Deuteronomy 18:20-22 [Archive] - Walter Martin Ministries Forum

Bob Betts

05-28-2009, 03:18 PM

I'll use this translation of the text, which was given to me by HickPreacher:

Deuteronomy 18:20-22:

But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death. You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD ?” If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.

Has anyone ever stopped to realize that the Jews or Israelites who stoned the true prophets of God were (in their own minds) following this admonition of our Lord, according to Moses.For our sake today, and how we can know a true from a false prophet, it doesn't really matter much what they thought in there own minds. We can see that they were NOT following this admonition.

Some true prophet of God would come along and basically tell the Jew/Israelites that they needed to Repent (however they said it), while possibly also conveying some other information that they weren't already familiar with, and just because some Jews/Israelites didn't believe that person was a true prophet of God, they would put him to death, usually by stoning him, and then go back to their usual business.

What do you think about that ?You have given a fictional, speculative scenario to give our opinions about. Give a real biblical scenario that we can examine, with actual circumstances we can address, and apply to the above p***age.

Do you think God didn't realize some Jews/Israelities would put his true prophets to death because they wouldn't believe they were true prophets ?I don't know of an OT situation where what you've presented actually happened. You're asking us to speculate on a ficticious scenario.

Do you think God won't hold those Jews/Isrealites accountable for killing his true prophets, even though they may not have believed they were his true prophets ?Can't answer the question without a real situation to examine and evaluate.

These scriptures are often used as justification to reject Joseph Smith as a true prophet of God, and I believe God will hold people accountable for rejecting Joseph Smith as a true prophet of God just as God will hold those Jews/Israelites accountable for rejecting God's other true prophets.

What do you think about that ?But, there are dozens of false prophecies by Joseph Smith. We have the proof. The people who will be accountable to God, will be those who defended Joseph Smith, despite his false prophecies, and followed him as a true prophet. The above scripture is God's test of a prophet for His people to adhere to. It's not vague. And, neither are how false Smith's prophecies were.

My conscience is clear. There's no doubt that Smith prophesied numerous things that did not accurately come to p***, as Smith said they would.

I asked YOU for a list of official prophecies which accurately came to p***, and you didn't give me one. Yet, if even one did NOT accurately come to p***, he was a false prophet by God's standard in the above p***age.

Bat-Man

05-28-2009, 03:44 PM

You have given a fictional, speculative scenario to give our opinions about. Give a real biblical scenario that we can examine, with actual circumstances we can address, and apply to the above p***age.
I was referring to the fact that Jews or Isrealites actually put true prophets of God to death, usually by stoning. Are you saying that you're not familiar with one instance where that actually happened ?

Consider the case of Stephen, if you need an example to focus on.

I don't know of an OT situation where what you've presented actually happened. You're asking us to speculate on a ficticious scenario.
Okay. If you want to see an example from the Old Testament, try thinking about all of the prophets our Lord was referring to in Matthew 23:37.

But, there are dozens of false prophecies by Joseph Smith.
No, there's not even one.

You simply think some prophecies of God given through Joseph Smith are false, but all of them are actually true.

We have the proof.
You have hearsay and misrepresentations.

The people who will be accountable to God, will be those who defended Joseph Smith, despite his false prophecies, and followed him as a true prophet.
Everyone will be accountable to God for what they did or did not do, and those who don't recognize Joseph Smith as a true prophet of God will miss out on a lot of the blessings of God that are now available to them through Joseph Smith.

My conscience is clear. There's no doubt that Smith prophesied numerous things that did not accurately come to p***, as Smith said they would.
Everything God prophesied through Joseph has either already come to p*** or it is yet to come to p*** just as God prophesied through Joseph.

I asked YOU for a list of official prophecies which accurately came to p***, and you didn't give me one.
I asked YOU for a list of official prophecies which DID NOT accurately come to p***, and you didn't give me one, so I think we're even on that score.

Yet, if even one did NOT accurately come to p***, he was a false prophet by God's standard in the above p***age.
You may be thinking some prophecies of God which are yet to be fulfilled are false prophecies, for all I know, but all of them either have or will come to p*** just as God has prophesied through his prophets, including Joseph Smith.

dfoJC

05-28-2009, 04:54 PM

I have a bit of a different rendering of Deuteronomy 18:20 that adds a little more flavor to the mix, I will just quote verse 20 as it deals with false prophets. "However, the prohet that revolts speaking a word in my name, that does not speak my command and that speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet dies."

Below is a prophecy that has not come to p***, and may I add if our Old Testament were this inaccurate, well, we would all be in a heap of trouble!

On September 22 and 23, 1832, Joseph Smith foretold of an LDS temple to be built in Independence, Missouri:

"A revelation of Jesus Christ unto his servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and six elders, as they united their hearts and lifted their voices on high. Yea, the word of the Lord concerning his church, established in the last days for the restoration of his people, as he has spoken by the mouth of his prophets, and for the gathering of his saints to stand upon Mount Zion, which shall be the city of New Jerusalem. Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jun., and others with whom the Lord was well pleased. Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation. For verily this generation shall not all p*** away until an house shall be built unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the Lord, which shall fill the house."

OK Bat Man, here is a prophecy of Josephs. Would you please explain to me how it has been fulfilled?

with kind regards,
dfoJC

Bat-Man

05-28-2009, 05:02 PM

Bob Betts

05-28-2009, 05:17 PM

I was referring to the fact that Jews or Isrealites actually put true prophets of God to death, usually by stoning. Are you saying that you're not familiar with one instance where that actually happened ?Wel, I would have to go back into the OT to reference the specific incidences, since I don't have them in my memory bank. But, you brought it up. I would have ***umed that you would have had some specifics in mind.

Consider the case of Stephen, if you need an example to focus on.Stephen? He was a NT Apostle...stoned for preaching the gospel, not for having inaccurately prohesied a future event, as Deut. 18:22 is about: "if the thing follow not, nor come to p***." He certainly wasn't stoned as a prophet.

I don't know of an OT situation where what you've presented actually happened. You're asking us to speculate on a ficticious scenario.
Okay. If you want to see an example from the Old Testament, try thinking about all of the prophets our Lord was referring to in Matthew 23:37.LOL. This is a pattern with you. Instead of giving me a scenario, you ask me to come up with one that fits what Jesus said in Matt. 23:37. It's just like when I asked you for a list of accurately fulfilled prophecies of future events, instead of a list, you came back with, "I have a better idea. Show me your list of false prophecies." So, like you didn't have any list of true prophecies, you don't have an actual OT scenario to use as an example.

You do the homework, and let us see what you come up with from the OT.

Now, in Matt. 23:37 Jesus said, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" Since, Stephen was years away from being stoned to death, despite the fact that he wasn't even a prophet, the timeframe would not apply to him. Jesus was speaking of the past, and the present, with John the Baptist in mind, who WAS a prophet

But, there are dozens of false prophecies by Joseph Smith.
No, there's not even one.

You simply think some prophecies of God given through Joseph Smith are false, but all of them are actually true.Not one false prophecy? Wow.

Okay, then lets see that list of accurately fulfilled prophecies that you're alleging.

You have hearsay and misrepresentations.The list please. If they ALL came to p***, this should be the easiest thing anyone has ever asked you to produce.

Everyone will be accountable to God for what they did or did not do, and those who don't recognize Joseph Smith as a true prophet of God will miss out on a lot of the blessings of God that are now available to them through Joseph Smith.Impossible. Millions of your former brethren have found out the truth about the real Joseph Smith, that LDS leaderhip white-washes. You're living in a dream world, if you think they all came accurately to p***. Why do you think that unofficial LDS apologists have to keep lowering the bar for prophetic accuracy repeating the mantra, "Prophets aren't perfect"? They try to make Smith not look so false?

Everything God prophesied through Joseph has either already come to p*** or it is yet to come to p*** just as God prophesied through Joseph.The list of accurately fulfilled prophecies, please.

I asked YOU for a list of official prophecies which DID NOT accurately come to p***, and you didn't give me one, so I think we're even on that score.You think? Well, if you had such a list as I initially requested, you would have provided it, instead of bouncing it back to me to show his false prophecies. You're bluffing. You don't have any.

You may be thinking some prophecies of God which are yet to be fulfilled are false prophecies, for all I know, Give me some credit. Do you seriously believe that I would be foolish enough to think I could get away with bringing up prophecies that are yet future to us now? Come on.

but all of them either have or will come to p*** just as God has prophesied through his prophets, including Joseph Smith.I have never been shown one, and I've asked a number of Mormons, including a few who are regulars at this site. So, maybe you'd like to be the first...just a few accurately fulfilled prophecies of future events that were to be fulfilled in any specified time frame before now.

Bob Betts

05-28-2009, 05:47 PM

Look at where that revelation was received.

A temple was built there in that generation.

What do you have a problem with, specifically ?Where are you getting YOUR information from?

God said, in the year 1832, before we were driven out of Jackson County, in a revelation which you will find here in this book, that before that generation should all p*** away, a house of the Lord should be built in that county,...

This was given forty-two years ago. The generation then living was not only to commence a house of in Jackson County, Missouri, but It was actually to complete the same, and when it is completed the glory of God should rest upon it.

Now, do you Latter-day Saints believe that? I do, and if you believe in these revelations as of any one that God has ever given in these latter times, or in former ages...we Latter-day Saints expect to return to Jackson County and to build a Temple there before the generation that was living forty-two years ago has all p***ed away. Well, then, the time must be pretty near when we shall begin the work.
Orson Pratt, June 14, 1874
Journal of Discourses,
Vol. 17, p. 111

We need not expect, from what God has revealed, that a very great number of those who were then in the Church and who were driven, will have the privilege of returning to that land,...there will be some that will live to behold that day, and will return and receive their inheritances, they and their children, grand-children, and great grandchildren, according to the promise.
Orson Pratt, February 7, 1875,
Journal of Discourses,
Vol. 17, pp. 291-292

I firmly believe that there will be some of that generation who were living when this revelation was given who shall be living when this temple is reared. And I do not believe that the Lord has bound himself to accomplish the matter within one hundred years from 1832,...I have full confidence in the word of the Lord and that it shall not fail.
Joseph Fielding Smith, 1935,
The Way to Perfection, p. 270

It may be reasonable to ***ume that in giving this revelation to the Prophet the Lord did have in mind the generation of people who would still be living within the one hundred years from the time of the announcement of the revelation, and that they would enjoy the blessings of the temple, and a glorious cloud would rest upon it. It is also reasonable to believe that no soul living in 1832, is still living in mortality on the earth.
Joseph Fielding Smith, 1957
Answers to Gospel Questions,
Vol. 4, p. 112

You obviously have the wrong temple.

Bat-Man

05-28-2009, 06:06 PM

Wel, I would have to go back into the OT to reference the specific incidences, since I don't have them in my memory bank. But, you brought it up. I would have ***umed that you would have had some specifics in mind.
I wasn't thinking of any instances in the OT, specifically. I was simply thinking that there were some occasions when Jews or Israelites put to death true prophets of God because they didn't believe those people were true prophets of God, and that could have actually happened even if those instances weren't recorded in the OT.

Stephen? He was a NT Apostle...stoned for preaching the gospel, not for having inaccurately prohesied a future event, as Deut. 18:22 is about: "if the thing follow not, nor come to p***." He certainly wasn't stoned as a prophet.
Actually, Stephen was stoned as a prophet. Stephen was stoned because he bore testimony of Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Ghost, which is the spirit of prophecy by which all prophets of God speak the truth that is known by Jesus Christ.

He was also stoned because people said he was bearing false testimony of a future event, even though that testimony against him was false, just as it would have been false for Jews and Israelites to say that the testimony of true prophets of God were false. See Acts 6:13-14.

And btw, according to Acts 7:52, prophets of God were slain, according to the testimony of Stephen, even if you can't find any references in the OT to support his claim.

LOL. This is a pattern with you. Instead of giving me a scenario, you ask me to come up with one that fits what Jesus said in Matt. 23:37.
Alright. Nevermind. I provided evidence of that with the testimony of Stephen.

Not one false prophecy? Wow.
Right. Not one. That is impressive, isn't it.

Okay, then lets see that list of accurately fulfilled prophecies that you're alleging.
You said you have a list of all of his failed prophecies, right ?

I'll use your list as my list, as long as you are simply quoting the words of Joseph Smith.

Bob Betts

05-29-2009, 06:12 AM

Not one false prophecy? Wow. Right. Not one. That is impressive, isn't it. It would be only if it were true. But, you can't show us even one accurate prophecy. Now THAT'S impressive.

Okay, then lets see that list of accurately fulfilled prophecies that you're alleging. You said you have a list of all of his failed prophecies, right ?

I'll use your list as my list, as long as you are simply quoting the words of Joseph Smith. Well, let's trade one for one, then.

dfoJC brought out one false prophecy. You claimed it was fulfilled. But, based on the statements I posted by past LDS leaders, you were wrong. So, D&C 84 was indeed inaccurate, making it a false prophecy, and Joseph is already proven a false prophet by this singular false prophecy. The debate is already over. And, you erred in claiming that he had not one false prophecy.

But, please, show us just one of what you believe to be an accurate prophecy of a future event by Smith.

Bat-Man

05-29-2009, 09:28 AM

It would be only if it were true. But, you can't show us even one accurate prophecy. Now THAT'S impressive.

Well, let's trade one for one, then.

dfoJC brought out one false prophecy. You claimed it was fulfilled.
You're misrepresenting again, Bob.

What actually happened was that dfoJC alluded to a prophecy which was received in Kirtland, Ohio, stating, among other things, that a temple would be built there in that generation, and I then told dfoJC that he should look to see where that revelation was received and that a temple was built there in that generation while asking him what he had a problem with, specifically.

I can't help it if you guys misinterpret and misrepresent the truth, Bob.

I will try to straighten you out when I see that you are in error, but I don't have the power to change your minds even when I do tell you the truth.

dfoJC

05-29-2009, 09:53 AM

Bat-Man

05-29-2009, 10:19 AM

Bat Man, here is your answer to my query;

"Look at where that revelation was received.

A temple was built there in that generation.

What do you have a problem with, specifically ?"

I am not understanding how what you say, "explains how the prophecy was fulfilled" Bat Man. That was my question. This does not answer it.
What more do you want to know ?

Our Lord Jesus Christ told Joseph Smith that the city of New Jerusalem would be built by the gathering of the saints, "beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation"... etc.

The place our Lord referred to as "this place, even the place of the temple" was the place where the revelation was received by Joseph Smith, which was at Kirtland, Ohio, and a temple was built in that place in that generation thus fulfilling that part of the revelation from Jesus Christ.

It is true that our Lord also prophesied through Joseph that another temple was be built in Independence, Missouri, and that temple has not been built yet, but our Lord didn't say that temple in Independence would be built in that generation and there is still plenty of time for our Lord to accomplish his purposes.

Edit: here is a link (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/84) to that section of the book of Doctrine & Covenants for those who want to read the actual words of the revelation, including the heading, itself.

dfoJC

05-29-2009, 11:01 AM

[QUOTE=Bat-Man;17598]What more do you want to know ?

Our Lord Jesus Christ told Joseph Smith that the city of New Jerusalem would be built by the gathering of the saints, "beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation"... etc.

The place our Lord referred to as "this place, even the place of the temple" was the place where the revelation was received by Joseph Smith, which was at Kirtland, Ohio.

It is true that our Lord also prophesied through Joseph that another temple was be built in Independence, Missouri, and that temple has not been built yet, but our Lord didn't say that temple in Independence would be built in that generation and there is still plenty of time for our Lord to accomplish his purposes.

OK, now I understand, thank you Bat Man. Don't you just love it when you can look back on a prophecy and figure it all out? Man, hind sight is a marvelous thing....

So, really Josephs prophecy was a "twofer." We got the Kirtland temple, but we are still waiting on the Missouri one. Wow. Can you explain to me why the Missouri temple is not included in the "in this generation statement?" Sorry, but to me, that is the glaring unfulfilled part of this prophecy. Why can't the leadership of the Mormon church just get on with it and "fulfill the prophecy?" I mean, it was given by God, so it really shouldn't be to big of a deal. How many temples have been built around the world, yet this one remains unbuilt? Seems strange to me. After all, Joseph spoke it, right?

And the "New Jerusalem," where is that specifically? Is that what is in Kirtland? So then Revelation has been fulfilled all ready according to Mormon belief?

I look forward to your answers Bat Man.

with kind regards,
dfoJC

Bat-Man

05-29-2009, 11:42 AM

OK, now I understand, thank you Bat Man.
You're very welcome, dfoJC. My pleasure. Anytime.

Don't you just love it when you can look back on a prophecy and figure it all out? Man, hind sight is a marvelous thing....
Yes, I do love it when I can do that, but what's even more awesome than that is when I'm able to know what will happen in the future when it hasn't happened yet.

So, really Josephs prophecy was a "twofer." We got the Kirtland temple, but we are still waiting on the Missouri one. Wow.
Yes, that's true, but also notice that the revelation is about a lot more than the building of a temple, or temples. It's mainly a revelation concerning priesthood, which is the authority of God that God gives to his children as God puts God's name upon them. That's the real meat in that revelation.

Can you explain to me why the Missouri temple is not included in the "in this generation statement?"
What more of an explanation do you need other than what I have already told you ?

Have you looked at verse 4 ?

The "in this generation" statement is tied directly to the "in this place" statement, and the place our Lord was referring to as "this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation." was the place where Joseph was when our Lord gave him that revelation.

Isn't that clear enough for you ?

It wouldn't be where our Lord was when he gave that revelation to Joseph, because our Lord gives us revelation from heaven, unless he appears to us personally, so "this place" should be understood from Joseph's perspective where he was when he received that revelation, and Joseph was in Kirtland, Ohio, when our Lord gave him that revelation.

Do you really need me to spell this out for you like this ?

Sorry, but to me, that is the glaring unfulfilled part of this prophecy.I agree with you on that part, but that doesn't mean that part of the prophecy is false. It just hasn't been fulfilled yet, but it will be when the time is right.

Why can't the leadership of the Mormon church just get on with it and "fulfill the prophecy?" I mean, it was given by God, so it really shouldn't be to big of a deal.
We could, I suppose, but I believe the time is not right, yet, to do it as our Lord has in mind. Stay tuned.

How many temples have been built around the world, yet this one remains unbuilt? Seems strange to me. After all, Joseph spoke it, right?
Yes, Joseph spoke it, and he spoke for our Lord, Jesus Christ.

... and it is ultimately up to Jesus Christ to have it done as he sees fit.

And the "New Jerusalem," where is that specifically?
I notice you are asking "where" rather than "who".

A city can be a group of people AND/OR the land the people inhabit.

Is that what is in Kirtland?
You tell me. What is in Kirtland, today ?

So then Revelation has been fulfilled all ready according to Mormon belief?
Some revelation has already been fulfilled, and some revelation will be fulfilled in the future.

I look forward to your answers Bat Man.
I look forward to hearing you tell me what God will tell us is true.

dfoJC

05-29-2009, 01:20 PM

That is correct, the New Jerusalem is a "where," why do you think I want to know the "who?" The New Jerusalem is not a who.

When I mentioned "Revelation," I was not referring to what you want to walk in, I was referring to the book of Revelation. That is where the New Jerusalem is mentioned.

So, is Kirtland the "New Jerusalem?" Which to me, would be a fulfillment of the Prophecy found in the book of Revelation about the New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven. Gosh, maybe I missed something?

So, is it Joseph Smith and your contention that the New Jerusalem has come down from heaven and landed in Kirtland Ohio? And that the temple built there is a fulfillment of that prophecy. I have copied here a portion of the prophecy concerning the "New Jerusalem," which Joseph seems to believe is the same as "Mount Zion."

"Yea, the word of the Lord concerning his church, established in the last days for the restoration of his people, as he has spoken by the mouth of his prophets, and for the gathering of his saints to stand upon Mount Zion, which shall be the city of New Jerusalem. Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jun.,"

Boy this sure is curious. Joseph says, "Mount Zion, which shall be the city of New Jerusalem, which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith Jun..."

So, if what Joseph says is true about the Missouri "Mount Zion" is true, how can he be there to dedicate it? Are you saying he is going to come back from the dead and do the dedication? Or, did he all ready dedicate something that had not yet been fulfilled?

Bat Man, it seems that this is once again a false prophecy. I will give you kudos however, for you are becoming quite adept at explaining away, or justifying Joseph Smiths supposed prophecy regarding Kirtland and Missouri.

Perhaps we need to redirect here a bit. What in your estimation and understanding of Prophets would lead you to believe that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God?

I mean The Bible (and history.) demonstrates that Isaiah, or Zechariah, or Elijah and Elisha all were prophets. Why do you believe that Joseph Smith would fit in this group of prophets?

with kind regards,
dfoJC

Bat-Man

05-29-2009, 01:51 PM

That is correct, the New Jerusalem is a "where," why do you think I want to know the "who?" The New Jerusalem is not a who.
Apparently you're not open to what I was trying to tell you.

Oh well. So be it.

When I mentioned "Revelation," I was not referring to what you want to walk in, I was referring to the book of Revelation. That is where the New Jerusalem is mentioned.
Oh, okay, but FYI, the city of New Jerusalem is mentioned in other places, in addition to the book of Revelation which was written by John.

So, is Kirtland the "New Jerusalem?"
It began there in this dispensation with the conferral of keys from heaven.

Which to me, would be a fulfillment of the Prophecy found in the book of Revelation about the New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven. Gosh, maybe I missed something?
Heh, yes, you're missing something, but I think you're on the right track.

You just need to be open to more than you already know now.

So, is it Joseph Smith and your contention that the New Jerusalem has come down from heaven and landed in Kirtland Ohio?
In a manner of speaking, yes.

Keys of the kingdom of heaven were given to us in Kirtland, Ohio, by the people who had the keys to give to us.

And that the temple built there is a fulfillment of that prophecy.
In a manner of speaking, but I'd say it a bit differently, as I have already told you.

I have copied here a portion of the prophecy concerning the "New Jerusalem," which Joseph seems to believe is the same as "Mount Zion."

"Yea, the word of the Lord concerning his church, established in the last days for the restoration of his people, as he has spoken by the mouth of his prophets, and for the gathering of his saints to stand upon Mount Zion, which shall be the city of New Jerusalem. Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jun.,"
Keep going. As you said, you've only quoted a portion of that prophecy.

Boy this sure is curious. Joseph says, "Mount Zion, which shall be the city of New Jerusalem, which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith Jun..."
There's more to it, and I've already tried to help you to see it.

So, if what Joseph says is true about the Missouri "Mount Zion" is true, how can he be there to dedicate it? Are you saying he is going to come back from the dead and do the dedication? Or, did he all ready dedicate something that had not yet been fulfilled?
Look at everything that happened in Kirtland, Ohio.

Look at the keys of the kingdom of heaven that were restored.

Bat Man, it seems that this is once again a false prophecy.
It may seem that way to you, but I can see more that you don't seem to see, and I believe God can help you to see the truth without me.

I will give you kudos however, for you are becoming quite adept at explaining away, or justifying Joseph Smiths supposed prophecy regarding Kirtland and Missouri.
I believe I'm simply revealing the truth on this issue to you, whether or not you are in agreement with me.

Perhaps we need to redirect here a bit. What in your estimation and understanding of Prophets would lead you to believe that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God?
Being able to see that those prophets are in agreement with God.

I mean The Bible (and history.) demonstrates that Isaiah, or Zechariah, or Elijah and Elisha all were prophets. Why do you believe that Joseph Smith would fit in this group of prophets?
God has personally ***ured me that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God.

Bob Betts

05-30-2009, 07:24 AM

dfoJC,

Bat Man is either deliberately or naively yanking your chain. D&C 84:1-5 has nothing to do with the Kirtland temple. It's not a "twofer. "

The introductory paragraph to D&C 84 CLEARLY states, "1–5, The New Jerusalem and the temple shall be built in Missouri;" Not Kirtland. Kirtland is nowhere mentioned in these 5 verses, only Missouri, and only one temple was talked about. A pretty big mistake to leave the Kirtland temple out of the picture, if it was supposed to be part of the "revelation."

1 A arevelation of Jesus Christ unto his servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and six elders, as they bunited their hearts and clifted their voices on high.
2 Yea, the word of the Lord concerning his church, established in the last days for the arestoration of his people, as he has spoken by the mouth of his bprophets, and for the cgathering of his dsaints to stand upon eMount Zion, which shall be the city of fNew Jerusalem. Zion/New Jerusalem is Independence Missouri. "The Gathering" was actually a doctine which called for Mormons to return to Missouri to establish the New Jerusalem. That's why the leadership statements which I quoted (reposted below), and which Bat Man never addressed, are so revealing about the unfulfillment of this "revelation."

And, to answer your question as to why the LDS 'church' never went back to build the temple,...THEY DON'T OWN THE PROPERTY. It is owned in part by two other Mormon church's, Church of Christ Temple Lot and the Community of Christ (formerly the RLDS, started by Emma Smith and her new husband and others who rejected Brigham Young as the succeeding prophet to Joseph).

So, until those two Mormon churches decide to sell out to the Brighamites in Salt Lake City, which they won't, which is why the Brighamites (Utah Mormons) never gathered back there, they will never go back to build their temple.

3 Which city shall be abuilt, beginning at the btemple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and cdedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jun., and others with whom the Lord was well pleased.Now, how could this possibly be talking about Kirtland, when it has always been understood that Zion/New Jerusalem was in Independence Missouri. That's where THE Temple lot IS.

Nowhere is there any ***ertion that this "revelation" is about two temples.

4 Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city aNew Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which btemple shall be creared in this dgeneration. Key words: New Jerusalem and the gathering of the saints. The gathering of the saints was never, EVER spoken of as being Kirtland, Ohio. How could the city New Jerusalem be built in Independence, Ohio, beginning at Kirtland, Ohio? Since "the gathering of the saints" was undeniably to be in Independence, MO, this "revelation" had nothing to do with ther Kirtland, OH temple.

5 For verily this generation shall not all p*** away until an house shall be built unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the Lord, which shall fill the house. Note the final quote below, in which Joseph Fielding Smith lamented that no Mormon could possibly be alive after 125 years from the year of the "prophecy" (now 177 years) to see the promise fulfilled, and "enjoy the blessings of the temple, and a glorious cloud would rest upon it." ABSOLUTELY referring to the temple in Missouri. CLEARLY unfulfilled.

Joseph Fielding Smith realized that this was a false prophecy.

So, why did Joseph Smith use the word "this" place, instead of "that" place while talking about the Missouri temple, while he was in Ohio? Well, now would be the perfect time to use the commonly Mormon-worn excuse for a lot of Joseph Smith's errors, "He was just an illiterate farm boy."

Now, Bat Man, please address the following laments by LDS leaders through the years, as D&C 84:1-5, turned out to be a false prophecy. Are thy not solid proof that D&C 84:1-5 makes Joseph Smith a false prophet?

God said, in the year 1832, before we were driven out of Jackson County, in a revelation which you will find here in this book, that before that generation should all p*** away, a house of the Lord should be built in that county,...

This was given forty-two years ago. The generation then living was not only to commence a house of in Jackson County, Missouri, but It was actually to complete the same, and when it is completed the glory of God should rest upon it.

Now, do you Latter-day Saints believe that? I do, and if you believe in these revelations as of any one that God has ever given in these latter times, or in former ages...we Latter-day Saints expect to return to Jackson County and to build a Temple there before the generation that was living forty-two years ago has all p***ed away. Well, then, the time must be pretty near when we shall begin the work.
Orson Pratt, June 14, 1874
Journal of Discourses,
Vol. 17, p. 111

We need not expect, from what God has revealed, that a very great number of those who were then in the Church and who were driven, will have the privilege of returning to that land,...there will be some that will live to behold that day, and will return and receive their inheritances, they and their children, grand-children, and great grandchildren, according to the promise.
Orson Pratt, February 7, 1875,
Journal of Discourses,
Vol. 17, pp. 291-292

I firmly believe that there will be some of that generation who were living when this revelation was given who shall be living when this temple is reared. And I do not believe that the Lord has bound himself to accomplish the matter within one hundred years from 1832,...I have full confidence in the word of the Lord and that it shall not fail.
Joseph Fielding Smith, 1935,
The Way to Perfection, p. 270

It may be reasonable to ***ume that in giving this revelation to the Prophet the Lord did have in mind the generation of people who would still be living within the one hundred years from the time of the announcement of the revelation, and that they would enjoy the blessings of the temple, and a glorious cloud would rest upon it. It is also reasonable to believe that no soul living in 1832, is still living in mortality on the earth.
Joseph Fielding Smith, 1957
Answers to Gospel Questions,
Vol. 4, p. 112

dfoJC

05-30-2009, 08:27 AM

Thank you Bob, I have always had that sense when talking with Bat Man. My chain has been yanked enough in this life to recognize it when it does happen.

Why is that Bat Man, why is it you choose to address some questions, and then totally ignore others? It comes across as if you are unwilling or unable to answer or just flat out hiding something.

Anyway, I see things a bit more clearly this morning.

with kind regards,
dfoJC

Bob Betts

06-01-2009, 04:05 AM

bump for bat man

Bat-Man

06-01-2009, 10:13 AM

Thank you Bob, I have always had that sense when talking with Bat Man. My chain has been yanked enough in this life to recognize it when it does happen.
I wasn't "yanking your chain" dfoJC, and I've already shared enough of my thoughts on this issue to tell you where I stand on this issue.

It comes across as if you are unwilling or unable to answer or just flat out hiding something.
Try considering the idea that I've already answered the questions and I see no good reason to keep giving the same answers over and over and over and over again after I've already made it clear what my answer is.

Go back and read everything I have already said on this issue, again, and if what I have said is still not clear to you, it never hurts to ask God for a little more wisdom so that you can discern the truth on an issue.

Anyway, I see things a bit more clearly this morning.
I do too, dfoJC, and I'm just about ready to totally give up on you and Bob while trusting that God will do what is best for each one of you.

Bat-Man

06-01-2009, 11:19 AM

D&C 84:1-5 has nothing to do with the Kirtland temple. It's not a "twofer."
I don't agree with you on this issue, Bob. D&C 84 was given at Kirtland, Ohio, and a temple was built there (in Kirtland, Ohio) in which keys of the kingdom of God were given to gather all of God's people together.

Zion/New Jerusalem is Independence Missouri.
Actually, Zion is the pure in heart... wherever they are, or were, or will be.

"The Gathering" was actually a doctrine which called for Mormons to return to Missouri to establish the New Jerusalem.
We're back in Missouri now, Bob, without any fear of extermination, and we will continue to establish Missouri as a part of Zion/New Jerusalem until every blessing of God has been made available to everyone, including those in Jackson County, Missouri.

That's why the leadership statements which I quoted (reposted below), and which Bat Man never addressed, are so revealing about the unfulfillment of this "revelation."
Yes, part of the revelation hasn't been fulfilled yet, and there is still some work to be done in Missouri before all of our Lord's work is done, but a revelation which hasn't been fully fulfilled yet is not a false prophecy.

Now, how could this possibly be talking about Kirtland, when it has always been understood that Zion/New Jerusalem was in Independence Missouri. That's where THE Temple lot IS.
I recommend you learn more about Zion and New Jerusalem, because the idea that all of it is to be limited to Independence, Missouri, is a false notion.

Zion (and New Jerusalem) does and will include all of the pure in heart of Independence, Missouri, and all of Jackson County, Missouri, and all of the state of Missouri, and all of the rest of America including all of North, Central, and South America.

Note the final quote below, in which Joseph Fielding Smith lamented that no Mormon could possibly be alive after 125 years from the year of the "prophecy" (now 177 years) to see the promise fulfilled, and "enjoy the blessings of the temple, and a glorious cloud would rest upon it." ABSOLUTELY referring to the temple in Missouri. CLEARLY unfulfilled.
I do realize the temple in Independence, Missouri, was not built when Joseph Fielding Smith made that statement, but that doesn't mean that Joseph Smith, Jr. gave a false prophecy. It will be built, if it hasn't been built already, and as of yet this is simply an unfulfilled prophecy rather than a false prophecy because there is still time for that temple to be built.

And btw, FYI, I don't consider the temple built in Independence, Missouri, by the group known as the "Community of Christ" to be a fulfillment of the temple prophesied in D&C 84 because that temple has not been dedicated to our Lord by proper authority, but it is interesting to note that a temple has actually been built on that spot, already. Who knows, maybe later we (LDS) will get the same building and just re-dedicate it as a temple to our Lord.

Joseph Fielding Smith realized that this was a false prophecy.
That's another misrepresentation, Bob.

You're actually pretty good at that, if you consider that to be a virtue.

So, why did Joseph Smith use the word "this" place, instead of "that" place while talking about the Missouri temple, while he was in Ohio? Well, now would be the perfect time to use the commonly Mormon-worn excuse for a lot of Joseph Smith's errors, "He was just an illiterate farm boy."
I've already told you why he said "this place".

Now, Bat Man, please address the following laments by LDS leaders through the years, as D&C 84:1-5, turned out to be a false prophecy. Are they not solid proof that D&C 84:1-5 makes Joseph Smith a false prophet?
I've already addressed those comments by telling you what I've told you.

A temple was built in the place where our Lord told Joseph it would be built in that generation, and another temple was yet to be built at the end of that generation which many people would still like to see as an already built temple.

dfoJC

06-01-2009, 05:40 PM

I wasn't "yanking your chain" dfoJC, and I've already shared enough of my thoughts on this issue to tell you where I stand on this issue.

Try considering the idea that I've already answered the questions and I see no good reason to keep giving the same answers over and over and over and over again after I've already made it clear what my answer is.

Go back and read everything I have already said on this issue, again, and if what I have said is still not clear to you, it never hurts to ask God for a little more wisdom so that you can discern the truth on an issue.

I do too, dfoJC, and I'm just about ready to totally give up on you and Bob while trusting that God will do what is best for each one of you.

Welcome back Bat Man, I trust you had a productive weekend in whatever your endeavors were....

Gee, I have kind of missed your condescending at***ude lately, thanks for displaying it once again. I just know that some day, God will deal with you on that issue. I pray it is soon.

Giving up? What is it you are trying to succeed in? Proving me completely and forever wrong about mormonism? Tsk, Tsk, we are here to have a friendly discussion, nothing more, nothing less. Or, is it that you have been trying to convince me of what you consider truth? Sorry my friend, I already know the Truth, and found Him to be amazingly perfect in every way to live life.

So, what does that mean exactly, well, since Grace saved me through faith I have been given the keys to the overcoming life. I like the way God says it in II Peter 1:3-4: "As His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust."

Notice the "all things" there Bat Man. It means we lack nothing when it comes to living a spiritual life! And we are even complete in all areas of life, at least according to God. However, I am sure, he has told you something different.

I would ask one favor Bat Man, don't turn the part of this verse that talks about "divine nature" into a "we can be gods mantra." That is simply another mormon thought that at this point is not what we are discussing.

Anyway, take care.

with kind regards,
dfoJC

Bat-Man

06-01-2009, 06:11 PM

Gee, I have kind of missed your condescending at***ude lately, thanks for displaying it once again.
I don't consider your at***ude to be a proper at***ude from someone who is seeking to learn, dfoJC, and whether you realize it or not, I do know more about what you call "Mormonism" that you don't know about, yet.

I just know that some day, God will deal with you on that issue. I pray it is soon.
God and I get along great, dfoJC, because I know to humble myself before him.

You, on the other hand, are a person pretty much like me except that you don't know as much about Mormonism as I do, so here I am the Teacher, or one of the Teachers, and you are here as a student, at best.

Giving up? What is it you are trying to succeed in?
My goal here is to share the truth regarding my religion and beliefs, and I'd like you to get to the point where you can at least acknowledge what I believe whether or not you agree with me.

Tsk, Tsk, we are here to have a friendly discussion, nothing more, nothing less.
Actually, it's about at least a little bit more than that, or it should be.

The only good reason for you to come to this LDS/Mormon forum is to learn more about Mormonism from those who know what Mormonism is, which would be from those of us who are LDS/Mormons.

Others who are ex- or anti- LDSism/Mormonism are not correctly representing true LDS/Mormon teachings, even though they would like you to believe they are, and if you're only here to stir up trouble, so to speak, it is a big waste of my time for me to be here talking to you.

I already know what I believe, and my beliefs are not changing unless God changes his mind concerning what is actually true.

Do you understand that ?

God is the one who has told me that my beliefs concerning Mormonism are true, which is why I am a "Mormon", and you, dfoJC, can go take a flying leap from a tall building if you think YOU can change what God has told me.

Or, is it that you have been trying to convince me of what you consider truth?
Yes. Exactly. Nothing more, and nothing less.

I'm not trying to convince you of what YOU believe to be true. That would be silly.

I'm simply trying to share what I know to be true with you so that you can at least know what it is that I believe, whether or not you choose to agree.

Sorry my friend, I already know the Truth, and found Him to be amazingly perfect in every way to live life.
I'm not going to argue with you about that, because I also believe God should be the one we all look to as we seek to find the truth.

If you want to know about Mormonism, though, with a desire to find out more about what "Mormons" really believe, well, that's what I'm here for.

You can always believe whatever you want.

I'm simply here to share what I believe and know to be true with other people because this is the LDS/Mormon forum on this site.

If you are here in this LDS/Mormon forum to share your beliefs with other people, I suggest you go back to your forum and wait for other people to come there to talk to you about your religion.

I'm not here to learn about your religion, unless it ADDS to my religion.

dfoJC

06-01-2009, 08:02 PM

I don't consider your at***ude to be a proper at***ude from someone who is seeking to learn, dfoJC, and whether you realize it or not, I do know more about what you call "Mormonism" that you don't know about, yet.

God and I get along great, dfoJC, because I know to humble myself before him.

You, on the other hand, are a person pretty much like me except that you don't know as much about Mormonism as I do, so here I am the Teacher, or one of the Teachers, and you are here as a student, at best.

My goal here is to share the truth regarding my religion and beliefs, and I'd like you to get to the point where you can at least acknowledge what I believe whether or not you agree with me.

Actually, it's about at least a little bit more than that, or it should be.

The only good reason for you to come to this LDS/Mormon forum is to learn more about Mormonism from those who know what Mormonism is, which would be from those of us who are LDS/Mormons.

Others who are ex- or anti- LDSism/Mormonism are not correctly representing true LDS/Mormon teachings, even though they would like you to believe they are, and if you're only here to stir up trouble, so to speak, it is a big waste of my time for me to be here talking to you.

I already know what I believe, and my beliefs are not changing unless God changes his mind concerning what is actually true.

Do you understand that ?

God is the one who has told me that my beliefs concerning Mormonism are true, which is why I am a "Mormon", and you, dfoJC, can go take a flying leap from a tall building if you think YOU can change what God has told me.

Yes. Exactly. Nothing more, and nothing less.

I'm not trying to convince you of what YOU believe to be true. That would be silly.

I'm simply trying to share what I know to be true with you so that you can at least know what it is that I believe, whether or not you choose to agree.

I'm not going to argue with you about that, because I also believe God should be the one we all look to as we seek to find the truth.

If you want to know about Mormonism, though, with a desire to find out more about what "Mormons" really believe, well, that's what I'm here for.

You can always believe whatever you want.

I'm simply here to share what I believe and know to be true with other people because this is the LDS/Mormon forum on this site.

If you are here in this LDS/Mormon forum to share your beliefs with other people, I suggest you go back to your forum and wait for other people to come there to talk to you about your religion.

I'm not here to learn about your religion, unless it ADDS to my religion.

Wow! Where there is smoke, there must be fire, eh Bat Man? Thank you for responding, I enjoyed that very much.

Yep, no doubt about it, your knowledge of Mormonism is way greater compared to mine. You win by a bazillion miles, if this were a race I'd be the 49 bug and you would be the mazerati. My hats off to you.

By the way, I practice no religion. I am not here to share religion. Religion is what the pharisees practiced, Jesus had a hard time with them. I definitely do not want to be a pharisee. Do you? Probably not.

So, what did you think of the II Peter chapter 1 p***age I shared with you? You didn't say one thing about that, actually bummed me out a bit.

You know Bat Man, you are sitting pretty good right now it appears. Can I ask you some questions?

Why do you need Mormonism? If God reveals to you all truth, why get into this? Wouldn't it just be easier to throw out the Standard Works, the Bible and all of that, and you know, just you and God go on and live life however He leads you to? I mean the rules must get to you, at least once in a while, no?

It woud seem to me a much simpler way of life, not trying to tempt you or anything, just curious, thats all.

Well, good night for now. Take care,

with kind regards,
dfoJC

Bat-Man

06-02-2009, 10:21 AM

By the way, I practice no religion. I am not here to share religion. Religion is what the pharisees practiced, Jesus had a hard time with them. I definitely do not want to be a pharisee. Do you? Probably not.
You don't have to be a pharisee to have a religion, and believe it or not, you actually do have a religion even if you don't know that you do have a religion.

A "religion" is basically just a way of life as it applies to a person's own life.

For some people, football is their religion, or a big part of their religion.

For some other people, politics is their religion, or a big part of their religion, and some people who have politics as a part of their religion also have football as another part of their religion.

Anything people have as a part of their life which they follow "religiously" is their religion, or a part of their religion, and I've noticed that at least a part of your religion involves having religious discussions with LDS/Mormons.

My religion is basically learning all about Jesus Christ, and he has led me to Mormonism as a viable means of learning more about him and the good news he has to share with all people.

So, what did you think of the II Peter chapter 1 p***age I shared with you? You didn't say one thing about that, actually bummed me out a bit.
I didn't actually get that far in your post because of my frustration that I was having with what I perceived to be your lack of interest in learning more about Mormonism from me, but if you'd still like me to comment on that ask me again at another time and I will tell you. Right now I'd like to focus on responding to other things in this post from you that I am responding to.

You know Bat Man, you are sitting pretty good right now it appears. Can I ask you some questions?
Okay, just a few, though, and then after I answer your questions I'd like you to acknowledge that I have answerered these questions to such an extent that you understand my position, and I'd like you to do that without saying anything at all about whether or not you agree with what I have told you.

It's not important to me to know whether or not you agree with me. I'd simply like to know that you correctly understand what I have told you, without trying to "teach" me something from your own perspective, because I believe that learning from a Mormon about what a Mormon believes is what this LDS/Mormon forum is for.

Why do you need Mormonism? If God reveals to you all truth, why get into this?
Good questions! In answering both of those, which I believe are directly related, please understand that I will be sharing my own personal perspective which I believe has been influenced by God.

At one point in my life I believed I could learn all about God on my own without any help from anyone else (other than God)... and I still believe I can to a certain extent... but as I tried to do that I would eventually hear some ideas from someone (other than God ) which gave me some more ideas to consider than I had thought about up to that point, if I had not already considered those ideas before, at which point I would then ask God if those thoughts were good and true and worth incorporating into my own life, and I would then either incorporate those thoughts into my own life, or not, dependent upon what God told me about those ideas.

Mormonism, generally, was simply one of those things which was brought to my attention at a time when I had never heard about Mormonism before, and after giving some consideration to what Mormonism was represented to be, and after discussing Mormonism with God, God ***ured me that Mormonism was a good thing for me to incorporate into my own life.

Wouldn't it just be easier to throw out the Standard Works, the Bible and all of that, and you know, just you and God go on and live life however He leads you to?
I've found that throwing out the words of others is a lot easier to do in theory than in practice, because even if I TRY to avoid listening to people (other than God) somebody (other than God) will eventually show up and tell me what they think, even if I don't want them to do that, at which point I will then have their thoughts in my mind to deal with. But, yes, I do believe I am still living my life as God is leading me to live it, with God being the one I should rely on to know what is true.

I mean the rules must get to you, at least once in a while, no?
Actually, the rules work really well for me, because I consider a life without rules to be a life without order, and I believe the rules I am following lead to the best order of life that is possible, at least for me, individually.

For example, I understand that in order for me to have a wife, there needs to be some rule which establishes how to get a wife and how to hang onto her for as long as I want her, and if for some reason I should ever want to get rid of her, there needs to be some rule which will get rid of her... and all of this, of course, in the best way possible, with little to no harmful consequences to my own life, and preferably also with no harmful consequences to the person who either is or was or will be my wife in the future.

Rules are good, as long as the rules lead to good results.

It would seem to me a much simpler way of life, not trying to tempt you or anything, just curious, thats all.
A life without any rules actually makes things a lot more complicated, if you think about it. A life without any rules results in chaos.

Seriously. Just think about it, some more.

dfoJC

06-02-2009, 03:27 PM

You don't have to be a pharisee to have a religion, and believe it or not, you actually do have a religion even if you don't know that you do have a religion.

That is simply your opinion Bat Man, I reject religion. Religion is mans attempt to come closer to God using mans precepts, opinions and doctrines. That is what the pharisees did, I am not a pharisee. Perhaps you are? This I do know, you are a very religious man. Has that drawn you closer to God? You say that it has. However, I am at a disadvantage, for I do not know how you live your life. Of course, that is a two way street. You as well do not know how I live the life I live.

Also, religion can be defined this way, "Religion is men gathered around the cross. True Christianity is a man nailed to a cross."

A "religion" is basically just a way of life as it applies to a person's own life.

For some people, football is their religion, or a big part of their religion.

For some other people, politics is their religion, or a big part of their religion, and some people who have politics as a part of their religion also have football as another part of their religion.

Anything people have as a part of their life which they follow "religiously" is their religion, or a part of their religion, and I've noticed that at least a part of your religion involves having religious discussions with LDS/Mormons.

My religion is basically learning all about Jesus Christ, and he has led me to Mormonism as a viable means of learning more about him and the good news he has to share with all people.

Excellent, I am glad your "religion is learning all about Jesus Christ. Have you followed His counsel? Have you taken up your cross to follow Him? Or, are you living according to the precepts, laws and doctrines of the LDS? And Jesus is just a nice addition to what the LDS teach? You can know a lot about Jesus Christ, and never, ever know Him. That is what I call a "sorry state of affairs."

I didn't actually get that far in your post because of my frustration that I was having with what I perceived to be your lack of interest in learning more about Mormonism from me, but if you'd still like me to comment on that ask me again at another time and I will tell you. Right now I'd like to focus on responding to other things in this post from you that I am responding to.

Okay, just a few, though, and then after I answer your questions I'd like you to acknowledge that I have answerered these questions to such an extent that you understand my position, and I'd like you to do that without saying anything at all about whether or not you agree with what I have told you.

OK.

It's not important to me to know whether or not you agree with me. I'd simply like to know that you correctly understand what I have told you, without trying to "teach" me something from your own perspective, because I believe that learning from a Mormon about what a Mormon believes is what this LDS/Mormon forum is for.

Makes sense.

Good questions! In answering both of those, which I believe are directly related, please understand that I will be sharing my own personal perspective which I believe has been influenced by God.

At one point in my life I believed I could learn all about God on my own without any help from anyone else (other than God)... and I still believe I can to a certain extent... but as I tried to do that I would eventually hear some ideas from someone (other than God ) which gave me some more ideas to consider than I had thought about up to that point, if I had not already considered those ideas before, at which point I would then ask God if those thoughts were good and true and worth incorporating into my own life, and I would then either incorporate those thoughts into my own life, or not, dependent upon what God told me about those ideas.

Mormonism, generally, was simply one of those things which was brought to my attention at a time when I had never heard about Mormonism before, and after giving some consideration to what Mormonism was represented to be, and after discussing Mormonism with God, God ***ured me that Mormonism was a good thing for me to incorporate into my own life.

What were you believing at this point in your life? Did you have any belief in God at all? If so, from what church, churches, family or whatever.

I've found that throwing out the words of others is a lot easier to do in theory than in practice, because even if I TRY to avoid listening to people (other than God) somebody (other than God) will eventually show up and tell me what they think, even if I don't want them to do that, at which point I will then have their thoughts in my mind to deal with. But, yes, I do believe I am still living my life as God is leading me to live it, with God being the one I should rely on to know what is true.

OK, according to what you have taught me, which God do you learn from?

Actually, the rules work really well for me, because I consider a life without rules to be a life without order, and I believe the rules I am following lead to the best order of life that is possible, at least for me, individually.

For example, I understand that in order for me to have a wife, there needs to be some rule which establishes how to get a wife and how to hang onto her for as long as I want her, and if for some reason I should ever want to get rid of her, there needs to be some rule which will get rid of her... and all of this, of course, in the best way possible, with little to no harmful consequences to my own life, and preferably also with no harmful consequences to the person who either is or was or will be my wife in the future.

I find this quite curious. Have you used rules to find a wife, then get rid of her using rules as well? So, it seems using this ****ogy that rules are like a "psuedo-god" kind of? Or am I misunderstanding?Rules are good, as long as the rules lead to good results.

A life without any rules actually makes things a lot more complicated, if you think about it. A life without any rules results in chaos.

Seriously. Just think about it, some more.

OK, think I have covered this for now. Take care,
with kind regards,
dfoJC

Bat-Man

06-02-2009, 04:19 PM

I reject religion.
No, you only think you reject religion.

As I told you before, "religion" is basically just a way of life as it applies to a person's own life. In other words, a "religion" is a "Way" of life, and you do have a "Way" that you live by in your life which is the "Way" of life you have accepted.

That is only your opinion.
Nothing I think is only my opinion, because whatever I think there is someone else who thinks exactly the same thing, with God and Satan being the ones who represent the two opposite sides of the spectrum.

Religion is mans attempt to come closer to God using mans precepts, opinions and doctrines.
Yes, that is religion for some people, but religion for some other people is their attempt to come closer to God using God's precepts, opinions, and doctrines... and believe it or not, God does have his own precepts, opinions, and doctrines whether or not everyone agrees with God.

That is what the pharisees did, I am not a pharisee. Perhaps you are?
If a pharisee is NOT someone who seeks to know God's will through personal revelation from God so that he/she can then follow God according to the will of God, then, No, I am not a pharisee.

This I do know, you are a very religious man.
I think it's interesting that you claim to know this based solely on what I have told you. Do you also claim to know that I am practicing what I am preaching ?

Has that drawn you closer to God? You say that it has.
Yes, it has.

However, I am at a disadvantage, for I do not know how you live your life.
And yet you feel that you can claim to know that I am a very religious man.

I think that's interesting.

Of course, that is a two way street. You as well do not know how I live the life I live.
I can see some evidence of how you are living your life.

By seeing you speak, I can know what you're thinking, and by knowing what you are thinking I can know at least something about where you are in your life.

Also, religion can be defined this way, "Religion is men gathered around the cross. True Christianity is a man nailed to a cross."
You don't have to be nailed to a cross, yourself, to be a true Christian.

You can simply accept what Christ has done and is still willing to do for you.

Christ not only has died, but he still lives to help all of us in our lives.

Excellent, I am glad your "religion is learning all about Jesus Christ. Have you followed His counsel?
Yes, and I am continuing to do so as he continues to counsel me, personally.

Have you taken up your cross to follow Him?
Yes, and my cross is to accept the will of God as God reveals it to me, which isn't necessarily the same cross you carry if you are now carrying a cross.

Or, are you living according to the precepts, laws and doctrines of the LDS?
I accept the precepts, laws, and doctrines of God as God has revealed His will to His true Church.

And Jesus is just a nice addition to what the LDS teach?
No, Jesus is the one who reveals his teachings to his true (LDS) Church.

You can know a lot about Jesus Christ, and never, ever know Him.
That is what I call a "sorry state of affairs."
Heh, yes I know that, but it can be remedied by personal revelation from Jesus Christ.

What were you believing at this point in your life? Did you have any belief in God at all? If so, from what church, churches, family or whatever.
I'd prefer to leave my past life in the past, but I'll tell you a little bit.

When I first met a missionary of the (LDS) Church, I was active as a minister in another church which I believed to be the true Church of Jesus Christ, or at least a part of it, following in the footsteps of my Dad and Grandad who were both active ministers for that same church. I hadn't always been active in that church, though, but for several years previous to the time that I met a missionary for the (LDS) Church I had been active, and I had studied the Bible even during some of the time I had been inactive in that church, and I had received personal inspiration/revelation from God even before I had met a missionary from the (LDS) Church. And btw, when I joined the (LDS) Church I was simply ADDING to what I had already accepted from God.

OK, according to what you have taught me, which God do you learn from?The only God I have ever known, which consists of individual persons who are each, individually, God.

And btw, I've also come to know Satan, and I know the difference between Satan and God.

I find this quite curious. Have you used rules to find a wife, then get rid of her using rules as well?
Yes, I have used rules to find and "make" a woman my wife, but as of yet I'm still hanging on to her with no intention of getting rid of her.

So, it seems using this ****ogy that rules are like a "psuedo-god" kind of? Or am I misunderstanding?
I think you're misunderstanding, at least a little bit.

God is the one who gives the rules I live by, but anyone can issue rules for people to follow and some people set up rules as if their rules are what people should follow, instead of following God and the rules God gives people to follow to get blessings from God.

Bob Betts

06-02-2009, 06:36 PM

I don't agree with you on this issue, Bob. D&C 84 was given at Kirtland, Ohio, and a temple was built there (in Kirtland, Ohio) in which keys of the kingdom of God were given to gather all of God's people together.You have nothing to disagree with me, with. I have all the evidence on my side, as I carefully laid it out. You have no evidence for your argument.

Actually, Zion is the pure in heart... wherever they are, or were, or will be.That's NOT what Joseph Smith said, when he specifically said, "Mount Zion, which shall be the city of New Jerusalem. Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri," AND YOU KNOW IT. You're being dishonest.

We're back in Missouri now, Bob, without any fear of extermination, and we will continue to establish Missouri as a part of Zion/New Jerusalem until every blessing of God has been made available to everyone, including those in Jackson County, Missouri.THAT'S not true, either. The doctrine of "The Gathering" was that ALL Mormons would go back to Independence MO to build the temple and establish the New Jerusalem.

Yes, part of the revelation hasn't been fulfilled yet, and there is still some work to be done in Missouri before all of our Lord's work is done, but a revelation which hasn't been fully fulfilled yet is not a false prophecy.You're not an honest Mormon. You ignore the LDS leadership's heading for the section, which only speaks of the MO temple, and NOT the Kirtland temple, and you falsely suggest that the generation which DID p*** away, that the LDS leaders, themselves, wrote about, is supposed to be about a different temple than in MO.

I recommend you learn more about Zion and New Jerusalem, because the idea that all of it is to be limited to Independence, Missouri, is a false notion.Oh, I know a lot more than you realize:

“There is no characteristic by which the Saints are distinguished in the present days so peculiar as that of the gathering, and so long as we continue in connexion with the kingdom of God, the doctrine of the gathering will be of vital importance, indeed everything hinges upon this point, the Saints must be gathered out from Babylon, in order that they may become a kingdom and a people prepared for the Lord at his coming.”
Millennial Star,
February 1, 1846
Vol. 7, pp. 47-48

“Joseph Smith...professes to have received, through revelation and commandment from God, a dispensation for the gathering of the Saints from all nations. Now the doctrine of the gathering of the Saints in the last days must either be false or true; if false, then J. Smith must be an imposter. It matters not how correct he may have been in all other points of his system, if this one point - the doctrine of the gathering - be false, he must be a deceiver. Why? Because he professes to have received this doctrine by direct revelation and commandment. On the other hand, if the doctrine of the gathering of the Saints be a true doctrine and scriptural, this will be another presumptive evidence that Mr. Smith was sent of God.”
Orson Pratt,
Orson Pratt’s Works,
“Divine Authority,” p. 5

“But the doctrine of gathering has been suspended and our *** now is to live in the world.”
Richard L. Bushman,
Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought,
Spring 1966, p. 11

“In our early history, for example, the doctrine of the gathering was ***umed to be a permanent part of the Gospel. Today just the reverse is taught, and a general gathering of the faithful would be disastrous.”
James L. Clayton,
Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought,
Autumn 1968, p. 73

Zion (and New Jerusalem) does and will include all of the pure in heart of Independence, Missouri, and all of Jackson County, Missouri, and all of the state of Missouri, and all of the rest of America including all of North, Central, and South America.Can you quote where it is taught that it will be the entire Western Hemisphere?

Joseph Smith: “You know there has been great discussion in relation to Zion - where it is, and where the gathering of the dispensation is, and which I am now going to tell you... The whole of America is Zion itself from north to south, and is described by the Prophets, who declare that it is the Zion where the mountain of the Lord should be, and that it should be in the center of the land...”
April 8, 1844
History of the Church,
Vol. 6, pp. 318-319

So, Joseph Smith said the mountain of the Lord would be in the center of the land. If he were right, then Missouri would be the center. But, if Zion is the whole Western Hemisphere, as YOU say, then Panama or Columbia would be the center.

Where's "the center of the land" where "the mountain of the Lord" should be?

I do realize the temple in Independence, Missouri, was not built when Joseph Fielding Smith made that statement, but that doesn't mean that Joseph Smith, Jr. gave a false prophecy. It will be built, if it hasn't been built already, and as of yet this is simply an unfulfilled prophecy rather than a false prophecy because there is still time for that temple to be built.Didn't you even read what he said? Or, do YOU think that there is still someone alive to day, 177 years later, who was alive when Smith gave his "revelation?

Why do you think he made that point of no one being alive in 1957, when he made that statement. It was because he knew that the MO temple was supposed to be built before a generation p***ed away.

Now, try to live in reality, and be honest. You and I both know what Joseph Fielding Smith was talking about, and he confirms what I've been saying.

And btw, FYI, I don't consider the temple built in Independence, Missouri, by the group known as the "Community of Christ" to be a fulfillment of the temple prophesied in D&C 84 because that temple has not been dedicated to our Lord by proper authority, but it is interesting to note that a temple has actually been built on that spot, already. Who knows, maybe later we (LDS) will get the same building and just re-dedicate it as a temple to our Lord.Then, it would STILL be a false prophecy, because the ones who were supposed to gather in Independence to build the temple and build up Zion, were supposed to be those of your Brighamite sect. That's the main point of The Gathering.

Joseph Fielding Smith realized that this was a false prophecy. That's another misrepresentation, Bob.

You're actually pretty good at that, if you consider that to be a virtue.Then explain why Joseph Fielding Smith conceded that the "this generation" part of the revelation could not be fulfilled?

I've already told you why he said "this place".Yeah, well, it's definitely out of place with the rest of the five verses. But, there's not a hint of a suggestion that it's talking about the Kirtland temple, or at least the LDS leadership would surely have honestly said so.

I've already addressed those comments by telling you what I've told you.But, if reason and logic are virtues, then you are without virtue.

A temple was built in the place where our Lord told Joseph it would be built in that generation, and another temple was yet to be built at the end of that generation which many people would still like to see as an already built temple.ALL the evidence points to Smith talking about one temple, not two. Even the intro confirms it (did your leadership mess up again, by leaving out that little detail?). Subsequent leaders confirmed every one's expectation that the MO temple would be built within the generation hearing Smith's voice.

You are a blind man to not see that what I'm saying is right and true. ALL the documentation is in the favor of my argument. ALL of it.

James Banta

06-02-2009, 07:17 PM

Bat-Man;17977]I didn't actually get that far in your post because of my frustration that I was having with what I perceived to be your lack of interest in learning more about Mormonism from me, but if you'd still like me to comment on that ask me again at another time and I will tell you. Right now I'd like to focus on responding to other things in this post from you that I am responding to.

God has warned us that false prophets and false Christs would come and show great sign and wonders:

Matthew 24:24
For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
So how to tell who they are? I guess we could pray about it and see if we get an emotional experience. But how many times does God need to tell us how to tell a true prophet from a liar? How to tell the real God from an idols formed in the heart of a man?

So if Someone teaches a Jesus who isn't proclaimed to the whole world as clear as the flashing across the sky we are to see this s a false Christ. A false Christs teaching will also fail as Moses told us in Deut 18 that a prophet can be identified as false in the prophesies he gives or in the name of the god he proclaims those words..

I really think it is wild for a person like the Batman to come onto a site that is clearly a site that is critical of mormonism and then complains about it when people show problems with mormonism like he is being personally attacked.. But since he will never see this I can say all the critical things I want to about the mormon church and he will never see it.. Things like Smith lied about seeing God in what they call the sacred grove. He lied about not joining to any church before mormonism was born. He lied about being able to translate language because he couldn't reproduce the same "translation" of the book of Lehi that was lost. He knew someone had it and was waiting to so how much different a "retranslation" would be the second time around.. In short Smith lied about everything that had anything to do with the foundation of mormonism nd the coming forth of the BofM.. IHS jim

Bat-Man

06-03-2009, 10:42 AM

You have nothing to disagree with me, with. I have all the evidence on my side, as I carefully laid it out. You have no evidence for your argument.
Now you're just in denial mode, Bob.

I've told you how D&C 84 should be correctly interpreted, and you are now basically saying that what I said isn't true just because you don't agree with what I told you, but the fact that you don't agree with what I told you doesn't mean that what I told you is not true.

What I told you is true, with God as my witness, even if you don't agree.

That's NOT what Joseph Smith said, when he specifically said, "Mount Zion, which shall be the city of New Jerusalem. Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri," AND YOU KNOW IT. You're being dishonest.
Yes, I do know that is what Joseph said, and the question you should be asking God now is how should what Joseph said be correctly interpreted.

I've already told you what God has told me, and the fact that you don't agree with what I told you doesn't mean that what I have said isn't true.

THAT'S not true, either.
I've had just about as much of that as I am going to tolerate from you, Bob.

What I have said is true, with God as my witness, even if you don't agree, so as far as I am concerned when you don't agree with what I have told you that God has told me you are also not agreeing with God.

Do you understand that ?

I get the feeling that you simply can't see HOW what I have told you about this issue is true, because God hasn't turned the light on for you yet regarding this issue, and while I could keep trying to explain it to you as God has explained it to me, I suggest you go directly to God while asking God to explain this issue to you.

... and if you still don't agree with what God has told me, or if you say God has told you something contradictory to what God has told me, I'm STILL going to take God's word to me over what you are saying, whether you like it or not.

The doctrine of "The Gathering" was that ALL Mormons would go back to Independence MO to build the temple and establish the New Jerusalem.
That's another misrepresentation, Bob, according to what God has told me.

Yes, at one time ALL "Mormons" were commanded by our Lord to gather in Independence, Missouri, to build a temple there and establish Zion and the city of New Jerusalem, and while that hasn't happened totally yet, "Mormons" have been establishing Zion and building the city of New Jerusalem ever since that revelation was received by Joseph Smith in Kirtland, Ohio.

You're not an honest Mormon.
WARNING: I'm just about ready to put you on my ignore list.

THE REASON WHY: The fact that you can call someone "dishonest" simply because you don't agree with him, and after he has told you God has told him what he has told you, tells me that you are a rude person with a perspective on "honesty" that is not worthy of my attention.

FYI, I don't agree with a lot of the things you claim God has told you, either, but the fact that you don't agree with what God has told me isn't enough for me to know whether or not you are not an honest person. You could honestly believe God has told you something, when it really wasn't God who spoke to you, even though that person claimed to be God, and in that event you would be an honest person who has simply been deceived.

You ignore the LDS leadership's heading for the section, which only speaks of the MO temple, and NOT the Kirtland temple,...
The heading above the heading states where the revelation was received, Bob. Did you miss it, somehow, even though it has been right there in plain sight all along ? Go look, again.

... and you falsely suggest that the generation which DID p*** away, that the LDS leaders, themselves, wrote about, is supposed to be about a different temple than in MO.
No, that's a misinterpretation of what I told you, Bob.

The generation our Lord was talking about when our Lord gave that revelation to Joseph truly has p***ed away, and it is false testimony from you to state that I have suggested otherwise, but the fact that that generation did p*** away without that temple being built in Independence, Missouri, doesn't mean that the prophecy from our Lord, through Joseph, was or is false.

Everything our Lord said through Joseph about what would happen has either already happened or is yet to happen in the future, and I"ve already told you how to correctly interpret at least some of what our Lord said through Joseph about what would happen and what is still yet to happen.

Oh, I know a lot more than you realize:

“There is no characteristic by which the Saints are distinguished in the present days so peculiar as that of the gathering, and so long as we continue in connexion with the kingdom of God, the doctrine of the gathering will be of vital importance, indeed everything hinges upon this point, the Saints must be gathered out from Babylon, in order that they may become a kingdom and a people prepared for the Lord at his coming.”
Millennial Star,
February 1, 1846
Vol. 7, pp. 47-48
Good quote.

Now tie that in correctly with our doctrine of "The Gathering", if you can.

(some more quotes from our Lord's prophets and apostles)
You've got some good pieces to the puzzle there, Bob.

Now you just need to know how to put them together, correctly, with all of the other pieces of the puzzle.

Can you quote where it is taught that it will be the entire Western Hemisphere?
Look ! (http://www.mormonbeliefs.org/articles_faith/10/zion)

Joseph Smith: “You know there has been great discussion in relation to Zion - where it is, and where the gathering of the dispensation is, and which I am now going to tell you... The whole of America is Zion itself from north to south, and is described by the Prophets, who declare that it is the Zion where the mountain of the Lord should be, and that it should be in the center of the land...”
April 8, 1844
History of the Church,
Vol. 6, pp. 318-319
There you go! That's another good piece of the puzzle.

So, Joseph Smith said the mountain of the Lord would be in the center of the land. If he were right, then Missouri would be the center. But, if Zion is the whole Western Hemisphere, as YOU say, then Panama or Columbia would be the center.
Look at what Joseph said would be in the center, Bob.

"The whole of America is Zion itself from north to south, and is described by the Prophets, who declare that it is the Zion where the mountain of the Lord should be, and that it should be in the center of the land...”

You need to correctly understand how the "mountain of the Lord" could be considered to be in the center of the land.

Hint: Our Lord can move land, including bringing together what was once separated, even raising valleys and lowering hills. Think big.

Where's "the center of the land" where "the mountain of the Lord" should be?
Good question, Bob. Ask God for the right answer.

Didn't you even read what he said? Or, do YOU think that there is still someone alive to day, 177 years later, who was alive when Smith gave his "revelation?
It sure would be nice if the light I have could be transferred to you, somehow. I've already explained this to you before, and you still you can't see what I see, so I'm now thinking that you need to get your light from the same place that I got mine.

Why do you think he made that point of no one being alive in 1957, when he made that statement. It was because he knew that the MO temple was supposed to be built before a generation p***ed away.
I've already explained this to you, too.

Go back and read what I said, again, while asking God to help you understand what I already told you.

You don't have to agree with me, but I think you should at least be able to understand what I have told you, with me being able to see that you do correctly understand me, even if you don't agree with me.

Then explain why Joseph Fielding Smith conceded that the "this generation" part of the revelation could not be fulfilled?
Look at his words, again. What you think he said is not really there.

But, if reason and logic are virtues, then you are without virtue.
That's it, Bob. In your next post to me, if you don't apologize to me, I'm going to be putting you on my ignore list.

FYI, I can learn from God without hearing anything at all from you, and I know that all other people can too.

dfoJC

06-03-2009, 11:40 AM

No, you only think you reject religion.

There you go again Bat Man,telling me what I am thinking. Poor form is what I call that.

As I told you before, "religion" is basically just a way of life as it applies to a person's own life. In other words, a "religion" is a "Way" of life, and you do have a "Way" that you live by in your life which is the "Way" of life you have accepted.

I reject your definition of religion, why? Because mormonism is a religion. And as I have said before, religion is nothing more than mans precepts and laws that attempt, but fail, to bring man into relationship with God.

Nothing I think is only my opinion, because whatever I think there is someone else who thinks exactly the same thing, with God and Satan being the ones who represent the two opposite sides of the spectrum.

Yes, that is religion for some people, but religion for some other people is their attempt to come closer to God using God's precepts, opinions, and doctrines... and believe it or not, God does have his own precepts, opinions, and doctrines whether or not everyone agrees with God.

If a pharisee is NOT someone who seeks to know God's will through personal revelation from God so that he/she can then follow God according to the will of God, then, No, I am not a pharisee.

I think it's interesting that you claim to know this based solely on what I have told you. Do you also claim to know that I am practicing what I am preaching ?

Yes, it has.

And yet you feel that you can claim to know that I am a very religious man.

I think that's interesting.

I can see some evidence of how you are living your life.

By seeing you speak, I can know what you're thinking, and by knowing what you are thinking I can know at least something about where you are in your life.

You don't have to be nailed to a cross, yourself, to be a true Christian.

You can simply accept what Christ has done and is still willing to do for you.

Christ not only has died, but he still lives to help all of us in our lives.

IIf this statement is true, why would God communicate to us that, "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. I do not set aside the Grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain."

I have accepted what my Savior did for me Bat Man. I have died, I have been crucified with Christ. He is way more to me than a "help" to live my life, He is my life. He accomplished it all on the Cross. For, without the cross, there is no "atonement." Bottom line. And if you think you can get to God without the cross, then all you have is religion.

Yes, and I am continuing to do so as he continues to counsel me, personally.

Yes, and my cross is to accept the will of God as God reveals it to me, which isn't necessarily the same cross you carry if you are now carrying a cross.

I am sorry to tell you this Bat Man, the cross is not accepting the "will of God as God reveals it to you." The Cross is an instrument of death. You simply cannot redefine what the cross symbolizes.

I accept the precepts, laws, and doctrines of God as God has revealed His will to His true Church.

No, Jesus is the one who reveals his teachings to his true (LDS) Church.

Heh, yes I know that, but it can be remedied by personal revelation from Jesus Christ.

I'd prefer to leave my past life in the past, but I'll tell you a little bit.

When I first met a missionary of the (LDS) Church, I was active as a minister in another church which I believed to be the true Church of Jesus Christ, or at least a part of it, following in the footsteps of my Dad and Grandad who were both active ministers for that same church. I hadn't always been active in that church, though, but for several years previous to the time that I met a missionary for the (LDS) Church I had been active, and I had studied the Bible even during some of the time I had been inactive in that church, and I had received personal inspiration/revelation from God even before I had met a missionary from the (LDS) Church. And btw, when I joined the (LDS) Church I was simply ADDING to what I had already accepted from God.

The only God I have ever known, which consists of individual persons who are each, individually, God.

And btw, I've also come to know Satan, and I know the difference between Satan and God.

Yes, I have used rules to find and "make" a woman my wife, but as of yet I'm still hanging on to her with no intention of getting rid of her.

I think you're misunderstanding, at least a little bit.

God is the one who gives the rules I live by, but anyone can issue rules for people to follow and some people set up rules as if their rules are what people should follow, instead of following God and the rules God gives people to follow to get blessings from God.

So then I must ask these questions, what makes the rules of Mormonism God's rules? Please explain to me why God would change the "rules" all ready spelled out so clearly in His Word? Why would He, according to Mormonism change what cons***utes salvation? Why would He establish His Church on the day of Pentecost 1,979 years ago, then according to Mormonism, completely redefine it only 177 years ago? And then call the latter, "the only true church?

Somehow, some way, something is seriously messed up. Is it Mormonism, or is it God?

OK, I think I will stop for now. Take care,

with kind regards,
dofJC

Bat-Man

06-03-2009, 12:56 PM

There you go again Bat Man,telling me what I am thinking. Poor form is what I call that.
I agree. That was poor form, and I apologize for that bad form.

What I should have said was that you reject the idea that you have a religion, and that you believe you don't have a religion, while I then went on to say that I believe you do have a religion even though you reject the idea that you do have a religion.

Do you understand the fact that I still believe you have a religion, even though you don't believe you do, and the fact that you keep telling me that you don't have a religion isn't going to make me believe that you don't have a religion ?

You're en***led to your opinion/perspective, just as I am en***led to mine, even if we don't agree with each other.

I reject your definition of religion, why? Because mormonism is a religion. And as I have said before, religion is nothing more than mans precepts and laws that attempt, but fail, to bring man into relationship with God.
Okay, but the fact that you reject my definition of religion, and that you think religion is nothing more than... what you said... doesn't mean I'm going to accept what you are saying as anything more than your opinion/ perspective while I still maintain my own opinion/ perspective which I believe has been directly influenced by God.

... why would God communicate to us that, "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. I do not set aside the Grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain."
It was Paul who said that, dfoJC, because he was living by faith in Jesus Christ who loved him and had been crucified for him.

Paul didn't need to get crucified, himself. He accepted what Jesus had done for him.

I have accepted what my Savior did for me Bat Man.
That's good, dfoJC.

I can believe that, even while believing you don't have any authority from God to represent God, yourself.

I have died, I have been crucified with Christ.
Who is this "I" you speak of ?

If you are now born again through Jesus Christ, such that you are now a child of God through Jesus Christ, you are no longer the same person you were before you were born again and the "I" you are now speaking of has never died or been crucified, because Jesus Christ died and was crucified for you so that you can now have eternal life with him.

He is way more to me than a "help" to live my life, He is my life.
I think I know what you mean when you say that, but if your life is really him or his life, you can now stop talking about needing to die or be crucified because you have already done that before and it is no longer that person who now lives through you.

He accomplished it all on the Cross. For, without the cross, there is no "atonement." Bottom line. And if you think you can get to God without the cross, then all you have is religion.
I know that what Jesus went through on the cross was a necessay component of our salvation, but you can stop talking about all of that now because all of that is now over, FINISHED, and you can look forward, instead of backwards, to the person you are becoming.

I am sorry to tell you this Bat Man, the cross is not accepting the "will of God as God reveals it to you." The Cross is an instrument of death. You simply cannot redefine what the cross symbolizes.
Instead of talking about the death of our Lord, I would rather talk about the life that is now possible for me because our Lord once died for me.

I see no good reason to keep harping on the fact that he died, as if I'm supposed to keep looking back at that moment, other than to realize that because of what my Lord did by allowing himself to be put to death on the cross was my new life made possible. My focus is ahead, to the future, with thanks and praise to God forever for what he is now making possible for me in my life.

You can keep thinking about his death, though, if you want to.

For all I know, you may still need to learn something from that moment in the past before you can put that behind you, as part of your past.

... what makes the rules of Mormonism God's rules?
God, of course. God gave the rules.

Please explain to me why God would change the "rules" all ready spelled out so clearly in His Word?
Like what, for instance ?

What rules do you think LDS think God has changed ?

Why would He, according to Mormonism change what cons***utes salvation?
He didn't. The rules are the same as they've always been, in principle.

We still live by every word that proceeds forth from the mouth of God.

Why would He establish His Church on the day of Pentecost 1,979 years ago, then according to Mormonism, completely redefine it only 177 years ago? And then call the latter, "the only true church?
Because the true Church that was established on the day of Pentecost died out or was put to death or left the scene because those who remained had either been deceived into thinking that corrupt leaders were still leading the true Church of Christ as Christ wanted the Church to be led, or they, themselves, were some of those corrupt leaders who thought they were leading the Church as Christ wanted it to be lead, and at that point the true Church of Christ needed to be restored by leaders who actually had been authorized by Christ to lead His true Church, again.

And FYI, if you don't realize this yet, the Church of Christ is composed of people who follow Christ while realizing that there is a "Way" to do that, and the "Way" to do that is by following our Lord both personally and by following the people our Lord has authorized as leaders of His Church.

No man stands alone, if he is following Christ, because there always is and there always will be someone else, somewhere, who is also following Christ, and Christ doesn't work alone, either.

Somehow, some way, something is seriously messed up. Is it Mormonism, or is it God?
It's your ideas concerning the way things really are, bro.

Do you really want to know what is true ?

Do you really think you can "handle" the truth ?

God is there, and God will tell you what is true, if you really want to know.

dfoJC

06-03-2009, 02:18 PM

I agree. That was poor form, and I apologize for that bad form.

What I should have said was that you reject the idea that you have a religion, and that you believe you don't have a religion, while I then went on to say that I believe you do have a religion even though you reject the idea that you do have a religion.

Do you understand the fact that I still believe you have a religion, even though you don't believe you do, and the fact that you keep telling me that you don't have a religion isn't going to make me believe that you don't have a religion ?

Bat Man, you can believe anything you want, but that doesn't make you right, and me wrong.

You're en***led to your opinion/perspective, just as I am en***led to mine, even if we don't agree with each other.

Okay, but the fact that you reject my definition of religion, and that you think religion is nothing more than... what you said... doesn't mean I'm going to accept what you are saying as anything more than your opinion/ perspective while I still maintain my own opinion/ perspective which I believe has been directly influenced by God.

It was Paul who said that, dfoJC, because he was living by faith in Jesus Christ who loved him and had been crucified for him.

Paul didn't get crucified, himself. He accepted what Jesus had done for him.

Really? Then please explaing to me why he would say, "I have been crucified with Christ...

That's good, dfoJC.

I can believe that, even while believing you don't have any authority from God to represent God, yourself.

Who is this "I" you speak of ?

The "I" that I am referring to is what the Bible calls the "natural man," or, the "old man." You see Bat Man, something has to die in order for Christs life to be manifested in me, and through me. BTW, this is what Paul was talking about when he said, I have been crucified with Christ.

If you are now born again through Jesus Christ, such that you are now a child of God through Jesus Christ, you are no longer the same person you were before you were born again and the "I" you are now speaking of has never died or been crucified, because Jesus Christ died and was crucified for you so that you can now have eternal life with him.

That is correct. I am no longer the same. What was before died, or as it is written, crucified. Not only do I have eternal life, I have victory over sin. I am now complete, whole, lacking nothing. The life I now live is no longer mine, but His.

I think I know what you mean when you say that, but if your life is really him or his life, you can now stop talking about needing to die or be crucified because you have already done that before and it is no longer that person who now lives through you.

Not "if your life is really Him or His life," Bat Man, it is as certain as the day is long, I say that with all confidence, because His work is perfect. Also, as a disciple of Christ, I am honored to pick up the cross daily and follow Him. In Luke 9:23, Jesus says this; "If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross, daily, and follow Me. For whoever desires to save his life will lose it but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it." So, tell me Bat Man, in Mormonism, are you trying to save your life? Jesus says you will lose it.

I know that what Jesus went through on the cross was a necessay component of our salvation, but you can stop talking about all of that now because all of that is now over, FINISHED, and you can look forward, instead of backwards, to the person you are becoming.

The person I am becoming could not happen without Jesus' cross. Not looking backward my friend, looking forward.

Instead of talking about the death of our Lord, I would rather talk about the life that is now possible for me because our Lord once died for me.

I see no good reason to keep harping on the fact that he died, as if I'm supposed to keep looking back at that moment, other than to realize that because of what my Lord did by allowing himself to be put to death on the cross was my new life made possible. My focus is ahead, to the future, with thanks and praise to God forever for what he is now making possible for me in my life.

And based on what is written, do you think you will ever obtain what is in the future if you do not follow what is written in the Bible?

You can keep thinking about his death, though, if you want to.

For all I know, you may still need to learn something from that moment in the past before you can put that behind you, as part of your past.

God, of course. God gave the rules.

Like what, for instance ?

What rules do you think LDS think God has changed ?

He didn't. The rules are the same as they've always been, in principle.

We still live by every word that proceeds forth from the mouth of God.

Then why the Book of Mormon, PoGP, D&C? Why would God, who gave His Word, then add all of these, "works?" I am sorry Bat Man, but that again, portrays a God who is incapable of keeping His Word, and then giving these other works to accomplish what? So that a group who are called Mormons can claim the one and only "true church?"

Because the true Church that was established on the day of Pentecost died out or was put to death or left the scene because those who remained had either been deceived into thinking that corrupt leaders were still leading the true Church of Christ as Christ wanted the Church to be led, or they, themselves, were some of those corrupt leaders who thought they were leading the Church as Christ wanted it to be lead, and at that point the true Church of Christ needed to be restored by leaders who actually had been authorized by Christ to lead His true Church, again.

And FYI, if you don't realize this yet, the Church of Christ is composed of people who follow Christ while realizing that there is a "Way" to do that, and the "Way" to do that is by following our Lord both personally and by following the people our Lord has authorized as leaders of His Church.

Upon what do you base this conclusion? That is, "the church is composed of people who follow Christ." That is not true my friend. The church is comprised of the redeemed of God. We do not determine who the church is comprised of. God does. In the New Testament, the Church, the Ekklesia it is called as well as, "the Body of Christ, or, the House of God. And for someone, outside of God to determine that what God breathed into life on the day of Pentecost has died or someone "killed it, or "left the scene" is either walking in arrogance, or just not knowing. Not only that, it is a misrepresentation of who God is, and what He alone is capable of. Could you please explain to me why mormonism doesn't look anything like what is presented in the New Testament? Oh, sorry, I forgot, man corrupted that which God breathed into existance.

No man stands alone, if he is following Christ, because there always is and there always will be someone else, somewhere, who is also following Christ, and Christ doesn't work alone, either.

It's your ideas concerning the way things really are, bro.

Do you really want to know what is true ?

Jesus tells me that He is the Way, the Truth and the Life. So, I all ready know what is true. How can I say that? Well, that is because I believe what God has spoken in His Word.

Do you really think you can "handle" the truth ?

Don't need to "handle" the truth. He has a good firm grip on my life, and frankly, I wouldn't want it any other way. Do you really believe you have the truth? I know the answer to that, no need to clarify!

God is there, and God will tell you what is true, if you really want to know.

And so this is where we part ways Bat Man, God has not only told me what is true, He, on a daily basis demonstrates the Truth to me, personally (to coin a phrase). I just can't figure out for the life of me why it is so different from what you believe to be "true." One of us must be wrong. Or, maybe God is wrong? And you are right? Or, maybe, just maybe, truth is not how you see it, or define it.

with kind regards,
dfoJC

James Banta

06-03-2009, 02:37 PM

You don't have to be a pharisee to have a religion, and believe it or not, you actually do have a religion even if you don't know that you do have a religion.

A "religion" is basically just a way of life as it applies to a person's own life.

For some people, football is their religion, or a big part of their religion.

For some other people, politics is their religion, or a big part of their religion, and some people who have politics as a part of their religion also have football as another part of their religion.

Anything people have as a part of their life which they follow "religiously" is their religion, or a part of their religion, and I've noticed that at least a part of your religion involves having religious discussions with LDS/Mormons.

My religion is basically learning all about Jesus Christ, and he has led me to Mormonism as a viable means of learning more about him and the good news he has to share with all people.

I didn't actually get that far in your post because of my frustration that I was having with what I perceived to be your lack of interest in learning more about Mormonism from me, but if you'd still like me to comment on that ask me again at another time and I will tell you. Right now I'd like to focus on responding to other things in this post from you that I am responding to.

Okay, just a few, though, and then after I answer your questions I'd like you to acknowledge that I have answerered these questions to such an extent that you understand my position, and I'd like you to do that without saying anything at all about whether or not you agree with what I have told you.

It's not important to me to know whether or not you agree with me. I'd simply like to know that you correctly understand what I have told you, without trying to "teach" me something from your own perspective, because I believe that learning from a Mormon about what a Mormon believes is what this LDS/Mormon forum is for.

Good questions! In answering both of those, which I believe are directly related, please understand that I will be sharing my own personal perspective which I believe has been influenced by God.

At one point in my life I believed I could learn all about God on my own without any help from anyone else (other than God)... and I still believe I can to a certain extent... but as I tried to do that I would eventually hear some ideas from someone (other than God ) which gave me some more ideas to consider than I had thought about up to that point, if I had not already considered those ideas before, at which point I would then ask God if those thoughts were good and true and worth incorporating into my own life, and I would then either incorporate those thoughts into my own life, or not, dependent upon what God told me about those ideas.

Mormonism, generally, was simply one of those things which was brought to my attention at a time when I had never heard about Mormonism before, and after giving some consideration to what Mormonism was represented to be, and after discussing Mormonism with God, God ***ured me that Mormonism was a good thing for me to incorporate into my own life.

I've found that throwing out the words of others is a lot easier to do in theory than in practice, because even if I TRY to avoid listening to people (other than God) somebody (other than God) will eventually show up and tell me what they think, even if I don't want them to do that, at which point I will then have their thoughts in my mind to deal with. But, yes, I do believe I am still living my life as God is leading me to live it, with God being the one I should rely on to know what is true.

Actually, the rules work really well for me, because I consider a life without rules to be a life without order, and I believe the rules I am following lead to the best order of life that is possible, at least for me, individually.

For example, I understand that in order for me to have a wife, there needs to be some rule which establishes how to get a wife and how to hang onto her for as long as I want her, and if for some reason I should ever want to get rid of her, there needs to be some rule which will get rid of her... and all of this, of course, in the best way possible, with little to no harmful consequences to my own life, and preferably also with no harmful consequences to the person who either is or was or will be my wife in the future.

Rules are good, as long as the rules lead to good results.

A life without any rules actually makes things a lot more complicated, if you think about it. A life without any rules results in chaos.

Seriously. Just think about it, some more.

After read all this I think this and I think that, and God tells me this and God tells me that (But only through my feelings) I wonder why the Bat needs the scriptures at all.. I mean what do scriptures add to a man or a people that has God figured out from what men have taught them and what they feel about God for themselves.. These won't submit to the authority of God's word so in saying they won't submit to the authority of God.. It's strange the BofM teaches about holding to the IRON ROD which the mormon say is the word of God but they don't hold on to the word they hold onto their feelings, to impressions, and to the unbiblical rants of one man, one elf proclaimed prophet.. Never mind what scripture says it's been corrupted by men powerful enough to make the promises of Jesus worthless.. IHS jim

James Banta

06-03-2009, 02:44 PM

And so this is where we part ways Bat Man, God has not only told me what is true, He, on a daily basis demonstrates the Truth to me, personally (to coin a phrase). I just can't figure out for the life of me why it is so different from what you believe to be "true." One of us must be wrong. Or, maybe God is wrong? And you are right? Or, maybe, just maybe, truth is not how you see it, or define it.

with kind regards,
dfoJC

But like the noble Bereans dfoJC you search the scriptures to see if what is taught to you is the truth.. You don't put your faith in the arm of a man just because he said he is a prophet and saw God.. You see p***age like:

Heb 1:1-2
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds
And you know that God calls no one as a prophet to stand between Him and His children that Jesus is in that position and anyone that trys to displace Him is nothing more than a thief and a liar.. IHS jim

Bob Betts

06-03-2009, 02:55 PM

So then I must ask these questions, what makes the rules of Mormonism God's rules? Please explain to me why God would change the "rules" all ready spelled out so clearly in His Word? Why would He, according to Mormonism change what cons***utes salvation? Why would He establish His Church on the day of Pentecost 1,979 years ago, then according to Mormonism, completely redefine it only 177 years ago? And then call the latter, "the only true church?

Somehow, some way, something is seriously messed up. Is it Mormonism, or is it God?

OK, I think I will stop for now. Take care,

with kind regards,
dofJCI got the answer to your questions in the last paragraph of the link provided in Bat Man's last reply to me. The reason why God changes the rules, in Mormonism is because of the wickedness of the Mormon people.

That time will be appointed of God, yet it is to be determined according to the faithfulness of the people. Wickedness causes the Lord to tarry; for, saith He: “Therefore, in consequence of the transgressions of my people, it is expedient in me that mine elders should wait for a little season for the redemption of Zion.” And again: “Zion shall be redeemed in mine own due time.” But the Lord’s time in giving blessings is dependent upon the prospective recipients. As long ago as 1834 came the word of the Lord unto the Church: “Behold, I say unto you, were it not for the transgressions of my people, speaking concerning the church and not individuals, they might have been redeemed even now.”See? The reason God has to keep tarrying and changing His mind, is "in consequence of the transgressions of my people." The Mormon people are so wicked, that they're holding up God's works. So, the redemption of Zion, waiting for the "due time" of the Lord, is waiting due to the wickedness of Mormons. When they stop being wicked, Zion will be redeemed.

Note the last sentence: "were it not for the transgressions of my people, speaking concerning the church and not individuals, they might have been redeemed even now." See? The Mormon church has been wicked all this time. God can't redeem Zion until the Mormon church stops being wicked.

God ahead and put me on your long ignore list, Bat Man. You think you have all the answers directly from God talking to you. Yet, your own 'church' is so wicked, Christ won't return to redeem Zion. You should be back in your own 'church' trying to get it to stop being wicked so that God can finally return to Zion. You're wasting your time here on us, while your own 'church' is so full of wickedness, that God is forced to tarry. What are you doing here, trying to convert us to your wicked 'church'? Go help clean it up. It's a dirty, filthy cauldron of transgressions. God's waiting for the 'church' to be righteous, and you're here arguing with a bunch of gentiles, most of which you've put on your "ignore" list. What's the use? You should be redeeming your time with getting your Brighamite sect righteous for the coming of the Lord. You're a poor steward of your time, here, while your own 'church' walks in continual wickedness.

Bat-Man

06-03-2009, 03:06 PM

Bat Man, you can believe anything you want, but that doesn't make you right, and me wrong.Same back to you, bro. I do understand that God will be the final judge. Just understand that at this point I believe I have already heard from God, personally, so I will be standing in front him with confidence in what he has already told me.

Really? Then please explain to me why he would say, "I have been crucified with Christ...
It's a figurative expression, dfoJC.

Paul didn't actually go up there and join Jesus Christ on the cross, nor was he on some other cross close to Jesus Christ when he was crucified.

Paul simply meant what I have already told you he meant. Paul accepted the fact that Jesus Christ was crucified for him and he accepted Jesus as his Savior who opened up the way for Paul to live a new life through Jesus Christ.

Btw, I believe we agree more than we do not agree on this issue, so don't look to find fault where there is no fault on this issue between us. The main point I'm trying to draw your attention to is that you can now look away from the cross and start looking forward, as long as you recognize what happened on the cross and what it now means to you in your new life.

Focus on your new life with Jesus Christ, rather than the person you were before you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Savior. Look forward, not backwards. Look to the Christ who now lives, rather than thinking about his death and the person you were before you accepted Jesus as your Savior.

I am no longer the same. What was before died, or as it is written, crucified.
Good, then leave who you were behind and walk on in a newness of life.

Not only do I have eternal life, I have victory over sin.
... yes, through Jesus Christ, you do, if you now live for Jesus Christ.

I am now complete, whole, lacking nothing.
Hold on there, bud.

If you were perfect, you would already be as perfect as God is, literally.

Do you really believe you are that perfect now, already ?

Do you really believe that you are now totally without any sin, whatsoever ?

Watch yourself. Pride goes before the fall.

Stay humble, and keep pressing on to the ultimate goal of all you can be.

So, tell me Bat Man, in Mormonism, are you trying to save your life? Jesus says you will lose it.
My life is also in the hands of our Savior, just as yours is, to some extent.

Would you like to know what I do to keep growing in the nurture and admonition of the Lord ?

Try living by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God, as I do, while always keeping yourself open to always learning more from God.

The person I am becoming could not happen without Jesus' cross. Not looking backward my friend, looking forward.
That's good. I'm glad to see you realize that, as I also do, and that you do try to keep looking ahead rather than looking behind you, too much.

And based on what is written, do you think you will ever obtain what is in the future if you do not follow what is written in the Bible?
What I think you are referring to as "following what is written in the Bible" is what I refer to as following our Lord both personally and through his authorized servants, and yes, I do believe I need to do that to obtain every good thing I can possibly obtain in the future.

Then why the Book of Mormon, PoGP, D&C? Why would God, who gave His Word, then add all of these, "works?"
Because God had and still has more to say to us than is written in the Bible.

I am sorry Bat Man, but that again, portrays a God who is incapable of keeping His Word, and then giving these other works to accomplish what? So that a group who are called Mormons can claim the one and only "true church?"
Talk to our Lord about all of this, dfoJC. If you're in communion with him, as you seem to believe you are, you shouldn't have much trouble finding out if he had a hand in all of that is going on in his true Church, which is what The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints actually is, according to what he has told me.

... and you and I arguing over this isn't going to change what he has told me.

I think we're done here, you and I.

I've now given you the message our Lord wanted me to give you, and it is now up to you to choose whether or not you will accept it, or reject it.

Bat-Man

06-03-2009, 03:20 PM

God ahead and put me on your long ignore list, Bat Man.
Okay. You asked for it, so I'll give it to you.

... right after I finish responding to this post.

You think you have all the answers directly from God talking to you.
All the answers God has given to me, so far, yes, I do believe that.

Yet, your own 'church' is so wicked, Christ won't return to redeem Zion. You should be back in your own 'church' trying to get it to stop being wicked so that God can finally return to Zion. You're wasting your time here on us, while your own 'church' is so full of wickedness, that God is forced to tarry. What are you doing here, trying to convert us to your wicked 'church'? Go help clean it up. It's a dirty, filthy cauldron of transgressions. God's waiting for the 'church' to be righteous, and you're here arguing with a bunch of gentiles, most of which you've put on your "ignore" list. What's the use? You should be redeeming your time with getting your Brighamite sect righteous for the coming of the Lord. You're a poor steward of your time, here, while your own 'church' walks in continual wickedness.
The members of the Church have 3 objectives, Bob.

One is to redeem the dead, which I do by helping out with family history research and going to a temple near where I am to fulfill ordinances in their behalf, which they can either accept or reject.

Another objective is to proclaim the gospel,, which I am doing here by talking to all of you "gentiles", and which I also do by talking to other people when I see what might be a good opportunity. And btw, I don't need to hear from you to proclaim the gospel.

And, lastly, the other objective is to perfect the saints, which I do by trying to help members of the Church learn more than they already know right now about what they should know and do to live in harmony with the true gospel of Jesus Christ.

Hence, there is more than one way which we can help our Lord and our Father in heaven to do the work they are doing, themselves, and in the end, we can only help people to the extent that people want to help themselves.

Bob Betts

06-03-2009, 05:35 PM

Okay. You asked for it, so I'll give it to you.

... right after I finish responding to this post.

All the answers God has given to me, so far, yes, I do believe that.

The members of the Church have 3 objectives, Bob.

One is to redeem the dead, which I do by helping out with family history research and going to a temple near where I am to fulfill ordinances in their behalf, which they can either accept or reject.

Another objective is to proclaim the gospel,, which I am doing here by talking to all of you "gentiles", and which I also do by talking to other people when I see what might be a good opportunity. And btw, I don't need to hear from you to proclaim the gospel.

And, lastly, the other objective is to perfect the saints, which I do by trying to help members of the Church learn more than they already know right now about what they should know and do to live in harmony with the true gospel of Jesus Christ.

Hence, there is more than one way which we can help our Lord and our Father in heaven to do the work they are doing, themselves, and in the end, we can only help people to the extent that people want to help themselves.It's too bad that Bat Man didn't respond to a thing I said. Maybe God told him not to.

It's been an experience.

dfoJC

06-04-2009, 11:09 AM

Same back to you, bro. I do understand that God will be the final judge. Just understand that at this point I believe I have already heard from God, personally, so I will be standing in front him with confidence in what he has already told me.

It's a figurative expression, dfoJC.

So, are you saying then that Jesus' death on the cross was figurative and not literal? If you believe that, then you have missed something of great import.

Paul didn't actually go up there and join Jesus Christ on the cross, nor was he on some other cross close to Jesus Christ when he was crucified.

The point is Bat Man, somebody had to die for salvation to be made reality. Remember Galatians 2:20, which is what we are discussing right now. When Jesus Christ hung on that cross He became sin. That sin was judged, condemned and punished, for you Bat Man. That means that not only did Jesus die for us, He died as us. This is what Paul is referring to when he states, "I have been crucified with Christ..." What took place on that cross is extremely personal, not just some event in history! Jesus knew what He was doing was going to bring Gods creation, us, back to the Father. That is what redemption is, is it not? To reestablish relationship with God, again.

Paul simply meant what I have already told you he meant. Paul accepted the fact that Jesus Christ was crucified for him and he accepted Jesus as his Savior who opened up the way for Paul to live a new life through Jesus Christ.

Btw, I believe we agree more than we do not agree on this issue, so don't look to find fault where there is no fault on this issue between us. The main point I'm trying to draw your attention to is that you can now look away from the cross and start looking forward, as long as you recognize what happened on the cross and what it now means to you in your new life.

Focus on your new life with Jesus Christ, rather than the person you were before you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Savior. Look forward, not backwards. Look to the Christ who now lives, rather than thinking about his death and the person you were before you accepted Jesus as your Savior.

The whole of my life is centered on God. I am now a New Creation, the old has p***ed away, everything has been made new. Why? Because Jesus died on a Cross. Bat Man, have you ever studied "death, die, died in the New Testament? You would just be amazed at how prevalent this issue was at that time, which makes it perfect for our time as well. And one of the most important aspects of belonging to God is that our "natural man," or, our "flesh," must die. That is the only answer God has for it. We can't reform it, we can't change it, we can't join a club to get rid of it. It must die. For if it does not, it will still yield control over us and more importantly, it will exert negative influence over you until it dies.

Good, then leave who you were behind and walk on in a newness of life.

... yes, through Jesus Christ, you do, if you now live for Jesus Christ.

Hold on there, bud.

If you were perfect, you would already be as perfect as God is, literally.

Do you really believe you are that perfect now, already ?

Do you really believe that you are now totally without any sin, whatsoever ?

Once again what I believe is spelled out clearly in Gods Word, here are some examples of what it says about this. John 15:3: "You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you." Please tell me what "clean" means Bat Man, it means "not defiled." It means "pure." It means that His Word is amazing and it has incredible power, and it also tells me that Jesus as the Word does an amazing *** at changing lives. Here is another great verse; Colossians 1:22; "To present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight..." And finally one more, Colossians 2:10, "and you are complete in Him, who is head of all principality and power." Now then, it makes no difference to me how much fault you find with me, before God, based on these verses, I am clean. Whole, without reproach. And once again, it is because of His sacrifice on the cross for me. I take no credit for this, it is HIM, and no other.

Watch yourself. Pride goes before the fall.

And you do error here my friend. I am confident, not arrogant. It is written, "I am confident that He Who began a good work in you will be faithful to complete it." This is a reference to sanctification, not salvation. I can be confident because the work of the cross is complete, it is perfect, it cannot be improved upon.

Stay humble, and keep pressing on to the ultimate goal of all you can be.

My life is also in the hands of our Savior, just as yours is, to some extent.

Would you like to know what I do to keep growing in the nurture and admonition of the Lord ?

Try living by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God, as I do, while always keeping yourself open to always learning more from God.

This Bat Man is very difficult at best for you. For have you not been taught that, "the bible is correct insofar as it is "translated correctly?"

That's good. I'm glad to see you realize that, as I also do, and that you do try to keep looking ahead rather than looking behind you, too much.

What I think you are referring to as "following what is written in the Bible" is what I refer to as following our Lord both personally and through his authorized servants, and yes, I do believe I need to do that to obtain every good thing I can possibly obtain in the future.

Because God had and still has more to say to us than is written in the Bible.

Talk to our Lord about all of this, dfoJC. If you're in communion with him, as you seem to believe you are, you shouldn't have much trouble finding out if he had a hand in all of that is going on in his true Church, which is what The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints actually is, according to what he has told me.

... and you and I arguing over this isn't going to change what he has told me.

I think we're done here, you and I.

I've now given you the message our Lord wanted me to give you, and it is now up to you to choose whether or not you will accept it, or reject it.

I am sorry Bat Man, the message you have given me is not in agreement with what God has spoken to me through His Word. At best what you offer me is nothing more than a "behavior modification program." That falls way short of what God has all ready given to me.

I am free from the power of sin. I have been made righteous before Yahweh. I don't need an organization with its "works" to change me. A Savior found me, He saved me, He redeemed me back to my Father, I am now His, I desire no other thing. My life is complete, lacking nothing and get this, I know what victory is in this life. I know what the Presence is in this life, I am accepted as one of the beloved of God. I am His friend.

What you offer Bat Man, with all due respect, falls way short of what God has all ready given.

I think finally it comes down to this. You are of a spirit and in fact I will go so far to say that the spirit that motivates and guides you is exactly the same one that moved Joseph Smith. And based on our discussion Bat Man, that spirit is not the same as what God has revealed in His written Word.

And according to Gods Word, I am of God's Spirit, the Ruach Ha Kodesh. I have been born again according to that Spirit. My life is no longer my own, I have been bought with a price, the life I now live I live for the Savior who gave Himself up for me! Is that clear? I pray so my friend. I truly do.

You are correct my friend. We are done now. Take care.

with kind regards,
dfoJC

BigJulie

06-04-2009, 12:03 PM

I am sorry Bat Man, the message you have given me is not in agreement with what God has spoken to me through His Word. At best what you offer me is nothing more than a "behavior modification program." That falls way short of what God has all ready given to me.

I am free from the power of sin. I have been made righteous before Yahweh. I don't need an organization with its "works" to change me. A Savior found me, He saved me, He redeemed me back to my Father, I am now His, I desire no other thing. My life is complete, lacking nothing and get this, I know what victory is in this life. I know what the Presence is in this life, I am accepted as one of the beloved of God. I am His friend.

What you offer Bat Man, with all due respect, falls way short of what God has all ready given.

I think finally it comes down to this. You are of a spirit and in fact I will go so far to say that the spirit that motivates and guides you is exactly the same one that moved Joseph Smith. And based on our discussion Bat Man, that spirit is not the same as what God has revealed in His written Word.

And according to Gods Word, I am of God's Spirit, the Ruach Ha Kodesh. I have been born again according to that Spirit. My life is no longer my own, I have been bought with a price, the life I now live I live for the Savior who gave Himself up for me! Is that clear? I pray so my friend. I truly do.

You are correct my friend. We are done now. Take care.

with kind regards,
dfoJC
dforJC, I am curious if what you say is consistent with your experience. You state that you are free from the power of sin. Do you find this to be true? Can I safely say you are completely sinless or do you find that God is still working with you to free you from sin? Is there anything in your life that you still feel like you need God's help to overcome? I guess, I mean, I have friends that are evangelicals...very good friends. Two of my closest evangelical friends have not spoken to each other now for about 2 years. Why would this be, if they are free from the power for sin?

Bat-Man

06-04-2009, 12:25 PM

Is that clear? I pray so my friend. I truly do.
Yes, that is clear, dfoJC. I believe I correctly understand your perspective, and I believe you correctly understand my perspective, generally speaking, even though there are a few things you said that I would say differently regarding my own perspective which I believe God has given to me.

And do you want to know what else ?

For some reason I have a song playing in my head now about how I honestly love you. Have you heard of that song before ?

It goes something like this: (music please)

Maybe I hang around here a little more than I should
We both know I got somewhere else to go
But I got something to tell you that I never thought I would
But I believe you really ought to kno-o-ow

I love you
(music: dum dum dum)
I honestly love you

You don't have to answer
I see it in your eyes
Maybe it was better left unsaid
This is pure and simple and you should realize
That it's coming from my heart and not my head
(actually both, but oh well)

I love you
(music: dum dum dum)
I honestly love you

I'm not trying to make you fe-e-el uncomfortable
I'm not trying to make you anything at all
But this feeling doesn't come along every-day
And you shouldn't **** the chance
when you've got the chance to say

I love you
(music: dum dum dum)
I honestly love you

If we both were born in another place and time
this moment might be ending in a kiss
But there you are with yours and here I am with mine
So I guess we'll just be leaving it at this

I love you
(music: dum dum dum)
I honestly love you
(music: dum dum dum)
I honestly... lo-o-ove you

Take care, bro.

dfoJC

06-04-2009, 03:45 PM

dforJC, I am curious if what you say is consistent with your experience. You state that you are free from the power of sin. Do you find this to be true? Can I safely say you are completely sinless or do you find that God is still working with you to free you from sin? Is there anything in your life that you still feel like you need God's help to overcome? I guess, I mean, I have friends that are evangelicals...very good friends. Two of my closest evangelical friends have not spoken to each other now for about 2 years. Why would this be, if they are free from the power for sin?

Yes, in my experience, I am free from the power of sin. In Gods eyes, I am dead to sin. In my eyes, I probably do mess up now and again, but I believe that is distinct from the Work of the Cross in my life. I also believe I am protected from sin because of what Jesus accomplished. God says it this way in John 8:34, "Most ***uredly I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin, and a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever. Therefore, if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed."

Now BigJulie, I can tell you just based on this verse that God delivered me from sin, all of it. I no longer serve it. I serve Him. I am free from it's power. I am free. Jesus' work on the cross was perfect and complete, He did not do "half a ***" in regards to Salvation.

Do I need God's help to overcome, yep, you need only ask my wife! I still exhibit bad at***udes at times, or I say the wrong thing and I hurt her etc. etc. However, that does not change what God has accomplished.

Your two evangelical friends grieve my heart. Do you think that how they relate to one another in this manner is sin? I am sure you think so, but what is important here, what we determine is sin, or what God determines is sin?

And that really is the crux of the matter, what is sin, how does God define it, and what does it look like experientially? I think we must consider these as well.

Anyway, take care BigJulie,
with kind regards,
dfoJC

Bat-Man

06-04-2009, 04:01 PM

Yes, in my experience, I am free from the power of sin.
How do you define "sin" ?

I define sin as anything contrary to the will of God, which is the will to do good continually, so me hearing you say that you are free from sin means, to me, that you think you are free from the power to do anything contrary to the will of doing good continually.

Does that fit in with what you believe, somehow ?

In Gods eyes, I am dead to sin.
Do you believe God can see everything as it really is ?

Me hearing you say that you are dead to sin means, to me, that you think you are dead to the will to do anything contrary to the will of God, which is the will to do good continually.

Is that what you really believe ?

In my eyes, I probably do mess up now and again...
Probably? Don't you know when you "mess up" or not ?

Look, to cut to the chase, I think that there is a difference in being a person who has been forgiven, on one hand, and being a person with problems to work out before becoming as perfect as you possibly can be, and as long as you are trying to be the best kind of person you know how to be, I don't see a really big problem.

The people with the really big problem, in my perspective, are the people who don't even try to be the best kind of person they know how to be.

dfoJC

06-05-2009, 11:04 AM

How do you define "sin" ?

I define sin the way God does. "Missing the mark." Falling short. The clincher for me, "offending God." You may wish to define it however you have been taught to. You say it is doing whatever is "contrary to the will of God. Then the question becomes, how do you know the will of God? I don't believe mormonism does.

I define sin as anything contrary to the will of God, which is the will to do good continually, so me hearing you say that you are free from sin means, to me, that you think you are free from the power to do anything contrary to the will of doing good continually.

Does that fit in with what you believe, somehow ?

You have redefined what sin is Bat Man. You seem to think that "good" and "bad" are somehow defining either not sinning, or sinning. Well, that is wrong. Doing good isn't the same as "not sinning." The biggest "sinner" on the face of the earth is capable of "doing good." Does that change his status of being a "sinner?" So, to answer your question, no, it does not fit in with what I believe.

Once again, you equate doing the "will of God" as doing "good" continually. How do you define "good?" More importantly, how does God define good? I Thessalonians 4:3 says this; "For this is the will of God, your sanctification:...As I am sure you know, sanctification means to be "set apart." What does that mean? Well it means that when one is born again by the Spirit, they are "set apart" from what rules mankind. That is, the sin nature.

You have redefined what sin is Bat Man. You seem to think that "good" and "bad" are somehow defining either not sinning, or sinning. Well, that is wrong. Doing good isn't the same as "not sinning." The biggest "sinner" on the face of the earth is capable of "doing good." Does that change his status of being a "sinner?"

Do you believe God can see everything as it really is ?

Me hearing you say that you are dead to sin means, to me, that you think you are dead to the will to do anything contrary to the will of God, which is the will to do good continually.

Is that what you really believe ?

Dead to sin means sin no longer has power over me. At one time in my life, I was under the power of sin. It ruled me. It separated me from God. Remember our discussion some time back? Where I said, "we sin because we are sinners, we are not sinners because we sin." Every Mormon disagreed with me." Bottom line is, sin is a reality, and according to what the Word of God says, I am free from the power of sin.

Do you disagree with this?

But for the one who has rejected the Cross and continues in their rebellion against God, this one is still, sadly, living under the power of sin. Lost, separated from God and living life in their own strength, in their own power and without hope.

Probably? Don't you know when you "mess up" or not ?

Listen Bat Man, I have a relationship with God. It is a good, healthy and beautiful relationship. If I sin, guess what? He lets me know. It is taken care of. Now, most likely you believe that because I may sin, I am still under the "power of sin." But for you to believe that, is simply a misunderstanding, or, possibly, you are badly taught, about what took place on the cross. Either Christs sacrifice took care of the sin problem once and for all, or it did not.

Look, to cut to the chase, I think that there is a difference in being a person who has been forgiven, on one hand, and being a person with problems to work out before becoming as perfect as you possibly can be, and as long as you are trying to be the best kind of person you know how to be, I don't see a really big problem.

Lets cut to another chase. From what sin were you forgiven? Just your past sins? Just your present sins? Just your future sins? All of them? None of them? You tell me what you have been taught and believe.

The people with the really big problem, in my perspective, are the people who don't even try to be the best kind of person they know how to be.

Good point, but there are others out there who "think" they are fine with God. But who are totally blind to the fact that what is ruling in their lives is what the Bible calls the flesh, or the old man. And what comes out of a person in that state does not please God, nor honors Him, this one continues to walk in rebellion against God. Salvation is what is needed.

with kind regards,
dfoJC

Bat-Man

06-05-2009, 11:25 AM

I define sin the way God does.
I'm sure you think you do, but how do you think I am supposed to know that the way you define sin is truly the way God defines sin ?

"Missing the mark." Falling short. The clincher for me, "offending God."
All of that fits well within the understanding of sin that God has given to me.

You may wish to define it however you have been taught to.
Yes, just as you may wish to define it however you have been taught to, but how do you suppose we're supposed to find out if the way we have been taught to define sin is truly the way God defines sin ?

You say it is doing whatever is "contrary to the will of God.
Right, I do say that, and I say that because that is what God has told me.

Then the question becomes, how do you know the will of God?
By learning from God, personally, as I receive faith directly from God.

I don't believe mormonism does.
What is true is true whether you believe it or not.

You have redefined what sin is Bat Man.
No, I've simply used my own words to describe what God has told me about sin, at least to some extent, and I say that because I could go on to say even more about what God has told me about sin.

You seem to think that "good" and "bad" are somehow defining either not sinning, or sinning.
Eh. That's not quite how I would put it.

There is nothing which is good which is sin, and there is nothing which is "evil" which is not sin. Bad and evil aren't necessarily the same thing.

Well, that is wrong.
I agree that what you said is wrong, but what you said is not what I said.

Doing good isn't the same as "not sinning."
If you do something good, what you did that was good is not a sin.

The biggest "sinner" on the face of the earth is capable of "doing good."
I agree. For example, a murderer is capable of not murdering people, anymore.

Is that the kind of thing you were talking about ?

Does that change his status of being a "sinner?"
If a man who sins stops sinning, and if God forgives him for the sins that he has already committed, yes, that does change his status as a sinner.

So, to answer your question, no, it does not fit in with what I believe.
Pity, because what I have told you is true.

I'll move on now, cutting this short, because you don't seem to be open for more.

dfoJC

06-05-2009, 04:21 PM

I'm sure you think you do, but how do you think I am supposed to know that the way you define sin is truly the way God defines sin ?

By studying the same Bible I study Bat Man, it is Gods Word, is it not? Try starting in Galatians 5, there is a wonderful list there, it shows us what sin looks like at the very least. However, I am sure you all ready know what sin looks like, you do have repentance as you are so fond of saying.

All of that fits well within the understanding of sin that God has given to me.

Yes, just as you may wish to define it however you have been taught to, but how do you suppose we're supposed to find out if the way we have been taught to define sin is truly the way God defines sin ?

May I suggest you study the Bible? It has the answers you are looking for.

Right, I do say that, and I say that because that is what God has told me.

By learning from God, personally, as I receive faith directly from God.

What is true is true whether you believe it or not.

No, I've simply used my own words to describe what God has told me about sin, at least to some extent, and I say that because I could go on to say even more about what God has told me about sin.

Eh. That's not quite how I would put it.

There is nothing which is good which is sin, and there is nothing which is "evil" which is not sin. Bad and evil aren't necessarily the same thing.

Your position in this matter is quite clear. You reject "sinful man." So, by the standard you live by, "there is nothing which is good which is sin." Do you honestly believe you know the motive of a persons heart, when by your standard you see them do "good?" Are you honestly saying that even if the persons motivation is to show people how "good" they are by doing something noteworthy, is this not selfish? Selfishness is a sin, it demonstrates a heart that wants to draw attention to itself rather than God. Can a person do "good" with a selfish motivation? Not by Gods standard. You judge others by their actions, but yourself by your motivation, this is called a double standard, this is sin as well.

I agree that what you said is wrong, but what you said is not what I said.

If you do something good, what you did that was good is not a sin.

I agree. For example, a murderer is capable of not murdering people, anymore.

Yet what if the desire to murder is still there? Does this mean he is free from the sin, because he doesn't carry it out? Once again, you offer no answer to the condition of a mans heart.

Is that the kind of thing you were talking about ?

If a man who sins stops sinning, and if God forgives him for the sins that he has already committed, yes, that does change his status as a sinner.

No, this does not change his status as a sinner. If a man stops sinning? How can a man stop sinning in his own strength? He cannot. In Gods eyes, with out the Salvation offered through Jesus Christ, a man remains in sin, and sinful. Do you mean to say that God only forgives the sins all ready commited? Not any other? You have a poor understanding of what Salvation is then.

Pity, because what I have told you is true.

No pity required. what you have told me is not true. Once again, what you present is a limited gospel. Limited forgiveness and absolutely no viable answer to the problem of sin in this life.

So Bat Man, how often to you sin? Does sin have control over you? Really good thing we have repentance, are you repenting every day Bat Man? Better make sure you are. There is just one thing wrong with this picture. Every time you sin, you repent, then you sin again, and repent again. Your old nature continues to rule, you are still in bondage. You have a problem, and Mormonism cannot fix it.

I'll move on now, cutting this short, because you don't seem to be open for more.

Move on then, I will do the same,
dfoJC

Bat-Man

06-05-2009, 05:05 PM

Move on then, I will do the same,
dfoJC
Would you like me to move on before or after I respond to your questions ?

FYI, if you're really not open to my answers, you shouldn't be asking me questions, and you also should try to avoid making ***umptions about what I believe until I confirm that you correctly understand my beliefs.

At this point I can see that you still don't correctly understand my beliefs.

dfoJC

06-05-2009, 09:15 PM

Would you like me to move on before or after I respond to your questions ?

FYI, if you're really not open to my answers, you shouldn't be asking me questions, and you also should try to avoid making ***umptions about what I believe until I confirm that you correctly understand my beliefs.

At this point I can see that you still don't correctly understand my beliefs.

My goodness Bat Man, I think you are being way oversensitive. Yesterday you are singing me love songs, and now this? Sheesh, I am starting to feel abused..

I read every one of your answers, but according to the Standard, they always seem to come up short. By the way, that is not my fault.

I don't understand your beliefs? And that has to do with what exactly? I understand your beliefs quite well, you, as you once stated, "are the Teacher." You have taught me Bat Man, do you now doubt your teaching?

Come on answer my questions, on second thought, don't. Let me ask this of you, would you please define for me according to Mormon teaching what the "old man" is? I am not talking about an elderly person by the way..

Have a great weekend Bat Man.

with kind regards,
dfoJC

BigJulie

06-05-2009, 11:02 PM

[QUOTE=dfoJC;18427]Yes, in my experience, I am free from the power of sin. In Gods eyes, I am dead to sin. In my eyes, I probably do mess up now and again, but I believe that is distinct from the Work of the Cross in my life. I also believe I am protected from sin because of what Jesus accomplished. God says it this way in John 8:34, "Most ***uredly I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin, and a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever. Therefore, if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed."

Now BigJulie, I can tell you just based on this verse that God delivered me from sin, all of it. I no longer serve it. I serve Him. I am free from it's power. I am free. Jesus' work on the cross was perfect and complete, He did not do "half a ***" in regards to Salvation. In a way, I can understand this. Sin grieves my heart. I still do stupid things, but it grieves me to see it and I desire change. I likewise believe that because of Christ, his atonement has covered all of my sins. It is then only I who reject or accept this atonement. I think I understand the point you are making here.

Do I need God's help to overcome, yep, you need only ask my wife! I still exhibit bad at***udes at times, or I say the wrong thing and I hurt her etc. etc. However, that does not change what God has accomplished. I know what you mean. God helps you to see what is right, and because of this, you can see what is wrong as well, but the atonement still works for me if I accept it. Is the difference between you and I the belief that you make a one time choice to accept and I believe that God always gives us our agency on what we accept of him. I'll go back to the young rich ruler who obviously believed in Christ because he sought him for answers in achieving eternal life. When Christ asked him to sale everything and give it to the poor and follow him, the young man (at least at the moment we see of his life) chose to say no. Was it a sin for him to say no to Christ even though he believed in him? I think Christ wanted to give him more than he wanted to accept and always gives us a choice.

Your two evangelical friends grieve my heart. Do you think that how they relate to one another in this manner is sin? I am sure you think so, but what is important here, what we determine is sin, or what God determines is sin? Do I think they are sinning in the way they relate to one another. I see them the same way I see the rich young man. They believe in God, but they are saying no to the healing he offers their friendship. Do I think this will prevent them from heaven? No. Do I think this will prevent them from the total level of happiness that God offers? Yes. So, in that way, yes, it is a sin. Anytime we turn from God is a sin, regardless of how small. To accept the full atonement, we must submit our full will to him---anything less, one becomes like the rich young man who knows the source for life, but doesn't want to submit fully.

And that really is the crux of the matter, what is sin, how does God define it, and what does it look like experientially? I think we must consider these as well.

Anyway, take care BigJulie,
with kind regards,
dfoJC I would really like your take on what sin is. I've done my best to explain, but will explain more if needed.

Father_JD

06-06-2009, 11:34 AM

...achieving eternal life...

Stop right there, BJ.

Eternal life can NOT BE ACHIEVED. :eek:

It's a GIFT.

And then LDS complain when we point out their soteriology is faith + WORKS, only to see them deny this! :confused:

James Banta

06-06-2009, 01:27 PM

Amen, and AMEN IHS jim

dfoJC

06-06-2009, 02:27 PM

[QUOTE] In a way, I can understand this. Sin grieves my heart. I still do stupid things, but it grieves me to see it and I desire change. I likewise believe that because of Christ, his atonement has covered all of my sins. It is then only I who reject or accept this atonement. I think I understand the point you are making here.

In Philippians 2:13 it is written, "For it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure." So, it is God working in me to will, and to do His good pleasure. You see, that is where the life is, Him, in me, doing the work. Does this fit with your belief about the atonement? Plus, it is more that "God helping me to see what is right...." This would be indicative of God being my "Manager." I don't want Him to be that. I want Him to be my all in all. So that my life reflects Him in every aspect.

I know what you mean. God helps you to see what is right, and because of this, you can see what is wrong as well, but the atonement still works for me if I accept it. Is the difference between you and I the belief that you make a one time choice to accept and I believe that God always gives us our agency on what we accept of him.

BigJulie, one of the things that I notice about Mormons is this whole belief in "free agency." Do you honestly believe that you have "free agency?" What makes it free? Also, are you suggesting that you have "control" over this free agency? (Just fyi, I divided this paragraph as I wanted to learn about your view of free agency.)

I'll go back to the young rich ruler who obviously believed in Christ because he sought him for answers in achieving eternal life. When Christ asked him to sale everything and give it to the poor and follow him, the young man (at least at the moment we see of his life) chose to say no. Was it a sin for him to say no to Christ even though he believed in him? I think Christ wanted to give him more than he wanted to accept and always gives us a choice.

The rich young ruler, quite a story. Did you know that many suggest that this rich young ruler turned out to be John Mark? Just a tradition of course, but a fascinating thought nonetheless.

Do I think they are sinning in the way they relate to one another. I see them the same way I see the rich young man. They believe in God, but they are saying no to the healing he offers their friendship. Do I think this will prevent them from heaven? No. Do I think this will prevent them from the total level of happiness that God offers? Yes. So, in that way, yes, it is a sin. Anytime we turn from God is a sin, regardless of how small. To accept the full atonement, we must submit our full will to him---anything less, one becomes like the rich young man who knows the source for life, but doesn't want to submit fully.

Yes, it is a sad state of affairs, for they are accepting second best. I am sure however that there are relational difficulties in every "group" on earth, wouldn't you think?

I would really like your take on what sin is. I've done my best to explain, but will explain more if needed.

This is what I call one of those "expansive" subjects. Sin has been, is, and will be till the end of time. You and I disagree about how sin shows up in a life, nonetheless, it does, and its effects are devastating.

Here is an ****ogy of sin that I like, the reason I like it is because it states my position quite clearly about the origin of sin in a very agreeable package. Tell me what you think!

A Worm in an Apple
How does a worm get inside an apple? Perhaps you think the worm burrows in from the outside. No, scientists have discovered that the worm comes from the inside. But, how does he get in there? Simple. An insect lays an egg in the apple blossom. Sometime later the worm hatches in the heart of the apple, then eats his way out.
Sin, like the worm, begins in the heart and works out through the person's thoughts, word and actions. For this reason, David once wrote, "Create in me a clean heart, O God."

Now then, sin, what is it? Well to start with, sin is the [I]source[I] of evil, to put it simply. In the Greek, sin is also defined as "missing the mark." What mark? Gods mark. The mark He established and maintains to this day.

I am sorry BigJulie, but I have to run just now. Thanks for responding. Have a great day and weekend.

with kind regards,
dfoJC

BigJulie

06-06-2009, 04:37 PM

[QUOTE=dfoJC;18655]In Philippians 2:13 it is written, "For it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure." So, it is God working in me to will, and to do His good pleasure. You see, that is where the life is, Him, in me, doing the work. Does this fit with your belief about the atonement? Plus, it is more that "God helping me to see what is right...." This would be indicative of God being my "Manager." I don't want Him to be that. I want Him to be my all in all. So that my life reflects Him in every aspect. I believe that God can work in me to do his will and pleasure, but only if I turn my will to him. That is the point of whether we really do this or not. Do we say we accept Christ, but then do not do his will? Do you remember the parable about the two, one who says that he will do the will, but then doesn't and then the other who says no, but then repents and changes his way and does what the Lord asks. I believe in every decision I make, I make this choice and it really is the only choice I ever have to make---do I do the will of the Lord in this moment or not? If the answer is no, then I sin, if the answer is yes, I don't--as sin is any time we go against the will of the Lord.

This is what I call BigJulie, one of the things that I notice about Mormons is this whole belief in "free agency." Do you honestly believe that you have "free agency?" What makes it free? Also, are you suggesting that you have "control" over this free agency? (Just fyi, I divided this paragraph as I wanted to learn about your view of free agency.) one of those "expansive" subjects. Sin has been, is, and will be till the end of time. You and I disagree about how sin shows up in a life, nonetheless, it does, and its effects are devastating. Free agency to a Mormon is the freedom to choose right from wrong. As I was stating earlier, we cannot chose our circumstances, we cannot chose our consequences, but we can chose whether we will chose to follow good or evil (God or Satan.) As we follow God, we become more and more free to continue making good choices. If we follow Satan, our choices become more and more limited.

The rich young ruler, quite a story. Did you know that many suggest that this rich young ruler turned out to be John Mark? Just a tradition of course, but a fascinating thought nonetheless. We can speculate all we want about what happened to the rich young ruler, but we only know for sure the information given in the Bible. The question I have is, did the rich young ruler sin? What will the consequence be if he did? If there is no consequence, then did it matter what he did?

Yes, it is a sad state of affairs, for they are accepting second best. I am sure however that there are relational difficulties in every "group" on earth, wouldn't you think? There are only relational difficulties when one turns away from God; those who are one with God are one with all those who are also one with God. Satan divides, God joins. Sin divides, love joins.

Here is an ****ogy of sin that I like, the reason I like it is because it states my position quite clearly about the origin of sin in a very agreeable package. Tell me what you think!

A Worm in an Apple
How does a worm get inside an apple? Perhaps you think the worm burrows in from the outside. No, scientists have discovered that the worm comes from the inside. But, how does he get in there? Simple. An insect lays an egg in the apple blossom. Sometime later the worm hatches in the heart of the apple, then eats his way out.
Sin, like the worm, begins in the heart and works out through the person's thoughts, word and actions. For this reason, David once wrote, "Create in me a clean heart, O God."

Now then, sin, what is it? Well to start with, sin is the [I]source[I] of evil, to put it simply. In the Greek, sin is also defined as "missing the mark." What mark? Gods mark. The mark He established and maintains to this day.

I am sorry BigJulie, but I have to run just now. Thanks for responding. Have a great day and weekend.

with kind regards,
dfoJC Yes, I agree that sin always starts in the heart which is why when God changes a person, he changes the heart and then lets the heart change the mind. This is the power of the Holy Ghost, this is the power of the still small voice in which God showed Elijah. While the world seeks to convince the mind of men, God works to soften the heart. But this is not a one way street, we have to be willing to turn our will over to him. The spirit speaks to our hearts. Are we listening?

dfoJC

06-06-2009, 07:30 PM

[QUOTE] I believe that God can work in me to do his will and pleasure, but only if I turn my will to him. That is the point of whether we really do this or not. Do we say we accept Christ, but then do not do his will? Do you remember the parable about the two, one who says that he will do the will, but then doesn't and then the other who says no, but then repents and changes his way and does what the Lord asks. I believe in every decision I make, I make this choice and it really is the only choice I ever have to make---do I do the will of the Lord in this moment or not? If the answer is no, then I sin, if the answer is yes, I don't--as sin is any time we go against the will of the Lord.

Free agency to a Mormon is the freedom to choose right from wrong. As I was stating earlier, we cannot chose our circumstances, we cannot chose our consequences, but we can chose whether we will chose to follow good or evil (God or Satan.) As we follow God, we become more and more free to continue making good choices. If we follow Satan, our choices become more and more limited.

I would like to suggest something to you BigJulie, do you think it possible that a persons "free will" is possibly not under said persons control? What if for example, that there is a power greater within that persons perceived "control that has the real control?" Is this a possibility? Or would you discount it as nonsense?

We can speculate all we want about what happened to the rich young ruler, but we only know for sure the information given in the Bible. The question I have is, did the rich young ruler sin? What will the consequence be if he did? If there is no consequence, then did it matter what he did?

There are only relational difficulties when one turns away from God; those who are one with God are one with all those who are also one with God. Satan divides, God joins. Sin divides, love joins.

I would disagree with that statement. Is this how life is for you? With every curt word, or every disagreement, every offense are you then not only separated from that person and God as well? Perhaps now I am understanding why repentance seems to be a daily thing for mormons. (No offense intended!)

Yes, I agree that sin always starts in the heart which is why when God changes a person, he changes the heart and then lets the heart change the mind. This is the power of the Holy Ghost, this is the power of the still small voice in which God showed Elijah. While the world seeks to convince the mind of men, God works to soften the heart. But this is not a one way street, we have to be willing to turn our will over to him. The spirit speaks to our hearts. Are we listening?

Your first statement here surprises me. You clearly state that sin begins in the "heart." You say that "sin" is a choice, which of course is soulish in nature, not spiritual (which the heart is). Are you of the belief then that whats in the heart is what one is born with? This sounds an awful lot like what the theologians call "original sin."

Yes, I am listening. And I often hear His still small voice. Usually when that happens, things shake...

Take care,
dfoJC

BigJulie

06-06-2009, 08:34 PM

[QUOTE=dfoJC;18668]I would like to suggest something to you BigJulie, do you think it possible that a persons "free will" is possibly not under said persons control? What if for example, that there is a power greater within that persons perceived "control that has the real control?" Is this a possibility? Or would you discount it as nonsense? Do you believe we are not free to choose? That we are under the control of God? There is enough scripturally that allows for us to believe we have a choice.

Pro 1:29 For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD:

Isa 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

The very idea of repentence and being called to repentence means that one is able to choose.

Why have you chosen ;) to continue to skip over the story of the rich young ruler....I think your answers here could explain a lot. Did he have a chose or not? Was it Christ's fault that he turned away sad? Was their a power greater than he that was deciding for him?

I would disagree with that statement. Is this how life is for you? With every curt word, or every disagreement, every offense are you then not only separated from that person and God as well? Perhaps now I am understanding why repentance seems to be a daily thing for mormons. (No offense intended!) I have read this response a few times and don't even understand what you are saying you think I believe....care to rephrase it to see if I agree? Repentence is daily to Mormons because choice is daily to Mormons. As I said, I believe that Christ covers my sins, but only when I make the choice for that. When I do wrong, repentence is that choice---remorse, saying sorry, apologizing to the person I have offended and forsaking the sin.

Your first statement here surprises me. You clearly state that sin begins in the "heart." You say that "sin" is a choice, which of course is soulish in nature, not spiritual (which the heart is). Are you of the belief then that whats in the heart is what one is born with? This sounds an awful lot like what the theologians call "original sin."

Yes, I am listening. And I often hear His still small voice. Usually when that happens, things shake...

Take care,
dfoJCTo me, the idea of original sin means that Christ's atonement has not covered the sin of Adam, which he has. You think that only the flesh is sinful---I disagree, we sin not only because of the flesh. If that were true, Satan would have no reason to sin. To sin is to go against God.

Mormons believe there is a part of who they are that has always existed eternally. When I asked an evangelical friend of mine "if time is not a factor to God, if you have ever existed, to God, haven't you always existed?" Her answer was "the potential of who we are has always existed." Then you might think of our "intelligence" (LDS term) as our potential--the part of us that God has always known prior to our creation. You believe that our "heart" is spiritual and therefore our spirits have some type of sin from Adam--is this what you are saying? Or if they have sin, we received it from Adam? Our spirits were created by God as well as our bodies. Both have the potential for either good or evil. (Do you remember the evil spirits that fled into the swine? Obviously, one does not need a body to do evil.) It is our choice. I would call that potential, who we are at the core, our heart. And that is what God has the power to perfect if we choose to let him.

dfoJC

06-06-2009, 09:19 PM

[QUOTE] Do you believe we are not free to choose? That we are under the control of God? There is enough scripturally that allows for us to believe we have a choice.

Yes, I believe we are "free to choose." However, our choice is controlled by "something." In the unregenerate person the choice he/she makes flows from that nature, which everyone of us is born with. And of course, God offers us Salvation to remove the influence of that nature, in other words, we come under the control of the Spirit. (I am referring to what the Word of God calls the "natural man," or, "the flesh."

Pro 1:29 For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD:

Isa 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

The very idea of repentence and being called to repentence means that one is able to choose.

Why have you chosen ;) to continue to skip over the story of the rich young ruler....I think your answers here could explain a lot. Did he have a chose or not? Was it Christ's fault that he turned away sad? Was their a power greater than he that was deciding for him?

I haven't "skipped over the story," I simply did not see it as important as you seem to think it is. However, I will say this. He absolutely had a choice, but something made him choose to ignore Christs invitation. What do you think that was? Who in their right mind would turn down an offer from the Messiah? I will tell you who, there are those who choose to listen to another voice, who accept the authority of that other voice and in so doing, turn down God. Does this make sense? Well, the Word of God calls that the natural man, or, the flesh.

I have read this response a few times and don't even understand what you are saying you think I believe....care to rephrase it to see if I agree? Repentence is daily to Mormons because choice is daily to Mormons. As I said, I believe that Christ covers my sins, but only when I make the choice for that. When I do wrong, repentence is that choice---remorse, saying sorry, apologizing to the person I have offended and forsaking the sin.

You state "Repentance with Mormons is daily." Of all of the beliefs of Mormonism I find this one of particular interest. Are you, or are you not under the dominion of God the Spirit? Please explain to me how you can say that, yet sin every day, so that you can repent every day? By your own word "when I do wrong," is this reference then to sin? Now, from what the Word of God teaches, you have a problem. That problem is sin. And it would seem that it is a daily occurance, in other words, the repentance you walk in is a "temporary fix" to a problem. Do you see this? Would it not make sense to you that Jesus Christ saved you from "all" sin through His Redemption? Are you familiar with the Scripture that says, "He who knew no sin, became sin, so that I might become His righteousness?" Is not a righteous person free from the power of sin?

To me, the idea of original sin means that Christ's atonement has not covered the sin of Adam, which he has. You think that only the flesh is sinful---I disagree, we sin not only because of the flesh. If that were true, Satan would have no reason to sin. To sin is to go against God.

Yes, Jesus has taken care of all sin. I do not believe "only the flesh is sinful." I believe it is through the flesh that sin manifests in an unregenerated person. Sin is not only "going against God," it is also insulting Him. We know that an unregenerate person has nothing to do with God. Sin however gets very, very personal to God when one of His very own indulges in it. This must not be so!

Mormons believe there is a part of who they are that has always existed eternally. When I asked an evangelical friend of mine "if time is not a factor to God, if you have ever existed, to God, haven't you always existed?" Her answer was "the potential of who we are has always existed." Then you might think of our "intelligence" (LDS term) as our potential--the part of us that God has always known prior to our creation. You believe that our "heart" is spiritual and therefore our spirits have some type of sin from Adam--is this what you are saying? Or if they have sin, we received it from Adam? Our spirits were created by God as well as our bodies. Both have the potential for either good or evil. (Do you remember the evil spirits that fled into the swine? Obviously, one does not need a body to do evil.) It is our choice. I would call that potential, who we are at the core, our heart. And that is what God has the power to perfect if we choose to let him.

This is also another Mormon doctrine that frankly does not make sense. It is this, that we somehow "preexisted." I do believe in "preexistance." However, according to His Word, there is only One who preexisted, that would be the Lord Jesus Christ. To ***ign preexistance to us would be to put us in the category of diety. Which of course is totally contrary to His Word. Your evangelical friend simply misspoke, or is ignorant of His Word, there is no p***age in the Word of God that would support such a belief. Yes, this is the Word of Gods contention, our spirits were born with a sin nature. This is why we sin. Romans is quite clear on this. I see no other alternative that would be supported by His Word. In this world, one does need a body to do evil, if this were not true, then dead people could do evil. Haven't seen that happen.

Good night for now BigJulie,
dfoJC

BigJulie

06-07-2009, 08:07 AM

[QUOTE=dfoJC;18681] Yes, I believe we are "free to choose." However, our choice is controlled by "something." In the unregenerate person the choice he/she makes flows from that nature, which everyone of us is born with. And of course, God offers us Salvation to remove the influence of that nature, in other words, we come under the control of the Spirit. (I am referring to what the Word of God calls the "natural man," or, "the flesh." Okay, as an LDS person, we are often accused of not being willing to look at reason or are illogical, etc. So, I want you to go with me step by step on this, okay? Your first statement was "yes, we are free to choose." Do you remember that I stated that we are only free to choose good or evil, and that is it. Now, I understand there are outside forces, good and evil, but I believe these outside forces, at least prior to one's conversion, is there for everyone. So, what makes the difference. What makes one person, when given the opportunity to convert, choose good and another choose evil? If God gives someone the chance to convert and the force is now presented for good, why do some choose otherwise such as the rich young man? And if he was obeying the commandments and sought Christ for understanding, obviously believing he had knowledge to save, why did he turn away sad? Why wasn't the force for good strong enough for him? Why was it strong enough for Peter? Is it God's doing when a person makes a choice---did he lack giving a strong enough force, or is it the person's choice?

I haven't "skipped over the story," I simply did not see it as important as you seem to think it is. However, I will say this. He absolutely had a choice, but something made him choose to ignore Christs invitation. What do you think that was? Who in their right mind would turn down an offer from the Messiah? I will tell you who, there are those who choose to listen to another voice, who accept the authority of that other voice and in so doing, turn down God. Does this make sense? Well, the Word of God calls that the natural man, or, the flesh. So, you believe "he absolutely had a choice." That is good. So, was it the flesh alone? What makes evil spirits evil if they have no flesh to contend with?

You state "Repentance with Mormons is daily." Of all of the beliefs of Mormonism I find this one of particular interest. Are you, or are you not under the dominion of God the Spirit? Please explain to me how you can say that, yet sin every day, so that you can repent every day? By your own word "when I do wrong," is this reference then to sin? Now, from what the Word of God teaches, you have a problem. That problem is sin. And it would seem that it is a daily occurance, in other words, the repentance you walk in is a "temporary fix" to a problem. Do you see this? Would it not make sense to you that Jesus Christ saved you from "all" sin through His Redemption? Are you familiar with the Scripture that says, "He who knew no sin, became sin, so that I might become His righteousness?" Is not a righteous person free from the power of sin? When one is under the power of the Holy Ghost, repentance should be more and more often--why, because you are now under the care of the refiners fire. You know what a refiner's fire is right--when you heat a metal to a point that all of the impurities start to come to the surface. When you choose God, he starts the process of santification. Santification gets rid of all your impurities. Step by step, you see them and then step by step, with Christ, you rid yourself of them. The atonement is not a temporary fix---it is an ongoing work of God to bring me to him in every way. Christ saved me from all sin, that is true---but he works within me every day.

When you asked if the righteous person is free from the power of sin--that force that influences one to choose sin over God---ask yourself if this is true? Are you free from this power, or do you still sin? You yourself stated that you are not perfect (ask you wife :)). Mormons believe that because we have accepted God, he is now working on us to purify us--but we always have a choice in that process. When you see your imperfections--do you apologize to your wife? Do you turn to God to help you never treat her in such a way again? Do you watch his power change you? You should be having this experience on a daily basis with not just your wife,but in all things in your life. The refiners fire continues to humble one as they are sanctified.

Yes, Jesus has taken care of all sin. I do not believe "only the flesh is sinful." I believe it is through the flesh that sin manifests in an unregenerated person. Sin is not only "going against God," it is also insulting Him. We know that an unregenerate person has nothing to do with God. Sin however gets very, very personal to God when one of His very own indulges in it. This must not be so! I am glad you realize that Christ has taken care of all sin. I believe this too. I am glad you believe that not only the flesh is sinful. I agree that it is through the flesh that sin is manifest in an "unregenerated person"---but it is through the flesh that sin is manifest in a regenerated person as well---unless you want to claim you are sinless. Our bodies, given to us by God, have a power to act in ways that spirits cannot. (This is why an evil spirit desires to enter a body or a pig---so they can act and why Christ would free a body from an evil spirit(s) and send them into pigs.) The body can be a place for temptations, but it is not the only place or spirits would have no reason to be evil. But our bodies certainly give us the ability to sin in ways that spirits alone cannot.

So, how does sin become very personal to God of the regenerated person? What does God do when "one of his own" sins? See, to me, a person who has been truly converted would never purposely sin--and yet they do sin? Why, because it is part of the process of santification. We begin to see our imperfections bubble up. Now we could say that Christ has covered our sins and not worry about it. Or we can understand that we are in the process of santification and continue to turn to God in repentance so that he can keep purifying us. I sure hope when you see an imperfection or a sin, you don't brush it off saying "Christ has covered it and therefore, I don't need to worry about it," but rather apologize to whom you have offended and turn to God again to help remove the sin (imperfection) that He, through his love, has exposed. ("Be ye therefore perfect, even as my Father in heaven is perfect." I don't think he was kidding, do you?)

This is also another Mormon doctrine that frankly does not make sense. It is this, that we somehow "preexisted." I do believe in "preexistance." However, according to His Word, there is only One who preexisted, that would be the Lord Jesus Christ. To ***ign preexistance to us would be to put us in the category of diety. Which of course is totally contrary to His Word. Your evangelical friend simply misspoke, or is ignorant of His Word, there is no p***age in the Word of God that would support such a belief. Yes, this is the Word of Gods contention, our spirits were born with a sin nature. This is why we sin. Romans is quite clear on this. I see no other alternative that would be supported by His Word. In this world, one does need a body to do evil, if this were not true, then dead people could do evil. Haven't seen that happen.

Good night for now BigJulie,
dfoJC This is another "evangelical doctrine" that frankly does not make sense. It seems there is no clear doctrine and, other than a few key points, people are free to believe what they want--hence, my friend did not mispeak....she is not ignorant to his word---she is an ***istant pastor--has received a certificate or what ever it is you go to school for to get a license to become a pastor, and is extremely intelligent. While you state there is no scripture to support this belief--there is scripture to say that God is aware of you prior to your existance if he is all knowledgable, then he is knowledgable of you before you were born. He is knowledgable of what choices you would make before you were born. That alone should give you pause to thought---how could he know you before you existed? And what would he call this knowledge of who you are?

Next, I do believe scripturally there is knowledge of our spirits. The Jews do not believe scripturally that there is "scriptural" knowledge of Christ in the OT, but because you believe, you can see it. I can give you scriptures that point to our pre-existance, but because you don't believe, like the Jew who does not believe in Christ, you will argue the meaning of the scripture as the Jew would argue the scriptures of Christ in the OT with you.

Finally, believing in a pre-existance does not put me in the same category with diety. What makes the big difference? Our natures. While God is perfect, I am not. God's nature is unchanging and perfect. On the other hand, God is working to perfect me.

Okay, so our spirits were born with a sin nature? Does that mean that God created this sin nature? Or has it always existed and he merely housed it in a way that it could now act or respond to that sin nature? You said you have not seen dead people do evil? In regard to dead people (while their body is in the ground), do their spirits still exist? Do you have proof of evil spirits? From the Bible? What about good spirits, do they exist as well?

dfoJC

06-07-2009, 03:39 PM

[QUOTE] Okay, as an LDS person, we are often accused of not being willing to look at reason or are illogical, etc. So, I want you to go with me step by step on this, okay? Your first statement was "yes, we are free to choose." Do you remember that I stated that we are only free to choose good or evil, and that is it. Now, I understand there are outside forces, good and evil, but I believe these outside forces, at least prior to one's conversion, is there for everyone.

"You use the term "outside forces." Is that all there is? Do you not believe that there are "inside forces" exerting influence on a person?

So, what makes the difference. What makes one person, when given the opportunity to convert, choose good and another choose evil?

My ***ertion is, and has been, that there is a force within us that if we are not aware of it, or, are aware of it and so follow it that influences or dominates a person that causes a person to choose however they choose.

If God gives someone the chance to convert and the force is now presented for good, why do some choose otherwise such as the rich young man? And if he was obeying the commandments and sought Christ for understanding, obviously believing he had knowledge to save, why did he turn away sad? Why wasn't the force for good strong enough for him? Why was it strong enough for Peter? Is it God's doing when a person makes a choice---did he lack giving a strong enough force, or is it the person's choice?

Bottom line on this Julie is that the person chose wrong because of their "perception." The rich young ruler. Here he was, a rich man who according to Luke's account kept the law. He had it figured out Julie. He went to Jesus to get affirmation for what he was all ready doing. He was content in his "religion." He was content in his life of wealth. But he wasn't absolutely convinced that he had all that he needed spiritually, thus his question to Jesus. Do you think our Lord did not know what was going on inside[ of this young man? Outwardly, everything just hunky dory, but in the end, he counted his earthly wealth to be of greater importance than what Jesus the Christ offered. My contention is that he gave in to what was going on inside of himself. This is what God calls the "old nature." Why did he go away sad? Because he knew that he had made the wrong choice. He caved in to what was going on in his inner man rather than what Christ offered.

So, you believe "he absolutely had a choice." That is good. So, was it the flesh alone? What makes evil spirits evil if they have no flesh to contend with?

Yes, I believe he absolutely had a choice, but the choice he made was the wrong one based on what he was listening to inside of himself. In the New Testament, there is only one word used for flesh, it always refers to our natural bodies. So what the rich young ruler listened to was what was in his spirit. That decision started there, and was manifested in his soul as sadness. Which of course is where our emotions are.

When one is under the power of the Holy Ghost, repentance should be more and more often--why, because you are now under the care of the refiners fire. You know what a refiner's fire is right--when you heat a metal to a point that all of the impurities start to come to the surface. When you choose God, he starts the process of santification. Santification gets rid of all your impurities. Step by step, you see them and then step by step, with Christ, you rid yourself of them. The atonement is not a temporary fix---it is an ongoing work of God to bring me to him in every way. Christ saved me from all sin, that is true---but he works within me every day.

Repentance should be more and more often? That only indicates that sin is more and more often, is this what you are meaning? Sanctification takes place in our souls Julie. The whole process of sanctification is overseen and orchestrated by the Spirit of God, who, through salvation dwells in our spirit. Sanctification as it is taught in the word of God is simply bringing our mind, will and emotions into submission of His Holy Spirit through the experiences of living in this world. The Word of God tells us that "in this world you will have tribulation, rejoice for I have over come the world." In the process of sanctification, I allow His Spirit to lead me, to direct me, but in the end, I can only cry out to Him and say, "help me Lord, I know that this part of my character does not honor you!" And, He always hears, and He always takes care of the problem.

When you asked if the righteous person is free from the power of sin--that force that influences one to choose sin over God---ask yourself if this is true? Are you free from this power, or do you still sin? You yourself stated that you are not perfect (ask you wife :)). Mormons believe that because we have accepted God, he is now working on us to purify us--but we always have a choice in that process. When you see your imperfections--do you apologize to your wife? Do you turn to God to help you never treat her in such a way again? Do you watch his power change you? You should be having this experience on a daily basis with not just your wife,but in all things in your life. The refiners fire continues to humble one as they are sanctified.

Yes, by Gods word, it is true. I am free from the power of sin Julie. I am free from sin. I am free not to sin. God looks at me and what does He see? He sees His very own child, made clean because of the life, death and resurrection of the Holy One. I am in no danger of losing that salvation. I am in no danger of ever being under control of my old sin nature, it was crucified with Christ. It is dead. I have been raised up with Christ through the power of His resurrection. My only goal in life is to please Him, to know Him and make Him known. And walk daily in His Presence as His child. To worship Him, to enjoy the freedom that He gave to me, did I deserve this? NO WAY! But because of Grace, I now walk in the light of Him and His Truth.

This is another "evangelical doctrine" that frankly does not make sense. It seems there is no clear doctrine and, other than a few key points, people are free to believe what they want--hence, my friend did not mispeak....she is not ignorant to his word---she is an ***istant pastor--has received a certificate or what ever it is you go to school for to get a license to become a pastor, and is extremely intelligent. While you state there is no scripture to support this belief--there is scripture to say that God is aware of you prior to your existance if he is all knowledgable, then he is knowledgable of you before you were born. He is knowledgable of what choices you would make before you were born. That alone should give you pause to thought---how could he know you before you existed? And what would he call this knowledge of who you are?

I contend she did misspeak. She may be the most educated person on the face of the earth, but as I said, she has no scriptural basis for that statement, thus making it nothing more than an opinion. Yes, God knew me "before I was knit together in my mothers womb" that however is no indication that I was an a "intelligence," a "spirit" or any other such thing before I was knit together in the womb. I have a beginning, however, I will not have an end.

Next, I do believe scripturally there is knowledge of our spirits. The Jews do not believe scripturally that there is "scriptural" knowledge of Christ in the OT, but because you believe, you can see it. I can give you scriptures that point to our pre-existance, but because you don't believe, like the Jew who does not believe in Christ, you will argue the meaning of the scripture as the Jew would argue the scriptures of Christ in the OT with you.

Finally, believing in a pre-existance does not put me in the same category with diety. What makes the big difference? Our natures. While God is perfect, I am not. God's nature is unchanging and perfect. On the other hand, God is working to perfect me.

Believing in preexistance however does make you "eternal." There is only One who is Eternal, that is, without beginning and without end. And not only that, He IS the beginning and the end, all at once. He is the "Ancient of Days." So to believe in the preexistance means that you do have one "god like" quality, or at least you believe you do.

Okay, so our spirits were born with a sin nature? Does that mean that God created this sin nature? Or has it always existed and he merely housed it in a way that it could now act or respond to that sin nature? You said you have not seen dead people do evil? In regard to dead people (while their body is in the ground), do their spirits still exist? Do you have proof of evil spirits? From the Bible? What about good spirits, do they exist as well?

No, God did not creat the "sin nature." Man chose it. Of course their spirits still exist. See Lazarus in Abrahams bosom. Of course I have proof of evil spirits, they are all over the New Testament. Good Spirits? Yes, there is ONE. He is God. He indwells the one who believes.

OK, I am tired, so I will be off for now. Take care Julie, forgive me, I know that I have jumped over a bunch this time, I will try to get to your other points a little later, OK? Thanks for your patience.

with kind regards,
dfoJC

BigJulie

06-07-2009, 05:47 PM

[QUOTE=dfoJC;18713]"You use the term "outside forces." Is that all there is? Do you not believe that there are "inside forces" exerting influence on a person? Yes, this is exactly my point. Where did this inside force come from? Did God create it? And if this inside force is a force for evil, where did it come from? Did God create something evil? When there are two outside forces applied, one for good and one for evil, what makes one person choose good and another choose evil? Where did this inside force come from?

My ***ertion is, and has been, that there is a force within us that if we are not aware of it, or, are aware of it and so follow it that influences or dominates a person that causes a person to choose however they choose. Good, I am glad we agree that there is a force within us. The question I am now asking is where did this force come from?

Bottom line on this Julie is that the person chose wrong because of their "perception." The rich young ruler. Here he was, a rich man who according to Luke's account kept the law. He had it figured out Julie. He went to Jesus to get affirmation for what he was all ready doing. He was content in his "religion." He was content in his life of wealth. But he wasn't absolutely convinced that he had all that he needed spiritually, thus his question to Jesus. Do you think our Lord did not know what was going on inside[ of this young man? Outwardly, everything just hunky dory, but in the end, he counted his earthly wealth to be of greater importance than what Jesus the Christ offered. My contention is that he gave in to what was going on inside of himself. This is what God calls the "old nature." Why did he go away sad? Because he knew that he had made the wrong choice. He caved in to what was going on in his inner man rather than what Christ offered. Where did this "perception come from?" Where did this force within him come from? He obviously was aware of truth. He said he was living the commandments. He was aware that Christ was a source of truth, so what prevented him? Why was there a difference between him and Peter (who chose to give up what he had and follow Christ?)

Yes, I believe he absolutely had a choice, but the choice he made was the wrong one based on what he was listening to inside of himself. In the New Testament, there is only one word used for flesh, it always refers to our natural bodies. So what the rich young ruler listened to was what was in his spirit. That decision started there, and was manifested in his soul as sadness. Which of course is where our emotions are. I am glad you understand that he absolutely had a choice. But where did this force from inside of him come from? Did God create it? If so, why did God not create it to choose good instead of evil? Where did this evil come from that was within his spirit, within his heart?

Repentance should be more and more often? That only indicates that sin is more and more often, is this what you are meaning? Sanctification takes place in our souls Julie. The whole process of sanctification is overseen and orchestrated by the Spirit of God, who, through salvation dwells in our spirit. Sanctification as it is taught in the word of God is simply bringing our mind, will and emotions into submission of His Holy Spirit through the experiences of living in this world. The Word of God tells us that "in this world you will have tribulation, rejoice for I have over come the world." In the process of sanctification, I allow His Spirit to lead me, to direct me, but in the end, I can only cry out to Him and say, "help me Lord, I know that this part of my character does not honor you!" And, He always hears, and He always takes care of the problem. Repenting more and more often does not indicate that sin is more and more often---it means the perception of the believer has changed so that he can more and more clearly see truth--as I am sure you would agree that there are plenty who sin with no realization of it. I am glad you realize that santification takes place within our soul. Santification occurs at that place within that indicates (like the rich young ruler) what choice we will make when we have the option. Yes, santification happens as we turn our wills more and more to Christ. Do you understand what it means when Christ calls himself the "refiners fire" (OT)? How often do you allow the Lord to lead you? 100%, 99%, 75%?? If you had to give it a percentage, how well do you think you do? You put it so beautifully,when you said "help me Lord, I know that this part of my character does not honor you." That is repentence...when the spirit shows us what part is not following---the sinner who does not believe, does not see his sin at all. The sinner who is being refined, sees his sins more and more clearly. The unbeliever may committ adultery and not even question whether it is wrong. The believer realizes that even looking at a woman and lusting after her is offensive to God. Santification is a cleansing process and repentence is part of the cleansing process. Repentence is when we recognize our sin, turn to God, admend our ways, and sin no more. Each aspect of our life needs refining and we cannot do it without God.

BigJulie

06-07-2009, 05:48 PM

Yes, by Gods word, it is true. I am free from the power of sin Julie. I am free from sin. I am free not to sin. God looks at me and what does He see? He sees His very own child, made clean because of the life, death and resurrection of the Holy One. I am in no danger of losing that salvation. I am in no danger of ever being under control of my old sin nature, it was crucified with Christ. It is dead. I have been raised up with Christ through the power of His resurrection. My only goal in life is to please Him, to know Him and make Him known. And walk daily in His Presence as His child. To worship Him, to enjoy the freedom that He gave to me, did I deserve this? NO WAY! But because of Grace, I now walk in the light of Him and His Truth. Are you? You stated to me that you still sin...that you still fall short of the mark (as we all do.) Does this force inside always choose good? Is your heart 100% purified? I understand that Christ has covered 100% of all your sins...I am asking if you have 100% turned your will over to him. If you haven't, then you are not free from sin. He has freed you, but you haven't accepted his offer fully--you are only part-way committed, as the young ruler was. I also agree that it is by his grace I walk, but if I see no sin, I am no different than the unbeliever who sees no sin. True conversion is followed by complete and total humility because while God covers our sins, he exposes them fully to us--only in such a way can we be fully purified--one by one the sins are exposed and one by one, he washes them clean. What does your real experience tell you? Do you see no sin in your life, or do you see the cleansing effects of the Savior as he works within you to change that "force within."

I contend she did misspeak. She may be the most educated person on the face of the earth, but as I said, she has no scriptural basis for that statement, thus making it nothing more than an opinion. Yes, God knew me "before I was knit together in my mothers womb" that however is no indication that I was an a "intelligence," a "spirit" or any other such thing before I was knit together in the womb. I have a beginning, however, I will not have an end. Well, first off, I hear that evangelicals believe that all they have to believe in is the essentials to be saved---and then I see them argue over things like this.

Regardless, you give a good scripture to explain the truth, and then you attempt to explain it away. You just spent some much time explaining to me the force within, now you deny it exists in the next breath. The only thing I can believe is that you think God created this force within and he did it in a way that some have a more wicked force and others a less wicked force. As Mormons, we don't blame our behavior on God, or on the fact that he gives us choice, we recognize that there are some things about us that are inherently only us.

Believing in preexistance however does make you "eternal." There is only One who is Eternal, that is, without beginning and without end. And not only that, He IS the beginning and the end, all at once. He is the "Ancient of Days." So to believe in the preexistance means that you do have one "god like" quality, or at least you believe you do. I pray that I have more than one "godlike quality." God tells me that I am created in his image and in his likeness and then he "breathed" into me, the breath of life, so that I can be a living soul. When he gave his disciples, he breathed on them and said receive the Holy Ghost---yet they were already alive, and they believed in Christ---thus, breathing life into one has a much deeper meaning than creating out of nothing.

No, God did not creat the "sin nature." Man chose it. Of course their spirits still exist. See Lazarus in Abrahams bosom. Of course I have proof of evil spirits, they are all over the New Testament. Good Spirits? Yes, there is ONE. He is God. He indwells the one who believes. How do you chose what does not exist? If it is not created by God...how did we choose it? So, our sin nature was not created by God---our nature to sin was not created, but it exists for us to choose---and that is the whole point. It is the force within. It is the part God knew before we were knit together in the womb.

And when a spirit follows God, I am going to ***ume, it likewise becomes a good spirit. So, we can see, that it does not require a body to choose good or evil. It is not our bodies that are evil---our bodies only give us a vehicle in which to act on the "force within" or our nature---who we are----the part of us that directs us when we are presented with good and evil--the part that is inherently ours alone. (We can't blame it on God for creating it, or on Satan for influencing it...it is ours alone, and we can either turn to God and be perfected in him, or give it over to Satan---there is no other choice. As I said before, the only choice we have it whether we choose good or whether we choose evil.)

dfoJC

06-07-2009, 09:40 PM

Are you? You stated to me that you still sin...that you still fall short of the mark (as we all do.) Does this force inside always choose good? Is your heart 100% purified? I understand that Christ has covered 100% of all your sins...I am asking if you have 100% turned your will over to him. If you haven't, then you are not free from sin. He has freed you, but you haven't accepted his offer fully--you are only part-way committed, as the young ruler was. I also agree that it is by his grace I walk, but if I see no sin, I am no different than the unbeliever who sees no sin. True conversion is followed by complete and total humility because while God covers our sins, he exposes them fully to us--only in such a way can we be fully purified--one by one the sins are exposed and one by one, he washes them clean. What does your real experience tell you? Do you see no sin in your life, or do you see the cleansing effects of the Savior as he works within you to change that "force within."

In the eyes of God, I am free of sin. He fixed it Julie. He is God, He can do that. Yes, Julie, my heart is 100% purified because of the indwelling of His Spirit. Yes, Julie, my will, my mind, my emotions and my physical body are all His. I have been through so many refiners fires, I smell like smoke. The faith that I walk in today is according to God, pure gold. As I have stated before, the "force" within which the Bible calls the "old man" is dead.

Well, first off, I hear that evangelicals believe that all they have to believe in is the essentials to be saved---and then I see them argue over things like this.

Well, secondly, I do not know your friend. If I was to discuss the "essentials" with her, I am sure we would agree. However, her statement about "potential" is not an essential. As I stated before, it is an opinion, and she is en***led to it, I don't agree with it.

Regardless, you give a good scripture to explain the truth, and then you attempt to explain it away. You just spent some much time explaining to me the force within, now you deny it exists in the next breath. The only thing I can believe is that you think God created this force within and he did it in a way that some have a more wicked force and others a less wicked force. As Mormons, we don't blame our behavior on God, or on the fact that he gives us choice, we recognize that there are some things about us that are inherently only us.

I pray that I have more than one "godlike quality." God tells me that I am created in his image and in his likeness and then he "breathed" into me, the breath of life, so that I can be a living soul. When he gave his disciples, he breathed on them and said receive the Holy Ghost---yet they were already alive, and they believed in Christ---thus, breathing life into one has a much deeper meaning than creating out of nothing.

So, at first you deny that being a "spirit" before you were born does not make you have a "characteristic" of God, to, "I hope I have more than one "godlike quality." Which is it Julie? Do you have "godlike qualities, or don't you?

How do you chose what does not exist? If it is not created by God...how did we choose it? So, our sin nature was not created by God---our nature to sin was not created, but it exists for us to choose---and that is the whole point. It is the force within. It is the part God knew before we were knit together in the womb.

Let me respond to this by asking a question. Did Adam and Eve have spirit, soul and body? Did they have what we have in that regard?

And when a spirit follows God, I am going to ***ume, it likewise becomes a good spirit. So, we can see, that it does not require a body to choose good or evil. It is not our bodies that are evil---our bodies only give us a vehicle in which to act on the "force within" or our nature---who we are----the part of us that directs us when we are presented with good and evil--the part that is inherently ours alone. (We can't blame it on God for creating it, or on Satan for influencing it...it is ours alone, and we can either turn to God and be perfected in him, or give it over to Satan---there is no other choice. As I said before, the only choice we have it whether we choose good or whether we choose evil.)

Only a "spirit of a man" that has been redeemed, made new and the old has died, only then can the "spirit of that man" follow God. How do you view salvation Julie? What happens in the spirit of a man when God takes up residence there? You see, everything we are discussing here depends greatly on this single fact. If one is not "Born again from above" that man continues to walk according to the dictates of that which rules his spirit man, which, according to the Bible is sin and death.

Good night for now,
with kind regards,
dfoJC

Bat-Man

06-08-2009, 10:25 AM

My goodness Bat Man, I think you are being way oversensitive. Yesterday you are singing me love songs, and now this? Sheesh, I am starting to feel abused.
I'm simply telling you that I don't think you are open to my teachings, dfoJC.

You could clear that up real quick by telling me you are open, or you could just confirm the feeling that I have that you are not open to my teachings.

It's up to you. I'm really not here to talk to myself.

I read every one of your answers, but according to the Standard, they always seem to come up short. By the way, that is not my fault.
My answers may come up short to your Standard, but my answers are perfectly clear and perfectly true to me while also being in perfect harmony with God who is my Standard as the one who provides my answers.

I don't understand your beliefs? And that has to do with what exactly? I understand your beliefs quite well, you, as you once stated, "are the Teacher." You have taught me Bat Man, do you now doubt your teaching?
No, I don't doubt my teaching, or my efforts to try to teach you.

I doubt that you correctly understand my teaching even though I have done all that I could to try to teach you what God has taught me.

Come on answer my questions, on second thought, don't.
That's what I thought.

Sometimes you ask, but you really don't want to hear my answers.

Let me ask this of you, would you please define for me according to Mormon teaching what the "old man" is? I am not talking about an elderly person by the way..
In my perspective, as it applies to me, the "old man" is who I was before I was born again through Jesus Christ in the "Way" Jesus Christ gave birth to me, which was through the power of the Holy Ghost.

Goodbye, dfoJC.

BigJulie

06-08-2009, 01:44 PM

dfoJC, if you take a quote off the front and from the back, it would make it much easier to post with you...I will keep doing the work, but it would be nice. :)

[QUOTE=dfoJC;18733] In the eyes of God, I am free of sin. He fixed it Julie. He is God, He can do that. Yes, Julie, my heart is 100% purified because of the indwelling of His Spirit. Yes, Julie, my will, my mind, my emotions and my physical body are all His. I have been through so many refiners fires, I smell like smoke. The faith that I walk in today is according to God, pure gold. As I have stated before, the "force" within which the Bible calls the "old man" is dead. Then, once again, we are back to the same question I asked in the beginning--do you see that you never sin in your life anymore? Has God finished the purifying process or is he still working in you to change you? For me, I am still in the process---I still have plenty of imperfection---the fact that I see them tells me that God is still working with me. This is why God came into the world, to make blind men seeing.

So, at first you deny that being a "spirit" before you were born does not make you have a "characteristic" of God, to, "I hope I have more than one "godlike quality." Which is it Julie? Do you have "godlike qualities, or don't you? What? Cann you please show me where I state that being a "spirit" before I was born does not make me have a "characterisitic of God?" I am wondering where I confused you. Please keep in mind, there is a difference in this potential or "force within" and a spirit. If I have not explained this well enough, please let me know what is confusing you and I will explain further.

Let me respond to this by asking a question. Did Adam and Eve have spirit, soul and body? Did they have what we have in that regard? Yes. Now do you want to answer me question?....

How do you chose what does not exist? If it is not created by God...how did we choose it? So, our sin nature was not created by God---our nature to sin was not created, but it exists for us to choose---and that is the whole point. It is the force within. It is the part God knew before we were knit together in the womb. (Keep in mind, we have already discussed that spirits can be wicked without a body---so it does not require a body to be wicked :))

Only a "spirit of a man" that has been redeemed, made new and the old has died, only then can the "spirit of that man" follow God. How do you view salvation Julie? What happens in the spirit of a man when God takes up residence there? You see, everything we are discussing here depends greatly on this single fact. If one is not "Born again from above" that man continues to walk according to the dictates of that which rules his spirit man, which, according to the Bible is sin and death. I already told you exactly what happens when God takes up residence in the spirit of a man---you began to be refined---you begin to see your impurities as God is the refiners fire and the fullers soap.

Here is an example:

A man is an adulterer and does not see a problem with it because this is what he sees around him as other men doing.

He is taught the gospel. He has two choices, either to accept the spirit he feels or ignore it.

If he chooses to accept the spirit he feels, he is feeling remorse for his behavior of adultery and knows he needs to repent. He does and is baptized and received the Holy Ghost---now the real work begins for the man (Christ has atoned for all of his sins, all of the mans sins are covered--but the man is just beginning to see his sins.)

The man no longer committs adultery, but continues to watch movies that degrade human relationships. The spirit *****s him again. He realizes that this is not good, so he repents and stops watching the bad movies through the help of God. He feels better and so does his wife.

The man no longer watches bad movies, but he continues to use language that is degrading toward women. The spirit *****s him again. He realizes that this is not good, so he repents and stops using vulgar language through the help of God. He feels better and so does his wife.

The man no longer using vulgar language, but his eyes wander when he sees a woman scantily clad. The spirit *****s him again. He realizes this is not good and so he repents and avoids looking at such women through the help of God. He feels better and so does his wife.

The man now avoids looking at scantily clad women, but he doesn't always treat his wife with the utmost respect. The spirit *****s him again. He realizes it is not good and repents and starts treating his wife with total respect in every way through the help of God. He feels better and so does his wife.

THis man has gone from treating his wife with the utmost disrespect, to the absolute total respect that can only come when one is fully cleansed by God. Now, I know that for some, this change takes place immediately---the go from utter sin, to utter perfection---but for most of us, it is a process. It is the refiners fire in which one by one impurities are shown us and then, as we continue to work with God, we are cleansed. This is only one example and there are many areas of our lives that need complete cleansing.

Do you honestly think you have reached a state of perfection and that God's work is finished with you and you have reached perfection? What do you see in your day to day life? What does God show you about you?

Bat-Man

06-08-2009, 01:56 PM

...Do you honestly think you have reached a state of perfection and that God's work is finished with you and you have reached perfection? What do you see in your day to day life? What does God show you about you?
BigJulie,
I think you're doing an excellent *** of describing how the process works, but realize that dfoJC may think he is perfect right now simply because the Spirit hasn't *****ed him yet about something else that he needs to change in his life now, and that while dfoJC may not be able to see anything that he needs to change in his life at this point, others who can see what he doesn't know yet can see that at some point the Spirit will ***** him in the future, if he hasn't already been *****ed by the Spirit and dfoJC is simply trying to kick against the *****s he has been feeling.

You know what I mean ?

Until we can see the problems we have, we can actually think we are perfect.

BigJulie

06-08-2009, 02:43 PM

BigJulie,
I think you're doing an excellent *** of describing how the process works, but realize that dfoJC may think he is perfect right now simply because the Spirit hasn't *****ed him yet about something else that he needs to change in his life now, and that while dfoJC may not be able to see anything that he needs to change in his life at this point, others who can see what he doesn't know yet can see that at some point the Spirit will ***** him in the future, if he hasn't already been *****ed by the Spirit and dfoJC is simply trying to kick against the *****s he has been feeling.

You know what I mean ?

Until we can see the problems we have, we can actually think we are perfect.
Yes, I see what you mean. This is why I state that if the believer is blind to their sin, they are no different than the unbeliever--God has not opened their eyes as they believe he has.

1Jo 1:4 And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.

1Jo 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

1Jo 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:

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

1Jo 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

1Jo 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

1Jo 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Bat-Man

06-08-2009, 03:05 PM

Yes, I see what you mean. This is why I state that if the believer is blind to their sin, they are no different than the unbeliever--God has not opened their eyes as they believe he has.
Think about what you are saying, or how that might sound to other people.

Each of us learns line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little, until we become as perfect as God is, both male and female.

The fact that you don't know every detail about how you are not as perfect as God is now doesn't mean you don't believe in Jesus Christ.

God opens our eyes so that we can work on some of our problems, and then once we make improvement in those areas God opens our eyes even MORE to show us some MORE problems to work on, with that cycle either going on until we become as perfect as God is or until we give up.

Someone not being able to see ALL of their problems ALL AT ONCE doesn't mean they are the same as unbelievers who can't even see there really is a person who lives who is known as Jesus Christ.

BigJulie

06-08-2009, 03:16 PM

Think about what you are saying, or how that might sound to other people.

Each of us learns line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little, until we become as perfect as God is, both male and female.

The fact that you don't know every detail about how you are not as perfect as God is now doesn't mean you don't believe in Jesus Christ.

God opens our eyes so that we can work on some of our problems, and then once we make improvement in those areas God opens our eyes even MORE to show us some MORE problems to work on, with that cycle either going on until we become as perfect as God is or until we give up.

I guess I should have explained better---when I say "sin"...I am not talking about specifics, I am talking about general---blind to the fact that they have any sin at all.

Someone not being able to see ALL of their problems ALL AT ONCE doesn't mean they are the same as unbelievers who can't even see there really is a person who lives who is known as Jesus Christ.
But the believer, above all things, understands they are a sinner---regardless of the depth of their understanding of their sin. I understand that you believe I am saying that if you are blind to your sin, you don't believe...I am saying if you think you have no sin, you are no different than the unbeliever.
Looking back at my words, I needed to be more clear...when I say blind to their "sin", I was not thinking of specific sins, but rather whether they know that they do sin generally.

James Banta

06-08-2009, 03:36 PM

But the believer, above all things, understands they are a sinner---regardless of the depth of their understanding of their sin. I understand that you believe I am saying that if you are blind to your sin, you don't believe...I am saying if you think you have no sin, you are no different than the unbeliever.
Looking back at my words, I needed to be more clear...when I say blind to their "sin", I was not thinking of specific sins, but rather whether they know that they do sin generally.

Then you are saying you sin? If that is what you are saying you must not love Jesus..

John 14:15
If ye love me, keep my commandments.
The Christian in his new creation no longer sins. AS Paul put it is is no long I that sins but sin that lives in me.. If you are still sinning then you need to take a spiritual inventory and see if you have had the new birth.. From what I see you saying here i's time for you to come to Jesus letting Him live His life though you.. IHS jim

BigJulie

06-08-2009, 03:42 PM

Then you are saying you sin? If that is what you are saying you must not love Jesus..

John 14:15
If ye love me, keep my commandments.
The Christian in his new creation no longer sins. AS Paul put it is is no long I that sins but sin that lives in me.. If you are still sinning then you need to take a spiritual inventory and see if you have had the new birth.. From what I see you saying here i's time for you to come to Jesus letting Him live His life though you.. IHS jim

ahhh, the sin that lives within me---I think that is a good way to describe the purification process---one is not purposely sinning, one is just becoming aware of the imperfections in which they abounded prior to being converted--as they bubble up during the refining process. But, as such, while we do not purposely sin, we are aware that we are sinners.

1Jo 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

1Jo 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Bat-Man

06-08-2009, 03:47 PM

But the believer, above all things, understands they are a sinner---regardless of the depth of their understanding of their sin.
I believe there's a big difference between a saint and a sinner, just as I believe there is a big difference between a believer and an unbeliever.

All of us have sinned and come short of the glory of God, except for Jesus Christ, and saints are those who put their sins behind them rather than continuing to live in them while having faith that Jesus Christ will forgive them as they do their best to become better people, individually.

I understand that you believe I am saying that if you are blind to your sin, you don't believe...I am saying if you think you have no sin, you are no different than the unbeliever.
... and I am saying that ALL of us still have things to work on until we become perfect people.

Looking back at my words, I needed to be more clear...when I say blind to their "sin", I was not thinking of specific sins, but rather whether they know that they do sin generally.
Okay. I think that was part of the reason we weren't understanding each other.

James Banta

06-09-2009, 06:58 PM

ahhh, the sin that lives within me---I think that is a good way to describe the purification process---one is not purposely sinning, one is just becoming aware of the imperfections in which they abounded prior to being converted--as they bubble up during the refining process. But, as such, while we do not purposely sin, we are aware that we are sinners.

1Jo 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

1Jo 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

1John 1:9
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

I thought you might want to look at this p***age again.. How much of a believers unrighteousness is cleansed? Some of it? Most of it? No, all of it!! If you have confessed before Jesus (God) your sin He is FAITHFUL and JUST to forgive us completely. No unrighteousness remains in the believer.. God has created in the believer a new heart.. We become a new creation:

2 Cor 5:17
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are p***ed away; behold, all things are become new.
How can anyone claim they are still in Sin if they insist that they belong to Jesus and yet deny that they are no longer in sin.. Sin to the believer is GONE. Jesus has taken it away. We are taught that it is separated from us as far as the east is from the west. He tell us that no one can take us out of His hand that would include ourselves.. Once we belong to Jesus we always are His.. NO MATTER WHAT..

Psalms 103:12
As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.
John 10:28
And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
Is that hard to believe.. I know it's part of a doctrine that most Christians believe that the LDS church denies.. We call it Once Saved Always Saved..
our sin is no longer a part of the people God has created in us through Jesus..

If God knows the beginning from the end. Doesn't He know who will come to Him and who wouldn't? YES! That is why a true prophet in getting a word from God must have a perfect 100% accuracy record. Anything else is not from God.. That is why Smith is giving a prophecy about the sale of the BofM copyright in Toronto which sale failed makes Smith a false prophet.. He was not 100% accurate.. We seperate so vastly about God's nature it is proper that you understand as President Hinkley did that the Jesus of the Church is not the same Jesus mormonism believes in.. My hope is we can start from that point and maybe look into the scripture to identify why God really is... IHS jim

BigJulie

06-09-2009, 09:12 PM

[QUOTE=James Banta;18922]
1John 1:9
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. This scripture makes my point very well---we should be confessing our sins daily as the cleansing process takes place, and our impurities rise to the surface.

I thought you might want to look at this p***age again.. How much of a believers unrighteousness is cleansed? Some of it? Most of it? No, all of it!! If you have confessed before Jesus (God) your sin He is FAITHFUL and JUST to forgive us completely. James, I beg you to look at the reality of your experience. According to you, you should never sin again---if you do, it is proof of one of two things---either you do not really believe, or that you do believe and the sin that is in you (that was part of you before you converted--is being cleansed. As God shows you your sin, you need to confess them. If God forgives all of your sins, why do you not need to confess all of your sins?

No unrighteousness remains in the believer.. God has created in the believer a new heart.. We become a new creation:
[B]
2 Cor 5:17
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are p***ed away; behold, all things are become new. The new creature who believes in God is now able to see their sin as they go through the cleansing process--James, can you really tell me that you never sin at all? Does anything in 1 John 1:19 lets you believe that if you sin, you do not need to confess it to God? Don't you realize that God sees all your impurities---he gives you a chance to see them as he cleanses them from you--and your confession acknowledges that you acknowledge him in this process.

How can anyone claim they are still in Sin if they insist that they belong to Jesus and yet deny that they are no longer in sin.. What does your experience tell you? I didn't tell you I was still "IN" sin, I told you that I still sin. Does that mean that I am purposely sinning? No, it means the more I believe, the more I see of my shortcomings and the help I need in Christ.

[B]
Psalms 103:12
As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us. But, as you can see from your real life experience, you still sin and still need to confess to God. He atonement has covered all of your sins, but you need to be an active participant in the cleansing process---you need to confess your sins as you see them.

John 10:28
And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
Is that hard to believe.. I know it's part of a doctrine that most Christians believe that the LDS church denies.. We call it Once Saved Always Saved..
our sin is no longer a part of the people God has created in us through Jesus.. But, I can look with my eyes and still see the sin around me with "believers." Christ has made a commitment to you, and he will not back down on that commitment, but you still have choice as to whether you sin or not and if you see yourself sin, you still have a choice as to whether to confess it or not.

If God knows the beginning from the end. Doesn't He know who will come to Him and who wouldn't? YES! But the point is, you don't know yourself completely. Do you know if you will come unto him fully and confess all of your sins? Will you be like the rich young man who, when he is shown his impurity of loving his riches, is unwilling to confess it and let it go?

Father_JD

06-10-2009, 12:02 AM

BigJulie

06-10-2009, 09:16 AM

You do well by pointing that although one who is redeemed in Christ, the one who is a "new creature in Christ" still retains the "old man", i.e. the sin nature which will not be purged until one of two events happens:

1. Either the death of the believer or...
2. Those redeemed who are alive at the Second Coming.

Because we still retain something of the old nature, this is WHY Christians are exhorted to righteous living and good works.

There is a strain of Evangelicalism that believes in "Sinless perfection" based upon an incorrect understanding of I John.

Completely purged? Yes, I don't think we can be completely purged until we experience the full glory of God. But, I don't think we have to die or be here at the second coming to have that happen. Elijah didn't have to wait, nor did many prophets. I think the purging process begins once we believe. This is why believers should see the "old man" bubbling up...things we didn't know about ourselves, but seen in the light of Christ. We then work with Christ as he refines and cleans. We see and confess, acknowledging that we see the work he is doing within us. We repent (confession), we try harder to forsake. It is possible to have a sure knowledge that one is completely cleansed prior to death--to witness Christ fully here on earth. Those I have seen this happen with usually die a short time later (which is sad for those who love them, but what a beautiful gift, to experience someone who is perfect...really.) The perfected person never says such, but there is an abundance of love about them that they shine. And the spirit can bear witness to your spirit that with God, all things are possible and that they are clean in every way. It is rare to find this person, but it does happen. (But salvation doesn't require that we are fully cleaned prior to death, it just means we have accepted the cleaning process and it is happening...regardless of the stage we are in.)

Father_JD

06-10-2009, 02:02 PM

Completely purged? Yes, I don't think we can be completely purged until we experience the full glory of God. But, I don't think we have to die or be here at the second coming to have that happen. Elijah didn't have to wait, nor did many prophets.

Elijah is an exception to the rule, Julie, and even then we're having to infer this. Other "prophets"?? Sorry, none in the Biblical record as to have accomplished complete SANCTIFICATION.

I think the purging process begins once we believe. This is why believers should see the "old man" bubbling up...things we didn't know about ourselves, but seen in the light of Christ. We then work with Christ as he refines and cleans. We see and confess, acknowledging that we see the work he is doing within us. We repent (confession), we try harder to forsake. It is possible to have a sure knowledge that one is completely cleansed prior to death--to witness Christ fully here on earth. Those I have seen this happen with usually die a short time later (which is sad for those who love them, but what a beautiful gift, to experience someone who is perfect...really.) The perfected person never says such, but there is an abundance of love about them that they shine. And the spirit can bear witness to your spirit that with God, all things are possible and that they are clean in every way. It is rare to find this person, but it does happen. (But salvation doesn't require that we are fully cleaned prior to death, it just means we have accepted the cleaning process and it is happening...regardless of the stage we are in.)

Sorry, no cases of anyone being "completely perfected", i.e. full sanctification this side of heaven, Julie.

Bat-Man

06-10-2009, 02:09 PM

Elijah is an exception to the rule, Julie, and even then we're having to infer this. Other "prophets"?? Sorry, none in the Biblical record as to have accomplished complete SANCTIFICATION.
What you don't know (or believe) could fill a book, Father_JD, or even a whole volume of books.

Just because something is not written in the Holy Bible doesn't mean it is not true.

BigJulie

06-10-2009, 02:16 PM

Elijah is an exception to the rule, Julie, and even then we're having to infer this. Other "prophets"?? Sorry, none in the Biblical record as to have accomplished complete SANCTIFICATION.

Sorry, no cases of anyone being "completely perfected", i.e. full sanctification this side of heaven, Julie.
Well, when I think of someone who is aware of the full glory of God, I think of any prophet who was walking and talking with God. If God is in your presence talking with you and explaining to you what to do, that seems like you are pretty close to complete purification---and then just being taken up to God---there is also Enoch. And then what about John who didn't taste death? And I think there are those that lead a life in which they are so purified, that the only step left is to die and have their bodies made uncorruptible. I think sometimes cancer patients go through a purifying process as they focus more on the eternities and seeing what is really important in life--it changes the way they treat people.

Father_JD

06-10-2009, 10:12 PM

Father_JD

06-10-2009, 10:15 PM

What you don't know (or believe) could fill a book, Father_JD, or even a whole volume of books.

Just because something is not written in the Holy Bible doesn't mean it is not true.

You provide NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE as to WHY to believe anything, "Mormon" to be true, BM. ("testimonies" don't count as anything "objective", but merely subjective, btw)

Perhaps you might recall what P.T. Barnum said...:o

BigJulie

06-10-2009, 10:59 PM

You're free to believe anything you want, Julie...just know it isn't "Biblical", that's all. You've equviocated "sanctification" now with some kind of imagined "purification" which is NOT sanctification.

Btw...the Apostle John most certainly DIED, despite what JS told you to believe. For you to prove him correct, all you've gotta do is have a 2,000 year old man who speaks and writes First Century Aramaic and Greek show up at your annual "Conference".

(I'm NOT holding my breath...)
Umm, you fail to think that it was possible that John was quickened, or translated without tasting death.

I found this on a Christian website:

This glorified state will be our ultimate separation from sin, total sanctification in every aspect. “Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is” (1 John 3:2).

To summarize, sanctification is the same Greek word as holiness, “hagios,” meaning a separation. First, a once-for-all positional separation unto Christ at our salvation. Second, a practical progressive holiness in a believer’s life while awaiting the return of Christ. Third, we will be changed into His perfect likeness—holy, sanctified, and completely separated from the presence of evil.

http://www.gotquestions.org/sanctification.html

Bat-Man

06-11-2009, 11:00 AM

You provide NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE as to WHY to believe anything, "Mormon" to be true, BM. ("testimonies" don't count as anything "objective", but merely subjective, btw)
Your repeated repe***ions of this idea don't make it any more true than the first time you shared this idea.

Objective evidence is truth, itself, whether or not anyone believes it, and I have told you that Mormonism is true because I know it is true, whether or not you believe it is true.

Perhaps you might recall what P.T. Barnum said...:o
Yes, I do recall something that I know that he said.

... and there actually is a sucker born every minute.

Father_JD

06-13-2009, 05:36 PM

So where is the OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE OF MORMONISM???

You have NOTHING.

Stop deceiving yourself...and Barnum was right when it came to Mormons...

Father_JD

06-13-2009, 05:40 PM

You're dealing again with the stuff of which Mormonism is made:

SPECULATION

All you can deal with is in "possibilities" but OFFER NO EVIDENCE.You fail to think that SPECULATON IS NOT PROOF OF ANYTHING.

John is DEAD. He has NOT shown up at your annual conference, has he??

Also, the belief that John NEVER died destroys the Mormon contention that ALL the apostles were dead and it took JS to RESTORE the imaginary Mormon priesthood. He was completely UNNECESSARY had John been here. Better consider that.

That progressive "holiness" IS SANTIFICATION.

alanmolstad

08-12-2012, 08:10 AM

ever try to come up with a list of names of the prophets that the Jews are said to have killed?......

You cant.

Yes, everyone always talks about the jews killing their own prophets.....
But should you ever try to do some research on the topic and try to come up with a big long list of names, you draw a blank.

RealFakeHair

08-13-2012, 09:03 AM

I'll use this translation of the text, which was given to me by HickPreacher:

Has anyone ever stopped to realize that the Jews or Israelites who stoned the true prophets of God were (in their own minds) following this admonition of our Lord, according to Moses.

Some true prophet of God would come along and basically tell the Jew/Israelites that they needed to Repent (however they said it), while possibly also conveying some other information that they weren't already familiar with, and just because some Jews/Israelites didn't believe that person was a true prophet of God, they would put him to death, usually by stoning him, and then go back to their usual business.

What do you think about that ?

Do you think God didn't realize some Jews/Israelities would put his true prophets to death because they wouldn't believe they were true prophets ?

Do you think God won't hold those Jews/Isrealites accountable for killing his true prophets, even though they may not have believed they were his true prophets ?

These scriptures are often used as justification to reject Joseph Smith as a true prophet of God, and I believe God will hold people accountable for rejecting Joseph Smith as a true prophet of God just as God will hold those Jews/Israelites accountable for rejecting God's other true prophets.

What do you think about that ?

Herbert W Armstorng?
Joseph Smith jr.?
Benny the Hinn?
Pink hair lady?
Pat Robertson?
Charles Taze Russell?
Real Fake Hair?
Ellen White?
Barack Obam? Don't know if he is an American though.
David koresh.
Timothy Drew?
Carl Sagan?
Edgar Cayce?
Jim Jones?
Beavis and ****head?
All the members of the, True holliness in God, Bible believers in Christ and full gospel Baptists Church of Turkey Branch Georgia inc.

alanmolstad

01-04-2015, 10:35 AM

I'll use this translation of the text, which was given to me by HickPreacher:

Has anyone ever stopped to realize that the Jews or Israelites who stoned the true prophets of God were (in their own minds) following this admonition of our Lord, according to Moses.

Some true prophet of God would come along and basically tell the Jew/Israelites that they needed to Repent (however they said it), while possibly also conveying some other information that they weren't already familiar with, and just because some Jews/Israelites didn't believe that person was a true prophet of God, they would put him to death, usually by stoning him, and then go back to their usual business.

What do you think about that ?

Do you think God didn't realize some Jews/Israelities would put his true prophets to death because they wouldn't believe they were true prophets ?

Do you think God won't hold those Jews/Isrealites accountable for killing his true prophets, even though they may not have believed they were his true prophets ?

These scriptures are often used as justification to reject Joseph Smith as a true prophet of God, and I believe God will hold people accountable for rejecting Joseph Smith as a true prophet of God just as God will hold those Jews/Israelites accountable for rejecting God's other true prophets.

What do you think about that ?
Well.....I think,

I think that Joe Smith was a conman...a rip-off artist who convinced others to believe his story and was so good at it that he talked even some men to offer him their wives and daughters for his own sexual perversions.

I think that Joe Smith was a child molester.

I think Joe Smith lied about every last thing connected to his finding the Golden Plates.

I totally reject the whole of the Book of Mormon,
I totally reject an teaching that Joe was a prophet.
I totally reject anyone or anything even slightly supporting any of the ideas that Mormonism was founded upon.

there, thats about what I think on that question