CHRISTIANS.

[dberrie2000]

CHRISTIANS all consider that we are 'different parts of the same FAITH'.

Please do show us where one finds numerous different denominations which were "different parts of the same FAITH" in the Biblical NT--which God accepted.

There was but one denomination found in the Biblical NT--with the same structure:

Ephesians 2:20---King James Version (KJV)
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

And those apostles were living, mortal apostles who led the NT through Jesus Christ.

That did not mean there were not those who split from that group--but even so--those splits did not determine the authenticity of the one denomination Christ claimed as His own--which was led by His living, mortal apostles.

[Erundur]

Oh? Then the UTAH mormons AND the STRANGITES are BOTH the original church smith invented?
I didn't know that. . .
What?

Misrepresenting the context of someone's statement is not nice, "christian."

[DrDavidT]

Of course I understand that.... What you just described is called a RESTORATION!;)

There is no restoration being conducted by the Mormon cult. As far as we know there has not been any belief similar to the Mormon belief in the ancient world. But then we do not have all the ancient records. Plus even if there was a cult faith like the Mormon belief in the past, that existence does not mean that the ancient 'faith' was the correct one and all others were false. It just means that Smith revived another false belief much like the JWs have done.

[DrDavidT]

Where are the mormons to refute this? their god obviously failed if he could not keep his true faith continuous throughout history.

[dberrie2000]

Where are the mormons to refute this? their god obviously failed if he could not keep his true faith continuous throughout history.

One might want to ask some of the Reformers that question--they believed it failed to the point in which they started new denominations--with a different theology.

Why was there a need to do so--if they found what was present to be sufficient for salvation?

[DrDavidT]

One might want to ask some of the Reformers that question--they believed it failed to the point in which they started new denominations--with a different theology.

Why was there a need to do so--if they found what was present to be sufficient for salvation?

you do not know church history. there was always a group of true believers in history, God's true church never vanished. and that group was not proto mormons

[Christian]

My evidence would be the terms "kings and priests" were endemic to the Melchizedek priesthood--as both Melchizedek and Christ were kings and priests.

Bump for Christian

I TOO AM A PRIEST in CHRIST'S Royal Priesthood

So is EVERY CHRISTIAN BOY, GIRL, MAN AND WOMAN.

Sorry if in YOUR UNBIBLICAL RELIGION priests are supposed to be only WHITE MALES who go through YOUR manmade ceremonies.

Yep, we CHRISTIANS are indeed kings and priests of GOD.

Not "Melchizedek (ONLY JESUS is that besides Melchizedek himself)," not 'aaronic' and not 'plutonic' either.

Your manmade cult has lied to you of course.

According to JESUS I TOO am a king and a priest. But heathens who follow false prophets and false gods such as the mormons do, are not. They are just heathens.

[dberrie2000]

you do not know church history. there was always a group of true believers in history, God's true church never vanished. and that group was not proto mormons

Then why didn't the Reformers just join up with them?

[DrDavidT]

Then why didn't the Reformers just join up with them?

who said they didn't?

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by DrDavidT View Postyou do not know church history. there was always a group of true believers in history, God's true church never vanished. and that group was not proto mormons


Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View PostbThen why didn't the Reformers just join up with them?


who said they didn't?

Then you would not mind posting for us the church the Reformers joined up with? If they joined up with that church--then why are there hundreds of different denominations?

[DrDavidT]

Then you would not mind posting for us the church the Reformers joined up with? If they joined up with that church--then why are there hundreds of different denominations?

they were part of the Christian church. there are so many denominations simply because a lot of people opt for interpretation instead of God's truth. In the case of the mormon cult, they listened to evil and not God. they are deceived and do not bear any truth at all.

[dberrie2000]

they were part of the Christian church. there are so many denominations simply because a lot of people opt for interpretation instead of God's truth.

Hi David:

Then you would agree--numerous denominations are not the way of God? What is the true Church of God here on this earth today--could you name it for us?

There was but one denomination recognized by God in the Biblical NT--and it was led by living, mortal apostles.

Ephesians 2:20---King James Version (KJV)
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

[Christian]

Please do show us where one finds numerous different denominations which were "different parts of the same FAITH" in the Biblical NT--which God accepted.

There was but one denomination found in the Biblical NT--with the same structure:

Ephesians 2:20---King James Version (KJV)
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

And those apostles were living, mortal apostles who led the NT through Jesus Christ.

That did not mean there were not those who split from that group--but even so--those splits did not determine the authenticity of the one denomination Christ claimed as His own--which was led by His living, mortal apostles.

1 Cor 1:2
2 To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:
NKJV

Col 4:16
16 Now when this epistle is read among you, see that it is read also in the church of the Laodiceans,
NKJV



1 Tim 3:15
the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth
NKJV

Heb 12:23
23 to the general ***embly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven,
NKJV

Rev 2:1
the church of Ephesus
NKJV

Rev 3:14
And to the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write,
NKJV


JESUS was alive and on earth too. . .HE is the chief CORNERSTONE. IF you claim the 12 9actually 13) Apostles have to be CURRENTLY ALIVE here on earth, then TO BE CONSISTENT you MUST HAVE A LIVE JESUS CHRIST HERE ON EARTH TOO. . WHERE IS HE?

Of course you CANNOT PRODUCE ONE which shows your WHOLE THEORY TO BE PRESUMPTUOUS AND FALSE.

The TRUTH is that Christ's church has never failed, lost any of its authority, or been 'removed from the earth.' The TRUTH is that it today, as for about 2,000 years now, is built upon the FOUNDATION of the Apostles, and Jesus (the REAL ONE, not the satanic 'spirit-brother-of-satan' one) is alive and well and Jesus STILL is our chief cornerstone.

Joey smith lied to you...and you swallowed it hook, line, and sinker .:(

The REAL Jesus (OUR Jesus, not a demon of satan's spawn) is alive, well, and with HIS FATHER IN HEAVEN, interceding for us CHRISTIANS, and the followers of the false prophet joey smith will end up in hell as will ALL who do not follow the REAL Jesus Christ IN FAITH.

[dberrie2000]

JESUS was alive and on earth too. . .HE is the chief CORNERSTONE. IF you claim the 12 9actually 13) Apostles have to be CURRENTLY ALIVE here on earth, then TO BE CONSISTENT you MUST HAVE A LIVE JESUS CHRIST HERE ON EARTH TOO. . WHERE IS HE?

Just where He was after Pentecost--in heaven. But His apostles were here on earth--living, mortal apostles.

Where are the living, mortal apostles of Christ's church today?

[DrDavidT]

Hi David:

Then you would agree--numerous denominations are not the way of God? What is the true Church of God here on this earth today--could you name it for us?

There was but one denomination recognized by God in the Biblical NT--and it was led by living, mortal apostles.

Ephesians 2:20---King James Version (KJV)
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

the existence of numerous denominations and their standing with God does not legitimize smith or the mormon church nor change its status from cult to the true church. there were no denominations in the first few centuries, and the true church is the one where the people hear Jesus' voice. Jesus said-- 'my sheep hear my voice' -- you have not proven that you hear his voice. all you have proven is that you opt for alternative ideas over the words of God. nothing in the mormon church, its rituals, secret handshakes, ideology comes from God and do not quote bible verses because that is not what mormons believe.

[dberrie2000]

the existence of numerous denominations and their standing with God does not legitimize smith or the mormon church...

I agree. What numerous denominations do mean--that it does not follow the NT pattern--where God had one denomination which He accepted--which had living, mortal apostles and prophets.

[DrDavidT]

I agree. What numerous denominations do mean--that it does not follow the NT pattern--where God had one denomination which He accepted--which had living, mortal apostles and prophets.

. you keep placing the word denomination in there but that is the wrong word to use. prophets have to be 100% correct to be of God, I have yet to see mormon prophets correct even 10% of the time. yur apostles do not follow the example of biblical apostles. you can claim that they do but in the long run you miss the mark.

[dberrie2000]

. you keep placing the word denomination in there but that is the wrong word to use. prophets have to be 100% correct to be of God, I have yet to see mormon prophets correct even 10% of the time. yur apostles do not follow the example of biblical apostles. you can claim that they do but in the long run you miss the mark.

More straw man arguments.

Again---What numerous denominations do mean--is that it does not follow the NT pattern--where God had one denomination which He accepted--which had living, mortal apostles and prophets.

[alanmolstad]

More straw man arguments.

Again---What numerous denominations do mean--is that it does not follow the NT pattern--where God had one denomination which He accepted--which had living, mortal apostles and prophets.

actually........better have a look at Luke 9:49

[alanmolstad]

More straw man arguments.

Again---What numerous denominations do mean--is that it does not follow the NT pattern--where God had one denomination which He accepted--which had living, mortal apostles and prophets.

actually........better have a look at Luke 9:49

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post More straw man arguments.

Again---What numerous denominations do mean--is that it does not follow the NT pattern--where God had one denomination which He accepted--which had living, mortal apostles and prophets.


actually........better have a look at Luke 9:49

How are you relating Luke9:49 with the fact numerous denominations do not fit the Biblical NT pattern--where there was only one denomination which God accepted?

Ephesians 2:20---King James Version (KJV)
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

[alanmolstad]

From time to time you run into people that have put aside their own faith, and have raised up the concept of an ins***ution as being the most important things in a Christians life.

its not what you know, its who you signed up with that counts with God.


They put the organization at the top of the list of reasons why they believe that are saved...

This tends to force them to place the position of faith at lower and lower levels of importance to them.

many of these people tend to think faith is of little value compared to belonging to the right organization.


I know that when you start to think only members of your church are saved, this tends to slant the way the person views the christian faith...

Into this mess I like to point out that the same foolish thinking was going on right at the start of the Christian church..
When Jesus was offering the path of salvation to all men, he had to also deal with the fact that even then there were guys among his 12 main guys that were attempting to make the Christian faith, "us and us alone"

The Apostle John was thinking that because some people were not connected to the 12, they must not be in the real church.

Jesus sets him straight on that issue.


Jesus make it very clear, you don't have to be 'connected" to squat.

You don't have to have an Apostle...you don't have to have permission....you don't have to have any form of organizational structure.




So in other words...You dont need to think you have to join an organized church structure....You dont need to think you have to join a church in the line from Saint Peter...You dont have to worry that you are on the wrong side of anything just because you are not signed up at this or that local church...

This means that when I write to the "Church at Fargo"...Im not talking about a building...Im not talking about a denomination....Im not talking about a organized religious structure...

rather Im talking about all they who have faith in Christ.

[dberrie2000]

You don't have to have an Apostle...you don't have to have permission....you don't have to have any form of organizational structure.

Christ's church had an organizational structure:

Ephesians 2:20---King James Version (KJV)
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;


So in other words...You dont need to think you have to join an organized church structure....You dont need to think you have to join a church in the line from Saint Peter...You dont have to worry that you are on the wrong side of anything just because you are not signed up at this or that local church...

This means that when I write to the "Church at Fargo"...Im not talking about a building...Im not talking about a denomination....Im not talking about a organized religious structure...

rather Im talking about all they who have faith in Christ.

Where do we find anyone who had faith in Christ, after the resurrection--outside of the foundation Christ built--which was built one the living, mortal apostles and prophets--Jesus Christ being the chief corner stone?

Where do we find numerous denominations teaching divers theologies--and God accepting all of them?

Matthew 7:13-14---King James Version (KJV)
13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Alan--any church which preaches there isn't the first act of obedience to Jesus Christ which is necessary for His grace unto life--isn't His church:

Matthew 19:16-19---King James Version (KJV)
16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

[alanmolstad]

Christ's church had an organizational structure:
.....

Nope,,,,quite the opposite is actually true...

men make organizations..God saves souls.
Never confuse one with the other..

The moment Jesus was told that there was someone out there preaching and doing works that was not connected to him personally or connected in any way to the 12 Jesus had his chance to back the "We are an organization" concept.

But Jesus did not do that.

Rather is warned the 12 not to stop independent movements of the Spirit in the world of ministry.



This alone settles forever this issue.


The Christian church was not and will never be ***ociated with some type of single official organization.

This also means that all church organizations are simply the result of men's actions and the human need we seem to always display to form "clubs" where we can hang the words "keep out" on the doors...





Now had Jesus said to the 12, "Go stop that independent preacher and tell him he has to join our organization to be considered part of the Christian church", then the people that claim their church is the only true church might have a case...

But because Jesus said what he said, I find the whole concept that the true church must be organized to be without any merit at all.



When picking a replacement for the traitor the 11 remaining drew straws....they drew straws from someone who had been with them from the beginning...
In other words, the 11 men decided to pick a replacement the way an organization thinks this is done,,,you pick a man who is also inside your organization...


But, God picked Saul.....


and lets just say that at the time, Saul was just slightly outside that organization....





The message of the Bible therefore is very clear.|

We are saved by Grace though faith...and it is by our FAITH that we are known by God as his church....

Faith is what made me a Christian.....not the particular building I happened to have my **** planted in.

[Christian]

Originally Posted by Christian
JESUS was alive and on earth too. . .HE is the chief CORNERSTONE. IF you claim the 12 9actually 13) Apostles have to be CURRENTLY ALIVE here on earth, then TO BE CONSISTENT you MUST HAVE A LIVE JESUS CHRIST HERE ON EARTH TOO. . WHERE IS HE?

Just where He was after Pentecost--in heaven. But His apostles were here on earth--living, mortal apostles.

Where are the living, mortal apostles of Christ's church today?

They are at the same location as Jesus. . .IN HEAVEN. Your false prophet's theories are ****n back into the pit from which they came.

Your religion is not very consistent, IS IT?

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post Christ's church had an organizational structure:

Ephesians 2:20---King James Version (KJV)
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;


Nope,,,,quite the opposite is actually true...

The opposite may be true in most churches today--but not Christ's Church:

Ephesians 2:20---King James Version (KJV)
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

Ephesians 4:11-14---King James Version (KJV)
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

[Christian]

Just where He was after Pentecost--in heaven. But His apostles were here on earth--living, mortal apostles.

Where are the living, mortal apostles of Christ's church today?

The FOUNDATION is with the CORNERSTONE, NOT with the strangites, rlds, fundamentalist lds, temple lot lds, or utah lds religions.

[dberrie2000]

The FOUNDATION is with the CORNERSTONE, NOT with the strangites, rlds, fundamentalist lds, temple lot lds, or utah lds religions.

Hi Christian:

The foundation is just what the scriptures testify to:

Ephesians 2:20---King James Version (KJV)
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

[Christian]

Hi Christian:

The foundation is just what the scriptures testify to:

Ephesians 2:20---King James Version (KJV)
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

NOT ONE WORD
about "mortal" or "living on the earth" foundation OR Cornerstone. In other words, YOUR so-called 'apostles' are frauds; the REAL ONES are still IN HEAVEN WITH THE CHIEF CORNERSTONE. . .ALL PARTS OF THE SAME STRUCTURE.

joey smith lied to you.

Your smith-invented man-made 'foundation' just crumbled.

[DrDavidT]

More straw man arguments.

Again---What numerous denominations do mean--is that it does not follow the NT pattern--where God had one denomination which He accepted--which had living, mortal apostles and prophets.

How s what I said a strawman argument? I know mormons are tuaght to dance around difficult questions and avid discussing anything that would challenge their faith but you do not have a cue as to what is or isn't a strawman argument.

again you use the word that God did not use. As I have said, there is no ancient religion that mirrors what Smith claims and there was no ancient religion that needed to be restored

[Christian]

Of course I understand that.... What you just described is called a RESTORATION!;)

ONLY by the Biblically ignorant and by cultists.

When it comes to some PERSON RETURNING TO THE ORIGINAL, it is NOT a 'restoration' of the original at all.

Joey smith 'restored' ABSOLUTELY NOTHING THAT HAD EXISTED BEFORE OR BEEN "LOST" to Christ's church.

Smith was a conman, peepstone gazer, fraud, criminal and heretic. He was killed while trying to kill others during a jail break-out.

[Christian]

​
Yes, I know the Protestant god doesn't exist. Protestants believe he does, though.

You mean the MORMON 'exalted man-god' doesn't exist in REALITY? THAT IS CORRECT. the mormon 'exalted man-god' was invented by joey smith, the liar, conman, common criminal and heretic.

The mormon cult is considered 'protestant' by the inventors of the term, the roman catholics.

The protestant mormon religion's god doesn't exist.

The CHRISTIAN GOD (NEVER a man, BUT ALWAYS GOD) is alive, well, and has ruled HIS CHURCH for the last 2,000 years or so, despite the break-offs of some who left. Paul addressed that too, btw:

1 John 2:19
19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.
NKJV

Of course we STILL don't have any reason to believe the utah group of mormons IS the one out of the 150+ such lds groups that each CLAIMED TO BE "THE ONLY" one of Smith's religion anywhere.

So far all they are to us is 'just another cult.'

[Erundur]

You mean the MORMON 'exalted man-god' doesn't exist in REALITY?
No.


Of course we STILL don't have any reason to believe the utah group of mormons IS the one out of the 150+ such lds groups that each CLAIMED TO BE "THE ONLY" one of Smith's religion anywhere.
That's okay; we STILL don't have any reason to prefer any protestant sect to the Church of Jesus Christ, either.

[dberrie2000]

[COLOR=#0000ff]NOT ONE WORD about "mortal" or "living on the earth" foundation OR Cornerstone.

Hi Christian:

I was thinking the very author of the epistle to the Ephesians was a living, mortal apostle.

Ephesians 2:20---King James Version (KJV)
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

[alanmolstad]

Nope,,,,quite the opposite is actually true...

men make organizations..God saves souls.
Never confuse one with the other..

The moment Jesus was told that there was someone out there preaching and doing works that was not connected to him personally or connected in any way to the 12 Jesus had his chance to back the "We are an organization" concept.

But Jesus did not do that.

Rather is warned the 12 not to stop independent movements of the Spirit in the world of ministry.



This alone settles forever this issue.


The Christian church was not and will never be ***ociated with some type of single official organization.

This also means that all church organizations are simply the result of men's actions and the human need we seem to always display to form "clubs" where we can hang the words "keep out" on the doors...





Now had Jesus said to the 12, "Go stop that independent preacher and tell him he has to join our organization to be considered part of the Christian church", then the people that claim their church is the only true church might have a case...

But because Jesus said what he said, I find the whole concept that the true church must be organized to be without any merit at all.



When picking a replacement for the traitor the 11 remaining drew straws....they drew straws from someone who had been with them from the beginning...
In other words, the 11 men decided to pick a replacement the way an organization thinks this is done,,,you pick a man who is also inside your organization...


But, God picked Saul.....


and lets just say that at the time, Saul was just slightly outside that organization....





The message of the Bible therefore is very clear.|

We are saved by Grace though faith...and it is by our FAITH that we are known by God as his church....

Faith is what made me a Christian.....not the particular building I happened to have my **** planted in.

One of my better posts!

[dberrie2000]

men make organizations..God saves souls.

So--who made this organization?

Ephesians 2:20---King James Version (KJV)
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

[Christian]

So--who made this organization?

Ephesians 2:20---King James Version (KJV)
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

Jesus, whom YOU DON'T KNOW. You should note: JESUS AND HIS APOSTLES AND PROPHETS CURRENTLY RESIDE IN HEAVEN.

The 150+ 'sets of apostles and prophets' of the lds religions. . .are not from Jesus at all, even though EACH OF THEM claimed to be the ONLY RIGHT ONES, just like the utah group does.

The utah mormon religious organization is just as corrupt as islam is. NEITHER group is from God. BOTH groups follow the wrong 'christ.' Islam thinks Jesus was just a 'messenger.' Utah mormons are told THEIR 'jesus' was a spirit-brother-of-satan.

BOTH GROUPS LIE.

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post men make organizations..God saves souls.



Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View PostSo--who made this organization?

Ephesians 2:20---King James Version (KJV)
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;


Jesus....

Hi Christian:

Then organizations are not limited to man-made organizations--especially within God's church.

Christian--the LDS still have the living, mortal apostles and prophets--which, without them--there is no foundation.