Which of the 150+ mormonisms

[Christian]

is the 'right one?' They ALL claimed to be. They ALL had presidents and 'apostles.' So why should we just blindly accept the word of the utah ones?

[Erundur]

is the 'right one?' They ALL claimed to be.
I go with the original.


So why should we just blindly accept the word of the utah ones?
You shouldn't, of course.

[Christian]

I go with the original.


You shouldn't, of course.


That leaves out the utah group, doesn't it? The reorganized or community of Christ groups are closer to the original than the utah is. After all, emma smith and joe smith III ARE WERE related to your 'prophet.' young was not.

[Erundur]

That leaves out the utah group, doesn't it?
No, it doesn't.


The reorganized or community of Christ groups are closer to the original than the utah is.
False. The church closest to the original is the original itself.


After all, emma smith and joe smith III ARE WERE related to your 'prophet.' young was not.
Not seeing how this is relevant.

[Christian]

No, it doesn't.


False. The church closest to the original is the original itself.


Not seeing how this is relevant.

Perhaps you could show us how bringum young is part of the 'priestly line' of joe smith? After all, that IS how the priestly lines went. . .from father to son, down the BLOODLINES, not just as pretenders decided THEY wanted it to be. . .like young did.

IF joe smith was a prophet, and of course HE SAID his son would be the president of HIS church. . .that leaves your 'closest to the original' NOT QUITE CLOSE ENOUGH.

So far you have not shown us one reason to believe your utah group is anything but 'just another one of the 'break-offs' of the mormon religions'

[Erundur]

Perhaps you could show us how bringum young is part of the 'priestly line' of joe smith?
Don't know him.


IF joe smith was a prophet, and of course HE SAID his son would be the president of HIS church. . .that leaves your 'closest to the original' NOT QUITE CLOSE ENOUGH.
That makes no sense. Of course our church is close enough to itself. It is not possible that any other church could be closer.


So far you have not shown us one reason to believe your utah group is anything but 'just another one of the 'break-offs' of the mormon religions'
Your statement is objectively false. Our church did not break off from anyone, so it is cannot be a break-off at all.

[jude1:3]

* My post is Not an Attack *

I Just wanted to make that clear. This graph shows different branches and off shoots of The LDS movement for informational purposes:


https://s14.postimg.io/x4ctddu4h/LDS_succession.png



http://www.religionfacts.com/mormonism/branches

http://listverse.com/2015/11/21/10-unknown-offshoots-and-factions-of-mormonism/


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sects_in_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement

[Christian]

Don't know him.


That makes no sense. Of course our church is close enough to itself. It is not possible that any other church could be closer.


Your statement is objectively false. Our church did not break off from anyone, so it is cannot be a break-off at all.

So you think your particular break-off (when young left the smith family church) became the "real one?" Why do you think anyone else should think that?

What about the strang group? The temple lot group? (didn't smith 'prophesy' that the temple lot would remain in HIS church for perpetuity?)

Doesn't that stuff cause you to pause?

Why should we believe YOUR group over the community of christ group? After all, Their 'lineage' is better than yours. . .

[Erundur]

So you think your particular break-off (when young left the smith family church) became the "real one?"
I don't have a break-off.

[Phoenix]

is the 'right one?' They ALL claimed to be. They ALL had presidents and 'apostles.' So why should we just blindly accept the word of the utah ones?
What makes you think the broken off church that YOU belong to is more Christian than any of the other 8000 churches of Christendom???

Cant all Reformationist churches be traced back to the 16th-century schism and splintering off from the Catholic Church ?

[jude1:3]

What makes you think the broken off church that YOU belong to is more Christian than any of the other 8000 churches of Christendom???

Cant all Reformationist churches be traced back to the 16th-century schism and splintering off from the Catholic Church ?




This is actually what has brought me to a cross roads so to speak. A couple of years ago I started researching Eastern Orthodoxy and the seven Ecumenical Councils. The first thing I really began to study was The Apostle's Creed and Nicene Creed.

I wanted to go back as far as I could into the ancient Christian Church and see how they operated. Some things have been a stumbling block for me but others have been perfect and exactly what I was searching for.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMuR_DoNYnM

[Christian]

I don't have a break-off.


Your vested interest OPINION is noted.

[Christian]

What makes you think the broken off church that YOU belong to is more Christian than any of the other 8000 churches of Christendom???

Cant all Reformationist churches be traced back to the 16th-century schism and splintering off from the Catholic Church ?

Now there are only 8,000? Let's see now. . .SOME catholics say 3,000, SOME say 30,000. . .and the TRUTH is that NONE OF YOU HAS A CLUE how many congregations of CHRISTIANS there are.

The roman catholic religion HAS NEVER cons***uted the sum of Christianity. That was one of joey smith's foibles; he fell for the catholic church's false claim.

The TRUTH is that Christ's church meets whenever Baptists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, ***emblies of God, Bible churches and other congregations meet and worship God in Spirit and in TRUTH.

The rcc invention didn't get here until the 1830's or so and was NEVER part of Christ's church. It was ALWAYS 'joe's church' instead.

[Christian]

I don't have a break-off.

In other words, you have no LEGITIMATE reason to believe YOUR group is the 'real one. . .' you just ***UME ITS GOTTA BEEE because after all YOU are in it.

No HONEST reason to believe yours is 'the one' in any way from you.

[Erundur]

In other words, you have no LEGITIMATE reason to believe YOUR group is the 'real one. . .'
Yes, those are other words that bear no resemblance to what I actually said.


you just ***UME ITS GOTTA BEEE because after all YOU are in it.

No HONEST reason to believe yours is 'the one' in any way from you.
Your flippant DISMISSAL is noted.

[Phoenix]

Now there are only 8,000? Let's see now. . .SOME catholics say 3,000, SOME say 30,000. . .and the TRUTH is that NONE OF YOU HAS A CLUE how many congregations of CHRISTIANS there are.
You have no clue either. Today, one church might cease to exist, but tomorrow, 3 new ones might be created, so the total doesn't remain consistent. Modern Christendom is constantly growing and shrinking.
I guessed about 8000 because that number falls between the low and high estimates.
If you do a search using the question "how many Christian denominations are there? 2of the top 3 hits estimate 20,000 to 41,000. The 3rd hit is a Wikipedia article that lists every denomination that Wikipedia has an article on. That list is quite long.



The roman catholic religion HAS NEVER cons***uted the sum of Christianity.
Who said that it DID? The question was: what makes you think the denomination you belong to is more Christian than all the others? If you are logical, you must believe that yours has more correct doctrines than any other, because if you believed that some other church was closer to Christ's 1st-century church, you'd quit the one you're in, and join that other church. And if your denomination isn't Catholic or Orthodox, then it's probably a reformation-derived church, which means that it was created in the last 500 years as a product of Luther being kicked out of the RCC.


That was one of joey smith's foibles; he fell for the catholic church's false claim.
So you're admitting that your church came from a broken-off branch of the Tree that made a false claim?



The rcc invention didn't get here until the 1830's or so and was NEVER part of Christ's church. It was ALWAYS 'joe's church' instead.]
200 years before "Joe" was born, a Baptist pastor taught that none of the churches of Christianity were being run by authorized leaders because apostasy had resulted in the loss of apostolic authority.

100 years before "Joe" was born, a Methodist pastor taught that after christianity became a pawn of Constantine, the special spiritual gifts of 1st-century Christianity died out because Christians ended up being about as spiritual as your average heathen. Such teachings were NOT invented by "Joe," despite what your Mormon-slandering propaganda has told you.

[Phoenix]

This is actually what has brought me to a cross roads so to speak. A couple of years ago I started researching Eastern Orthodoxy and the seven Ecumenical Councils. The first thing I really began to study was The Apostle's Creed and Nicene Creed.

I wanted to go back as far as I could into the ancient Christian Church and see how they operated. Some things have been a stumbling block for me but others have been perfect and exactly what I was searching for.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMuR_DoNYnM

Thanks for your post. The Orthodox churches are fascinating. They seem to have held onto some ancient doctrines that the rest of Christendom had discarded and forgotten. One example is their doctrine of theosis.

[MichaellS]

Thanks for your post. The Orthodox churches are fascinating. They seem to have held onto some ancient doctrines that the rest of Christendom had discarded and forgotten. One example is their doctrine of theosis.

A well-trained Orthodox Fr is not to be underestimated.

Off-topic, Jude1:3, Do you have a fav website that stays abreast of Orthodox news?

[Christian]

phoenix posted:


Originally Posted by Christian http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/images/****ons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?p=169833#post169833)
Now there are only 8,000? Let's see now. . .SOME catholics say 3,000, SOME say 30,000. . .and the TRUTH is that NONE OF YOU HAS A CLUE how many congregations of CHRISTIANS there are.


You have no clue either. Today, one church might cease to exist, but tomorrow, 3 new ones might be created, so the total doesn't remain consistent. Modern Christendom is constantly growing and shrinking.

I guessed about 8000 because that number falls between the low and high estimates.
If you do a search using the question "how many Christian denominations are there? 2of the top 3 hits estimate 20,000 to 41,000. The 3rd hit is a Wikipedia article that lists every denomination that Wikipedia has an article on. That list is quite long.


The roman catholic religion HAS NEVER cons***uted the sum of Christianity.

Who said that it DID? The question was: what makes you think the denomination you belong to is more Christian than all the others? If you are logical, you must believe that yours has more correct doctrines than any other, because if you believed that some other church was closer to Christ's 1st-century church, you'd quit the one you're in, and join that other church. And if your denomination isn't Catholic or Orthodox, then it's probably a reformation-derived church, which means that it was created in the last 500 years as a product of Luther being kicked out of the RCC.

Your wild-eyed rationalization is so full of flaws it is nonsensical.

Ancient Christendom was constantly growing. New Churches starting up in every new town that the disciples and apostles entered.

Perhaps you don't know it, but a 'church' is nothing more than what the Greek Word MEANS. . .a CONGREGATION. 'Church does NOT MEAN 'political/religious/social/financial oligarchy, which is what the rcc is.

NOBODY knows how many congregations of CHRIST'S church exist. How do you count? When my own congregation started a Spanish speaking congregation at a nearby building belonging to a different denomination, is that Spanish church a "new" church, or is it a new CONGREGATION of CHRIST'S congregation? Are we now ONE congregation or TWO? And if TWO, are we 'different' just because we speak different languages?

No, NOBODY HAS A CLUE how many congregations CHRIST'S church has.

So you're admitting that your church came from a broken-off branch of the Tree that made a false claim?

No, that is something YOU ARE MAKING UP FROM YOUR OWN PERVERTED MIND.

200 years before "Joe" was born, a Baptist pastor taught that none of the churches of Christianity were being run by authorized leaders because apostasy had resulted in the loss of apostolic authority.

100 years before "Joe" was born, a Methodist pastor taught that after christianity became a pawn of Constantine, the special spiritual gifts of 1st-century Christianity died out because Christians ended up being about as spiritual as your average heathen. Such teachings were NOT invented by "Joe," despite what your Mormon-slandering propaganda has told you.

Joe smith claimed there were little men who lived on the moon dressed like quakers.
Joe smith claimed that his god was only one of MANY gods extant, a man who became a god, but never changed from being a god from all eternity, past and present.
joe smith claimed HIS church would ALWAYS own the temple lot.

LOTS of false statements have been made by LOTS of flakey people, joe smith especially. So what?

[Phoenix]

Before i respond to the hysterical, irrational rants of a certain rabid attacker of Mormons, I want to ask him to please TRY to learn the correct way to quote posts. If he is able figure out that simple skill, it will help anyone who decides to read his rants; some readers might even see some traces of coherent thought in a small percentage of them. Then perhaps he can move on to more difficult-to-master skills, such as making an argument that actually defends his accusations--or that actually answers questions that another poster has asked him.



Your wild-eyed rationalization is so full of flaws it is nonsensical.
What is it that you think I was rationalizing, and what reasons can you provide that would convince readers that it was wild-eyed?


Ancient Christendom was constantly growing.
Yes. It WAS growing. The issue that you were supposed to be addressing is how many denominations there are TODAY. I said that the number changes, and goes up or down because some go out of business and others are "planted." You failed to refute my ***ertion, and the probable is reason is that you cannot refute it because it is true, as anyone with common sense would intuitively realize.


Perhaps you don't know it,
Or perhaps I did know it, like I also know that it is irrelevant to whatever you think you are refuting.
You asked Erendur why he believes that his "congregation" is superior to others. I asked YOU the same question about YOUR "congregation." So far, you have given exactly ZERO reasons for your belief about your group/church/denomination/cult or whatever ***le you have for it.

Why are you so averse to answering questions about your own group when you're so UNafraid to ask about other people's groups? Is it because you are afraid to answer for your group those same questions? Is it because you have nothing good to say about yours?


'Church does NOT MEAN 'political/religious/social/financial oligarchy, which is what the rcc is.
If you think the Catholic Church has defined "church" incorrectly, you should speak to its leaders about your concerns. Maybe they will find your scholarly qualifications to be superior to those of their own scholars.


NOBODY knows how many congregations of CHRIST'S church exist.
It is good to see an attacker of the Mormons admit that there is at least one thing he doesn't know.


How do you count?
By doing research. How do you count the number of universities in the world? By doing research. Wikipedia's list of denominations or churches began with those that had Wikipedia articles. Is the number really that important to you? Is it relevant to whether you are able to give reasons why you think yours is superior to all the others? No.



When my own congregation
What is its name? Who founded it? What are its official doctrines, and where can people go to see them? What are its requirements for membership, and for becoming a Christian, and for getting eternal life? Why should anyone think it is closer to Christ's original church than any other congregation on this planet?
8 questions for you to answer. Are you up to the task?

(I asked: So you're admitting that your church came from a broken-off branch of the Tree that made a false claim?)


No, that is something YOU ARE MAKING UP FROM YOUR OWN PERVERTED MIND.
The only perverted mind that posted that the RCC made a false claim, was your mind. If your "congregation" is one of the illegitimate offspring born from the great schism that created Protestantism, then your church is a branch that was broken off from the RCC tree.


Joe smith claimed there were little men who lived on the moon dressed like quakers.
If you can prove he claimed what you accused him of claiming, I will admit that your "congregation" is the finest, greatest, most Christian congregation of all the hundreds of thousands of congregations on Earth, and I will send a $1 million donation to it.


LOTS of false statements have been made by LOTS of flakey people,
You said one thing that I agree is true. Hopefully you will try to back up some of your statements with evidence, so you won't have to worry about the readers thinking you are one of those flakey people who make false statements.

[Christian]

phoenix posted:

Before i respond to the hysterical, irrational rants of a certain rabid attacker of Mormons, I want to ask him to please TRY to learn the correct way to quote posts. If he is able figure out that simple skill, it will help anyone who decides to read his rants; some readers might even see some traces of coherent thought in a small percentage of them. Then perhaps he can move on to more difficult-to-master skills, such as making an argument that actually defends his accusations--or that actually answers questions that another poster has asked him.

If you are through with your whiney rant perhaps we can get on with our posting. . .


What is it that you think I was rationalizing, and what reasons can you provide that would convince readers that it was wild-eyed?

THIS:


If you are logical, you must believe that yours has more correct doctrines than any other, because if you believed that some other church was closer to Christ's 1st-century church, you'd quit the one you're in, and join that other church. And if your denomination isn't Catholic or Orthodox, then it's probably a reformation-derived church, which means that it was created in the last 500 years as a product of Luther being kicked out of the RCC.

Please note the PROPER use of the quote feature. . .AND note that your nonsense IS nothing more than raw and undisciplined rationalization.

The TRUTH is that CHRIST'S church has been here and growing for about 2,000 years now. Joey smith's invented cult has only been here since the 1830's, and is the 'newby' on the block.

CHRIST's church has NEVER been limited to any one social/financial/political/religious group. It has ALWAYS been a CONGREGATION (the DEFINITION of the word we translate "church") of CONGREGATIONS, often bearing different names such as 'The church of God,' or 'the church of the Laodeceans' or 'The church of God in Christ,' and others such as Presbyterian, Lutheran, ***emblies of God, Bible church or Baptist church.

Joey smith simply didn't understand the meaning of the word "church." You don't seem to either.



Ancient Christendom was constantly growing.


Yes. It WAS growing. The issue that you were supposed to be addressing is how many denominations there are TODAY. I said that the number changes, and goes up or down because some go out of business and others are "planted." You failed to refute my ***ertion, and the probable is reason is that you cannot refute it because it is true, as anyone with common sense would intuitively realize.[/QUOTE]


Or perhaps I did know it, like I also know that it is irrelevant to whatever you think you are refuting.
You asked Erendur why he believes that his "congregation" is superior to others. I asked YOU the same question about YOUR "congregation." So far, you have given exactly ZERO reasons for your belief about your group/church/denomination/cult or whatever ***le you have for it.

EXACTLY WHAT makes you think I believe my congregation to be superior to other CHRISTIAN congregations? I don't. NEITHER DO I THINK the mormon religion and its gods has anything to do with the church (the AUTHENTIC, BIBLICAL) JESUS CHRIST built. The differences are too great and in many ways diametrically opposed.

Why are you so averse to answering questions about your own group when you're so UNafraid to ask about other people's groups? Is it because you are afraid to answer for your group those same questions? Is it because you have nothing good to say about yours?

WHEN will you START asking me questions about MY group? I don't remember you EVER ASKING EVEN ONE that wasn't 'loaded' with your own presuppositions. IF you want to ask me ANY honest questions about MY Group, please feel free to do so. I am a member of a Conservative Baptist church. You may find out what we believe by addressing the Conservative Baptist Church web-pages if you would rather go there than to post questions to me. I don't know of ANYTHING they teach that I do not find to be Biblical. Perhaps YOU COULD SHOW ME SOME PLACE?

If you think the Catholic Church has defined "church" incorrectly, you should speak to its leaders about your concerns. Maybe they will find your scholarly qualifications to be superior to those of their own scholars.

I would get no more interest in BIBLICAL CHANGE from them than I do from you. I am not a member of their religion. I am not a member of yours. NEITHER religion is CHRIST'S church (they pray to non-gods just like you do only differently). . .

NOBODY knows how many congregations of CHRIST'S church exist.


It is good to see an attacker of the Mormons admit that there is at least one thing he doesn't know.

Perhaps you didn't DO the reading you should. Try REREADING THIS PART:


NOBODY knows how many congregations of CHRIST'S church exist. How do you count? When my own congregation started a Spanish speaking congregation at a nearby building belonging to a different denomination, is that Spanish church a "new" church, or is it a new CONGREGATION of CHRIST'S congregation? Are we now ONE congregation or TWO? And if TWO, are we 'different' just because we speak different languages?

Perhaps if you READ the fact that there IS NO WAY to count the different 'denominations' or (using YOUR definition. . .) "churches" as I showed you, your ignorance would not be so easily noticed.

By doing research. How do you count the number of universities in the world? By doing research. Wikipedia's list of denominations or churches began with those that had Wikipedia articles. Is the number really that important to you? Is it relevant to whether you are able to give reasons why you think yours is superior to all the others? No.

Since I have NEVER MADE SUCH A CLAIM, your nonsensical number of different contregations (churches) is meaningless. As for Wikipedia, it can be added to, modified by, or changed by ANYONE and is NOT known for its accuracy in much of anything.

What is its name?

First Baptist Church

Who founded it?

It began as a private Bible study in someone's home. I can't remember his name (I knew it once, it was LONG before I began worshiping with this congregation.

What are its official doctrines, and where can people go to see them?

Here's one place to look: http://www.cbnw.org/ There are others.

What are its requirements for membership, and for becoming a Christian, and for getting eternal life?

See your Bible. Simply FAITH IN THE BIBLICAL JESUS CHRIST. Not faith in your 'spirit brother of satan' 'jesus.'

Why should anyone think it is closer to Christ's original church than any other congregation on this planet?

You shouldn't. We have never made any such claim. That is a claim that only cults like the catholic, mormon, branch davidians and muslims make.

8 questions for you to answer. Are you up to the task?

I answered them all, completely and accurately.

(I asked: So you're admitting that your church came from a broken-off branch of the Tree that made a false claim?)

Since I NEVER SAID ANYTHING THAT EVEN RESEMBLED YOUR CLAIM I responded:


No, that is something YOU ARE MAKING UP FROM YOUR OWN PERVERTED MIND.


The only perverted mind that posted that the RCC made a false claim, was your mind. If your "congregation" is one of the illegitimate offspring born from the great schism that created Protestantism, then your church is a branch that was broken off from the RCC tree.

More of your own personal wild-eyed RATIONALIZATION. Your 'conclusion' is your own. I had nothing to do with it. It REMAINS 'No, that is something YOU ARE MAKING UP FROM YOUR OWN PERVERTED MIND.'

If you can prove he claimed what you accused him of claiming, I will admit that your "congregation" is the finest, greatest, most Christian congregation of all the hundreds of thousands of congregations on Earth, and I will send a $1 million donation to it.

NOW you are calling it 'hundreds of thousands' of congregations.' You must have posted that a BILLION TIMES!:rolleyes:

Or do you just MAKE UP NUMBERS AS YOU GO?


You said one thing that I agree is true. Hopefully you will try to back up some of your statements with evidence, so you won't have to worry about the readers thinking you are one of those flakey people who make false statements.

I give Bible verses (evidence). I have you a web address. . .(more evidence). Of course, you will ignore it all like one of those flakey people would tend to do. . .


NOBODY knows how many congregations of CHRIST'S church exist.

[Phoenix]

Which of the 150+ Baptist churches is the right one? They all claimed to be. They all had "founders" and "pastors" but they don't all agree on biblical doctrines--the proof is that some are more conservative than others. Some even claim the bible forbids dancing, jewelry, and women opening their mouths in church. Why should anyone believe that "First Baptist Congregation" is the best of the bunch? What about the Anabaptists ?

Why should any sane person believe that a Baptist church is the true church, when, as everyone knows, Protestant churches didn't even exist for the first 75% of Christianity's existence? It is just a newbie in the crop of Dark-ages churches.

[jude1:3]

I also grew up in the First Baptist Church. This was our affiliation's website : http://cbamerica.org



I always believed in The very Basic Christian Doctrines. One of the central doctrines or statements of faith that you will usually find in Baptist Churches or in Protestant Churches in general is some paraphrase or variation of The Original Nicene / Apostles' Creeds of 325, 381 and 390 A.D.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_Creed



This is The Orthodox Version:

The Nicene Creed

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

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of
God, begotten of the Father before all ages;

Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten,
not created, of one essence with the Father
through Whom all things were made.

Who for us men and for our salvation
came down from heaven and was incarnate
of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man.

He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate,
and suffered and was buried;

And He rose on the third day,
according to the Scriptures.

He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father;

And He will come again with glory to judge the living
and dead. His kingdom shall have no end.

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of life,
Who proceeds from the Father, Who together with the
Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, Who
spoke through the prophets.

In one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

I look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the age to come.

Amen.

[Christian]

Which of the 150+ Baptist churches is the right one? They all claimed to be. They all had "founders" and "pastors" but they don't all agree on biblical doctrines--the proof is that some are more conservative than others. Some even claim the bible forbids dancing, jewelry, and women opening their mouths in church. Why should anyone believe that "First Baptist Congregation" is the best of the bunch? What about the Anabaptists ?

Why should any sane person believe that a Baptist church is the true church, when, as everyone knows, Protestant churches didn't even exist for the first 75% of Christianity's existence? It is just a newbie in the crop of Dark-ages churches.

You still think CHRIST'S church is limited to any one 'organization?' You cultists ALL claim that it is, and that YOURS is the 'right one.'

We CHRISTIANS all agree that each of us is PART of Christ's True church, but NONE OF US claim to be 'the perfect organization.' Mormon cultists and catholic cultists and other cultists CLAIM THEIRS is "the only" "right" church, but of course they don't have any SCRIPTURE to support their claims any more than you do.

[jude1:3]

To be fair this is a time line of different Schisms with in The Christian Church through out time :



https://s18.postimg.io/yyg3v0i2h/659px_Christianity_Branches_svg.png

https://s17.postimg.io/5mlk4r9a7/Protestant_branches_svg.png

[alanmolstad]

actually.....
There is a hint that the divided church is what Jesus designed for us from the start...

I dont think for a moment that Jesus wanted all believers to be all under the same roof...

I think he knows people too well....

[jude1:3]

actually.....
There is a hint that the divided church is what Jesus designed for us from the start...

I dont think for a moment that Jesus wanted all believers to be all under the same roof...

I think he knows people too well....



One thing that they are all in agreement with would be The Nicene and The Apostles' Creed.

I must disagree with you though that Jesus wanted a divided Church:


“I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; That They All May Be ONE, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; That They Also May Be ONE In Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, That They May Be ONE Just As We Are ONE: I in them, and You in Me; That They May Be Made Perfect In ONE, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.

John 17:20-23

[Phoenix]

I also grew up in the First Baptist Church. This was our affiliation's website : http://cbamerica.org

I always believed in The very Basic Christian Doctrines. One of the central doctrines or statements of faith that you will usually find in Baptist Churches or in Protestant Churches in general is some paraphrase or variation of The Original Nicene / Apostles' Creeds of 325, 381 and 390 A.D.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_Creed

This is The Orthodox Version:

The Nicene Creed

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

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of
God, begotten of the Father before all ages;

Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten,
not created, of one essence with the Father
through Whom all things were made.

Who for us men and for our salvation
came down from heaven and was incarnate
of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man.

He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate,
and suffered and was buried;

And He rose on the third day,
according to the Scriptures.

He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father;

And He will come again with glory to judge the living
and dead. His kingdom shall have no end.

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of life,
Who proceeds from the Father, Who together with the
Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, Who
spoke through the prophets.

In one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

I look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the age to come.

Amen.

Thanks for the answers. I also like your sig line.

[Phoenix]

[COLOR=#0000ff]You still think CHRIST'S church is limited to any one 'organization?'
In heaven, I think we will all be united, not Balkanized. Paul wrote about his belief that Christ wanted His church to have apostles, prophets, pastors, etc. until we are all united and perfect in our faith and mature understanding of the gospel.
I share that hope.

But my question for you was based on the logical presumption that you must believe that the group you're currently in is closer in doctrine to Christ's original church than any other group, because if you thought some other group was closer, it would be stupid to remain in one that you believed to have LESS of the correct teachings.


Mormon cultists and catholic cultists and other cultists CLAIM THEIRS is "the only" "right" church,]
If the baptist church was created from a schismatic break from the Catholic Church that kicked Martin Luther out, then your church is just as much a break-off as you claim the LDS church is. Am I wrong?

[Phoenix]

[COLOR=#0000ff]You still think CHRIST'S church is limited to any one 'organization?'
In heaven, I think we will all be united, not Balkanized. Paul wrote about his belief that Christ wanted His church to have apostles, prophets, pastors, etc. until we are all united and perfect in our faith and mature understanding of the gospel.
I share that hope.

But my question for you was based on the logical presumption that you must believe that the group you're currently in is closer in doctrine to Christ's original church than any other group, because if you thought some other group was closer, it would be stupid to remain in one that you believed to have LESS of the correct teachings.


Mormon cultists and catholic cultists and other cultists CLAIM THEIRS is "the only" "right" church,]
If the baptist church was created from a schismatic break from the Catholic Church that kicked Martin Luther out, then your church is just as much a break-off as you claim the LDS church is. Am I wrong?

[Phoenix]

[COLOR=#0000ff]You still think CHRIST'S church is limited to any one 'organization?'
In heaven, I think we will all be united, not Balkanized. Paul wrote about his belief that Christ wanted His church to have apostles, prophets, pastors, etc. until we are all united and perfect in our faith and mature understanding of the gospel.
I share that hope.

But my question for you was based on the logical presumption that you must believe that the group you're currently in is closer in doctrine to Christ's original church than any other group, because if you thought some other group was closer, it would be stupid to remain in one that you believed to have LESS of the correct teachings.


Mormon cultists and catholic cultists and other cultists CLAIM THEIRS is "the only" "right" church,]
If the baptist church was created from a schismatic break from the Catholic Church that kicked Martin Luther out, then your church is just as much a break-off as you claim the LDS church is. Am I wrong?

[Christian]

phoenix posted:

In heaven, I think we will all be united, not Balkanized. Paul wrote about his belief that Christ wanted His church to have apostles, prophets, pastors, etc. until we are all united and perfect in our faith and mature understanding of the gospel.
I share that hope.

Paul never once said he wanted any such thing. Perhaps if you REALLY think he did, you could provide us with the chapter and verse of the place where you think he did so?

But my question for you was based on the logical presumption that you must believe that the group you're currently in is closer in doctrine to Christ's original church than any other group, because if you thought some other group was closer, it would be stupid to remain in one that you believed to have LESS of the correct teachings.

Even more rationalization. You presume too much. The fact that the group I'm currently in is JUST AS CLOSE as other groups are to the original (as recorded in the Bible) church is just fine with me.

Your method of reasoning is FAR DIFFERENT from the method of reasoning I think with. To me, it is NOT a game of compe***ion to prove 'what is best amongst many.' I could care less about such stuff.

My interest is in believing everything that GOD (not joe smith, martin luther, the pope, or steve martin) wants me to believe and understand about HIM and how HE wants ME to SERVE AND LOVE HIM.

YOUR RELIGION claims to be the ONLY RIGHT religion. I am merely pointing out that your religion has no EVIDENCE to support its claim and does NOT IN FACT match the teachings and beliefs of CHRIST'S first century church at all. ALL of the 'mormon-specific' junk that joe smith introduced is nothing more than man-invented junk; not from God at all.

If the baptist church was created from a schismatic break from the Catholic Church that kicked Martin Luther out, then your church is just as much a break-off as you claim the LDS church is. Am I wrong?

The TRUTH is that my Baptist church has never had ANY RELATIONSHIP to the rcc.

You, like the catholics, joe smith and others seem to thin Jesus built a social/financial/religious/political ins***ution; He did not. He built a CHURCH. . .BY DEFINITION, a CONGREGATION. NOT a 'religious denomination' or 'organization' or social/political/religious/financial ins***ution.'

When you can find SOMETHING that my church is not doing that it should, or is doing that it shouldn't ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE, please show me and I will change. I won't ask that you change when your organization is shown BIBLICALLY to be wrong (like teaching that polytheism is from God since it is not). But if you can SHOW ME SCRIPTURE that says my Conservative Baptist church is teaching/practicing falsely, I want to know. . .I will change if the Bible calls for me to do so. My only interest is in Serving and Loving the Lord and Christ's (the REAL Christ, not any of the false christs) brethren.

What is YOUR interest in these matters?

[Christian]

phoenix posted:

In heaven, I think we will all be united, not Balkanized. Paul wrote about his belief that Christ wanted His church to have apostles, prophets, pastors, etc. until we are all united and perfect in our faith and mature understanding of the gospel.
I share that hope.

Paul never once said he wanted any such thing. Perhaps if you REALLY think he did, you could provide us with the chapter and verse of the place where you think he did so?

But my question for you was based on the logical presumption that you must believe that the group you're currently in is closer in doctrine to Christ's original church than any other group, because if you thought some other group was closer, it would be stupid to remain in one that you believed to have LESS of the correct teachings.

Even more rationalization. You presume too much. The fact that the group I'm currently in is JUST AS CLOSE as other groups are to the original (as recorded in the Bible) church is just fine with me.

Your method of reasoning is FAR DIFFERENT from the method of reasoning I think with. To me, it is NOT a game of compe***ion to prove 'what is best amongst many.' I could care less about such stuff.

My interest is in believing everything that GOD (not joe smith, martin luther, the pope, or steve martin) wants me to believe and understand about HIM and how HE wants ME to SERVE AND LOVE HIM.

YOUR RELIGION claims to be the ONLY RIGHT religion. I am merely pointing out that your religion has no EVIDENCE to support its claim and does NOT IN FACT match the teachings and beliefs of CHRIST'S first century church at all. ALL of the 'mormon-specific' junk that joe smith introduced is nothing more than man-invented junk; not from God at all.

If the baptist church was created from a schismatic break from the Catholic Church that kicked Martin Luther out, then your church is just as much a break-off as you claim the LDS church is. Am I wrong?

The TRUTH is that my Baptist church has never had ANY RELATIONSHIP to the rcc.

You, like the catholics, joe smith and others seem to thin Jesus built a social/financial/religious/political ins***ution; He did not. He built a CHURCH. . .BY DEFINITION, a CONGREGATION. NOT a 'religious denomination' or 'organization' or social/political/religious/financial ins***ution.'

When you can find SOMETHING that my church is not doing that it should, or is doing that it shouldn't ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE, please show me and I will change. I won't ask that you change when your organization is shown BIBLICALLY to be wrong (like teaching that polytheism is from God since it is not). But if you can SHOW ME SCRIPTURE that says my Conservative Baptist church is teaching/practicing falsely, I want to know. . .I will change if the Bible calls for me to do so. My only interest is in Serving and Loving the Lord and Christ's (the REAL Christ, not any of the false christs) brethren.

What is YOUR interest in these matters?

[alanmolstad]

I must disagree with you though that Jesus wanted a divided Church:



I believe this issue actually came up during Christ's work, and that Christ said something that totally undercuts the idea that the christian Church was ever supposed to be under one authority structure, or one roof, or one governing body. etc....



Mark 9:38
"Teacher," said John, "we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us."


"Do not stop him," Jesus said. "For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me,"






I believe this is actually a very clear statement by our Lord that tells us that from the start we do not see Christ attempting to gather all believers and teachers and preachers under one roof....

Jesus had a clear opportunity here to side with the 12 Disciples and order all future Christian preachers to only allowed to do the Lord's work if they were connected to the first 12 Disciples...

But when Jesus said to not get in this other unknown person's way, Jesus was in fact opening the doors to the church and allowing people to start up their own ministry that had no connection to the 12 Disciples....



Thus from the very start of the christian church you see Jesus going out of his was to promote diversity.

[DrDavidT]

No, it doesn't.


False. The church closest to the original is the original itself.


Not seeing how this is relevant.

Uhm, the original believed and practiced polygamy then willingly gave that practice up because statehood was on the line. So it seems that the original church was willing to sacrifice its teaching to gain something terrestrial. That doesn't make it a very good church or one that follows the Bible.

[jude1:3]

Thus from the very start of the christian church you see Jesus going out of his was to promote diversity.



This is an interesting quote from Alexei Khomiakov: "We know where the Church is but we cannot be sure where it is not."

http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/non-orthodox_ch7.pdf Page 48

[alanmolstad]

so that is why Ihave never put much stock in the idea that the Christian Church has somehow failed to stay united in one organization...

Because from what I read,Jesus never wanted his church to be like that from the start.

Jesus pushed the idea that anyone who believes is just as in his "church"as they who are in the Apostolic line.

[DrDavidT]

so that is why Ihave never put much stock in the idea that the Christian Church has somehow failed to stay united in one organization...

Because from what I read,Jesus never wanted his church to be like that from the start.

Jesus pushed the idea that anyone who believes is just as in his "church"as they who are in the Apostolic line.

the church is divided because people do not go for the truth, they opt for the interpretation they like best. There is only one truth and if people disagree then there will be division. Remember Jesus said he came not to bring peace but a sword so that means division will happen even amongst Christians. So you cannot judge the church simply because there is division, you must look at their teaching to see if they are teaching the truth or not.

This is why we can say that the Mormon cult is not Christian. They are not teaching the truth. Their 'doctrines' are wrong and not in line with biblical teaching. it is also why we can say something is false teaching and someone is a false teacher. They are NOT bringing the same gospel as Jesus and his disciples brought. They are bringing their own ideas, ideology they prefer over the truth.

[Erundur]

Uhm, the original believed and practiced polygamy then willingly gave that practice up because statehood was on the line.
That's not true. The only reason the church gave up polygamy was because of revelation.

[Christian]

That's not true. The only reason the church gave up polygamy was because of revelation.

EXACTLY WHERE AND WHEN did that 'revelation' to give up polygamy occur? CHAPTER AND VERSE, please.

[Christian]

Yes, those are other words that bear no resemblance to what I actually said.


Your flippant DISMISSAL is noted.

YOUR nonsensensical "I don't have a break-off" nonsense IS EASILY DISMISSED because it is baseless. You cannot PROVE your break-off group is still part of the religion joe smith began.

[Erundur]

EXACTLY WHERE AND WHEN did that 'revelation' to give up polygamy occur? CHAPTER AND VERSE, please.
See Official Declaration 1.

[Christian]

Originally Posted by Christian http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/images/****ons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?p=169871#post169871)
EXACTLY WHERE AND WHEN did that 'revelation' to give up polygamy occur? CHAPTER AND VERSE, please.

See Official Declaration 1.

What's "official declaration 1' supposed to mean?

WHERE in your d&c does that appear?

HOW CONVENIENT that your prophet should get an 'official declaration' from God just in time to meet the statehood requirement that your religion STOPS its adultery?

[Erundur]

What's "official declaration 1' supposed to mean?
Wow. Are you sure you're qualified to criticize our church?


WHERE in your d&c does that appear?
After Section 138.


HOW CONVENIENT that your prophet should get an 'official declaration' from God just in time to meet the statehood requirement that your religion STOPS its adultery?
It would have been more convenient if it had come earlier, before the persecution, but whatever. Is it written somewhere that revelations must not be convenient?

[Christian]

Wow. Are you sure you're qualified to criticize our church?


After Section 138.


It would have been more convenient if it had come earlier, before the persecution, but whatever. Is it written somewhere that revelations must not be convenient?

HERE is what your god in your bom says about it:

Jacob 1:15 (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/bom/jacob/1.html#15)And now it came to p*** that the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king, began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, his son.Jacob 2:24 (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/bom/jacob/2.html#24)Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.Jacob 2:27 (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/bom/jacob/2.html#27)Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none.Mosiah 11:2 (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/bom/mosiah/11.html#2)For behold, he did not keep the commandments of God, but ... he had many wives and concubines.
So the *****doms of joe smith and his multiple wives and brigham young and his multiple wives didn't REQUIRE any such 'revelation' from God.

Your 'official declaration' doesn't claim to be a revelation from God; it is just a bunch of RATIONALIZATIONS to try to make your religious cult smell better. . .

By the way, doesn't it BOTHER you that your religion tells you it teaches 'modern-day revelation' when it's LATEST REVELATION IN THE D&C IS ALMOST 100 years OLD?

Your so-called 'revelators' can't seem to 'reveal' any new 'revelations' from your god.

[Erundur]

Your 'official declaration' doesn't claim to be a revelation from God
The text of the declaration is not a revelation, but in it President Woodruff talks about the revelation he received.


By the way, doesn't it BOTHER you that your religion tells you it teaches 'modern-day revelation' when it's LATEST REVELATION IN THE D&C IS ALMOST 100 years OLD?
No, because 1) I can do math and know that 1978 is much less than 100 years ago, 2) I know that not every revelation is published in the D&C, and 3) that's more recent than the LATEST PROTESTANT REVELATION.

[Christian]

[QUOTE]Originally Posted by Christian http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/images/****ons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?p=169879#post169879)
Your 'official declaration' doesn't claim to be a revelation from God


The text of the declaration is not a revelation, but in it President Woodruff talks about the revelation he received.

The TRUTH is that no such 'revelation' to your religion occurred. The TRUTH is that your 'revelator' has not 'revealed' any revelation to the church.


By the way, doesn't it BOTHER you that your religion tells you it teaches 'modern-day revelation' when it's LATEST REVELATION IN THE D&C IS ALMOST 100 years OLD?

No, because 1) I can do math and know that 1978 is much less than 100 years ago,



2) I know that not every revelation is published in the D&C,

Of course, up to 98 years ago, they were. There simply haven't been any since then in reality.
and 3) that's more recent than the LATEST PROTESTANT REVELATION.

We CHRISTIANS don't CLAIM to have 'revelators' as our leaders, nor do we CLAIM to be a church of 'modern-day-revelation.'

Our God gave us SCRIPTURE, and:

2 Tim 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
NKJV

Jude 3 tells us that the faith of the GOD OF THE BIBLE was given 'once for all,' not that it is to be piece-mealed out to us forever. . .

Jude 3-4
3 Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. 4 For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.
NKJV

smith and young tried to 'justify' their adultery with other men's wives and with child 'brides' as above. Their religion has perverted the faith Christ originally built into a strange new religion with supposedly MANY gods extant, godhood for its followers to be one of its goals, and a 'christ' that is supposedly a 'spirit brother' to satan instead of his creator.

Doesn't that bother you? It would bother me, if I were you.

[Erundur]

The TRUTH is that no such 'revelation' to your religion occurred. The TRUTH is that your 'revelator' has not 'revealed' any revelation to the church.
Prove it .

[DrDavidT]

That's not true. The only reason the church gave up polygamy was because of revelation.

Ha HA Ha tell the full story, the revelation came when statehood was on the line. But since the Bible tells us that God and his ways do not change why would God suddenly change what he wanted his church to follow? Either way you lose on this one.

[DrDavidT]

Ha HA Ha tell the full story, the revelation came when statehood was on the line. But since the Bible tells us that God and his ways do not change why would God suddenly change what he wanted his church to follow? Either way you lose on this one.

for those who want evidence here is a link

http://ilovehistory.utah.gov/time/stories/statehood.html


A territory becomes a state by an Act of Congress. Utah Territory tried several times to get admitted to the Union, starting in 1849.


The Manifesto advising Latter-day Saints not to enter illegal marriages was published in 1890. And the political landscape changed. The Mormons gave up their People’s Party—which had dominated state politics—and the non-Mormons gave up their Liberal Party. People joined either the national Democratic or Republican party.

Utah delegates wrote a new cons***ution that prohibited polygamy.

The roadblocks that had stopped Congress from admitting Utah into the Union were gone, and statehood soon followed.

check the dates, 41 years after they started trying fir statehood the mormons decided a revelation was in order.

[Erundur]

Ha HA Ha tell the full story, the revelation came when statehood was on the line.
And?


But since the Bible tells us that God and his ways do not change why would God suddenly change what he wanted his church to follow?
So does your church follow the Law of Moses, or did God suddenly change what he wanted his church to follow?

[Erundur]

check the dates, 41 years after they started trying fir statehood the mormons decided a revelation was in order.
Have you ever heard of the logical fallacy called post hoc ergo propter hoc?

[alanmolstad]

Have you ever heard of. ..If it looks like a duck and if it quacks like a duck. ..it's a duck...

?

[DrDavidT]

And?


So does your church follow the Law of Moses, or did God suddenly change what he wanted his church to follow?

you really do not know the Bible if you have to ask that question. Much of the OT laws are given in the NT but worded differently. For example oe of the commandments thou shalt no bear false witness is changed to do not lie to one another (Phil.)

another is thou shalt not have other gods before me is written in the NT as love the Lord your God with all thy heart soul and mind The church actually is supposed to follow a lot of the laws of Moses.

God doesn't change nor do his instructions.

[DrDavidT]

Have you ever heard of the logical fallacy called post hoc ergo propter hoc?

here is a link to a master list of logical fallacies, feel free to search it and provide the right definition for your supposed logical fallacy

http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/engl1311/fallacies.htm

but i did not commit a logical fallacy but provided the evidence to support my statement.

[Christian]

Bump for erundur

[dberrie2000]

God doesn't change nor do his instructions.

Then you need to follow them:

Exodus 29:20-21--King James Version (KJV)

20 Then shalt thou kill the ram, and take of his blood, and put it upon the tip of the right ear of Aaron, and upon the tip of the right ear of his sons, and upon the thumb of their right hand, and upon the great toe of their right foot, and sprinkle the blood upon the altar round about.
21 And thou shalt take of the blood that is upon the altar, and of the anointing oil, and sprinkle it upon Aaron, and upon his garments, and upon his sons, and upon the garments of his sons with him: and he shall be hallowed, and his garments, and his sons, and his sons' garments with him.

[Christian]

Then you need to follow them:

Exodus 29:20-21--King James Version (KJV)

20 Then shalt thou kill the ram, and take of his blood, and put it upon the tip of the right ear of Aaron, and upon the tip of the right ear of his sons, and upon the thumb of their right hand, and upon the great toe of their right foot, and sprinkle the blood upon the altar round about.
21 And thou shalt take of the blood that is upon the altar, and of the anointing oil, and sprinkle it upon Aaron, and upon his garments, and upon his sons, and upon the garments of his sons with him: and he shall be hallowed, and his garments, and his sons, and his sons' garments with him.

and WHO was God instructing, FOR WHAT PURPOSE?

OH that's right. God was instructing MOSES on how to ordain AARON (YOUR pretended 'aaronic priests' don't get THAT ordination, DO THEY? All YOURS get is YOUR bozos laying hands on the kids).

God's instruction to MOSES and AARON remain the same. They were NOT THINGS FOR THE WHOLE CHURCH TO DO.

BTW, we are NOT under the OT Law any more.

CHRIST'S church has died to the law and is alive in CHRIST instead.

Gal 2:19-21
9 For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain."
NKJV

Your cult teaches you to live under rules, laws, and 'ordinances,' but Jesus does not.

[Christian]

bump for berrie

[dberrie2000]

and WHO was God instructing, FOR WHAT PURPOSE?

OH that's right. God was instructing MOSES on how to ordain AARON (YOUR pretended 'aaronic priests' don't get THAT ordination, DO THEY? All YOURS get is YOUR bozos laying hands on the kids).

God's instruction to MOSES and AARON remain the same. They were NOT THINGS FOR THE WHOLE CHURCH TO DO.

BTW, we are NOT under the OT Law any more.

Then there was a change:


Originally Posted by DrDavidT View Post [COLOR="#FF0000"]God doesn't change nor do his instructions.

Hebrews 7:12----King James Version (KJV)
12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

[Berean]

Then there was a change:



Hebrews 7:12----King James Version (KJV)
12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Nonsense.

The fact that God changes how He treats us in response to our choices has nothing to do with His character. Because God is Just, and He does not change by Nature and Being, He must treat the righteous differently from the unrighteous. If someone repents, God consistently forgives; if someone refuses to repent, God consistently judges. He is unchanging in His Nature and His being and that's what it means when we say God is unchanging.

God will sometimes act in accordance with our choices, but His over-all plan for mankind never changes: “If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it. Now therefore say to the people of Judah and those living in Jerusalem, ‘This is what the Lord says: Look! I am preparing a disaster for you and devising a plan against you. So turn from your evil ways, each one of you, and reform your ways and your actions’” (Jeremiah 18:7– 11).

The Mormon god on the other hand, is constantly changing and working to improve.

But there is still time for you to repent, DBerrie, and turn from idol worship, false prophets and trolling Christian forums, to having faith alone in Jesus Christ.

[Christian]

Erunder posted:

[QUOTE]you just ***UME ITS GOTTA BEEE because after all YOU are in it.

No HONEST reason to believe yours is 'the one' in any way from you.
Your flippant DISMISSAL is noted.[/QUOTE

Until you can come up with SOMETHING MORE than JUST YOUR OWN PERSONAL OPINION, dismissal is appropriate.

STILL no reason for ANY mormon to believe YOUR branch of mormonism is 'the right one' OR the 'original one.'

NOTHING BUT YOUR PERSONAL OPINION with NOTHING to support it but more of your personal opinion.

In other words, your OPINION is baseless, with no merit; with no substance in reality.

[Erundur]

Erunder
You misspelled "I" (which is quite an accomplishment).

[Berean]

I posted the following already but a quick notice said that it would be posted after a mod looks at it. I may have posted too many links. So I'll try again and hope it doesn't show up again later..

These stories are practically identical to the story of Joseph Smith. The Mormons accept and believe Smith's story. Why would they reject the similar claims of these subsequent Mormon prophets? As one of them (Matthew Gill) commented, it is a difficult problem for mainstream Mormons: they will believe Smith, but not someone who makes similar claims and who produces similar evidences of divine calling.

Following is a summary of the claims of the most prominent of these Mormon prophets, with their websites. Almost all recognize Joseph Smith as having been a true prophet, although some claim that he "fell." Almost all have produced revelations and scriptures. Almost all were at one time devout members of the Mormon church, but have established churches of their own, believing that the main church is in apostasy.

And each one, of course, claims that all the others are false and deluded.

They are listed in no particular order below.


JAMES J. STRANG - Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite)
Divine Call: Strang (1813-1856) had a letter from Joseph Smith appointing him Smith's successor, confirmed by angelic visitors at the moment of Smith's death
Scriptures: translation of the Voree Plates, an ancient record on metal plates discoverd buried in Voree, Wisconsin, written by an ancient prophet Rajah Manchou of Vorito
The Book of the Law of the Lord, translated by divine power from the Plates of Laban mentioned in the Book of Mormon
Distinctive Doctrines: Strangites believe in the Gathering, in seventh-day worship, sacrificial ordinances, include women in some offices of the priesthood, practice baptism for the dead, an endowment ceremony similar to that practiced by pre-Nauvoo Mormons, and believe in Eternal Marriage. Historically, some members of the church practiced plural marriage, including James

KEN ASAY - Church of Jesus Christ in Zion
Divine Call: established 1984; Asay claimed to be the reincarnation of Joseph Smith.
Distinctive Doctrines: There is no organization; each family is a "church": anyone who can testify of Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Ghost is a "prophet".

CHRISTOPHER MARK NEMELKA - Worldwide United Foundation
Divine Call: appearance to him (1987) in the Salt Lake Temple of Joseph Smith and Nemelka's deceased grandfather; later given the gold plates and the Urim and Thummim
Scriptures: The Sealed Portion: The Final Testament of Jesus Christ (includes The Lost Book of Lehi, i.e. the 116 pages of the original Book of Mormon m****cript, lost by Martin Harris) at
Distinctive Doctrines: Nemelka is the reincarnation of Hyrum Smith; he possesses the Gold Plates and the Urim and Thummim.
Notes: Nemelka has been accused of admitting that his story is false, and has been involved in litigation over his claims.

MATTHEW GILL - The Latter Day Church of Jesus Christ
Divine Call: received 24 br*** plates from God in 2006, which he translated as the Book of Jeraneck; accepted by his followers as a prophet, seer and revelator
Scriptures: Book of Jeraneck (not available online, only for purchase), Gill's revelations in Book of Prophecy and Revelation
Distinctive Doctrines: accepts the Book of Mormon (1830 edition), Joseph Smith Translation of Bible, many apocryphal books of early Christianity; Joseph Smith was the last true prophet; Gill is his successor; Stonehenge was a Christian temple; early Britons were Christian
Notes:Church is based in England, organized 2007

MORE HERE (http://packham.n4m.org/prophet2.htm)

[Christian]

phoenix posted:

In heaven, I think we will all be united, not Balkanized. Paul wrote about his belief that Christ wanted His church to have apostles, prophets, pastors, etc. until we are all united and perfect in our faith and mature understanding of the gospel.
I share that hope.

Paul never once said he wanted any such thing. Perhaps if you REALLY think he did, you could provide us with the chapter and verse of the place where you think he did so?

But my question for you was based on the logical presumption that you must believe that the group you're currently in is closer in doctrine to Christ's original church than any other group, because if you thought some other group was closer, it would be stupid to remain in one that you believed to have LESS of the correct teachings.

Even more rationalization. You presume too much. The fact that the group I'm currently in is JUST AS CLOSE as other groups are to the original (as recorded in the Bible) church is just fine with me.

Your method of reasoning is FAR DIFFERENT from the method of reasoning I think with. To me, it is NOT a game of compe***ion to prove 'what is best amongst many.' I could care less about such stuff.

My interest is in believing everything that GOD (not joe smith, martin luther, the pope, or steve martin) wants me to believe and understand about HIM and how HE wants ME to SERVE AND LOVE HIM.

YOUR RELIGION claims to be the ONLY RIGHT religion. I am merely pointing out that your religion has no EVIDENCE to support its claim and does NOT IN FACT match the teachings and beliefs of CHRIST'S first century church at all. ALL of the 'mormon-specific' junk that joe smith introduced is nothing more than man-invented junk; not from God at all.

If the baptist church was created from a schismatic break from the Catholic Church that kicked Martin Luther out, then your church is just as much a break-off as you claim the LDS church is. Am I wrong?

The TRUTH is that my Baptist church has never had ANY RELATIONSHIP to the rcc.

You, like the catholics, joe smith and others seem to thin Jesus built a social/financial/religious/political ins***ution; He did not. He built a CHURCH. . .BY DEFINITION, a CONGREGATION. NOT a 'religious denomination' or 'organization' or social/political/religious/financial ins***ution.'

When you can find SOMETHING that my church is not doing that it should, or is doing that it shouldn't ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE, please show me and I will change. I won't ask that you change when your organization is shown BIBLICALLY to be wrong (like teaching that polytheism is from God since it is not). But if you can SHOW ME SCRIPTURE that says my Conservative Baptist church is teaching/practicing falsely, I want to know. . .I will change if the Bible calls for me to do so. My only interest is in Serving and Loving the Lord and Christ's (the REAL Christ, not any of the false christs) brethren.

What is YOUR interest in these matters?

bump for phoenix