My Hearts Cry

[Charity]

Dearly Beloved,

LDS believe those of us former LDS that post here at WM are going to Outer Darkness. We've been lead away by the devil for not having a testimony of all the covenants and doctrines of Mormonism.

Evangelicals believe LDS have not received the Jesus Christ of the Bible and are unredeemed and thus are going to hell.

Is this the gist of it?

Do LDS tell us we're going to Outer Darkness and are concerned for us. Not that I've experienced.
Do evangelicals tell the LDS they're in danger of hell fire? Yes.

Do we speak the truth in love? Can the truth be accepted in any other way?

People are going to hell.

We are all beloved of God and He desires that none of us perish. How can we love those that are perishing?

This is not a rebuke. It's my hearts cry. I'm thinking outloud to myself and wonder what you think?

Why are you here at WM? Is this a forum where we defend the truth witout caring? Do we protect our hearts at all cost?

Sincerely in Grace,
Charity

[Vlad III]

LDS believe those of us former LDS that post here at WM are going to Outer Darkness. We've been lead away by the devil for not having a testimony of all the covenants and doctrines of Mormonism.

That's an incorrect statement. LDS DO NOT believe that someone who simply rejects the restored gospel after having received it are going to Outer Darkness. You might consider reading up on LDS beliefs again before making false statements like this.


Evangelicals believe LDS have not received the Jesus Christ of the Bible and are unredeemed and thus are going to hell.

This seems accurate.


Do LDS tell us we're going to Outer Darkness and are concerned for us. Not that I've experienced.

Good! Becasue as i said, that isn't LDS teaching. To tell you you are going to Outer darkness 1) would be disingenuious and 2) would make us guilty of making unrightous judgements.

LDS do not believe in a Heaven/ hell; P***/ Fail system of judgement and therefore we do not claim, as your Evangelical friends do, that you must accept OUR beliefset to go to Heaven or else you will go to Hell.


Do evangelicals tell the LDS they're in danger of hell fire? Yes.

Okay.


People are going to hell.

True.


We are all beloved of God and He desires that none of us perish. How can we love those that are perishing?

You can share what you believe. And then allow that person to either accept or reject your message.


Why are you here at WM? Is this a forum where we defend the truth witout caring? Do we protect our hearts at all cost?

For me, I am here to defend my beliefs from the constant barrage of attacks and twisted ideas that people who hate the Mormon church promulgate here.

I'm not here to seek potential converts. Those here that post regularly are just as convinced that Mormonism is wrong as I am convinced that it is right. So I don't expect anyone to change their opinion, just as I hope they don't expect me to change mine.

And I also use this forum as a means of pointing out how, for some, tearing down Mormonism is higher on the list of 'To-do's' than building up the kingdom of God.....and that speaks volumes to me about the kind of 'Christianity' that certain attackers of Mormonism are trying to peddle here...in that they are more concerned with Mormonism and why it is so bad in their eyes than they are with their Christianity and why it is so good.

[James Banta]

That's an incorrect statement. LDS DO NOT believe that someone who simply rejects the restored gospel after having received it are going to Outer Darkness. You might consider reading up on LDS beliefs again before making false statements like this.



This seems accurate.



Good! Becasue as i said, that isn't LDS teaching. To tell you you are going to Outer darkness 1) would be disingenuious and 2) would make us guilty of making unrightous judgements.

LDS do not believe in a Heaven/ hell; P***/ Fail system of judgement and therefore we do not claim, as your Evangelical friends do, that you must accept OUR beliefset to go to Heaven or else you will go to Hell.



Okay.



True.



You can share what you believe. And then allow that person to either accept or reject your message.



For me, I am here to defend my beliefs from the constant barrage of attacks and twisted ideas that people who hate the Mormon church promulgate here.

I'm not here to seek potential converts. Those here that post regularly are just as convinced that Mormonism is wrong as I am convinced that it is right. So I don't expect anyone to change their opinion, just as I hope they don't expect me to change mine.

And I also use this forum as a means of pointing out how, for some, tearing down Mormonism is higher on the list of 'To-do's' than building up the kingdom of God.....and that speaks volumes to me about the kind of 'Christianity' that certain attackers of Mormonism are trying to peddle here...in that they are more concerned with Mormonism and why it is so bad in their eyes than they are with their Christianity and why it is so good.

Jesus spent a lot more time and effort showing mankind the way to God and very little telling people they are on the wrong tract.. So let me take that example: You must be born again..NOT BAPTIZED, but have a life changing moment that connects a person to God, a rebirth. A person must turn away from the father of this world that they have always known and followed and turn to Jesus and except His works on their behalf and His Lordship over their life as their Father.. A person can't believe some idol of stone or of invention from the mind of a man can be that Lord. It MUST BE the Lord revealed in the word of God.. Anything but that LORD is not God but a idol. Christian are here to show you the differences between mormonism idols and the Bibles God.. IHS jim

[Charity]

Dear VladdIII

I am going on what former LDS Prophets and leaders have quoted. What's a person to believe if doctrines change? Thats why I love the Bible. It doesn't change.

Hell will have an end. ... After their resurrection, the great majority of those who have suffered in hell will p*** into the telestial kingdom; the balance, cursed as sons of perdition, will be consigned to partake of endless wo with the devil and his angels. Speaking of the telestial kingdom the Lord says: "These are they who are thrust down to hell. These are they who shall not be redeemed from the devil until the last resurrection, until the Lord, even Christ the Lamb, shall have finished his work. These are they who are cast down to hell and suffer the wrath of Almighty God, until the fulness of times." (D. & C. 76:84-85, 106.) As to the sons of perdition, the revelation says that after their resurrection "they shall return again to their own place" (D. & C. 88:32, 102), that is, they shall go back to dwell in the lake of fire with Perdition and his other sons. Thus those in hell "are the rest of the dead; and they live not again until the thousand years are ended, neither again, until the end of the earth." (D. & C. 88:101.) ... Since those going to a telestial kingdom travel to their destination through the depths of hell and as a result of obedience to telestial law, it follows that all those who live a telestial law will go to hell. Included among these are the carnal, sensual, and devilish -- those who live after the manner of the world. Among them are the sorcerers, adulterers, *****mongers (D. & C. 76:103), ... Such also is the fate of liars (2 Ne. 9:34), of "all those who preach false doctrines" (2 Ne. 28:15), of those who believe the ****able doctrine of infant baptism (Moro. 8:14, 21), ... "The sectarian world are going to hell by hundreds, by thousands and by millions," the Prophet said. (History of the Church, vol. 5, p. 554.) ... Thus, for those who are heirs of some salvation, which includes all except the sons of perdition (D. & C. 73:44), hell has an end, but for those who have wholly given themselves over to satanic purposes there is no redemption from the consuming fires and torment of conscience. They go on forever in the hell that is prepared for them.

I studied LDS doctrines and covenants and other scriptures said to come from Prophets of God.

You are here to defend. Why? Why if not to help others see the truth in love. I don't see this. Why take the time?. You could be sharing your gospel on those that will listen to you.

I do share what's good about Christianty. There is no end to the goodness of God. When I point out discrepencies it's not to tear a person down. God said that if He be lifted up He will draw all men unto Him. If His truth is spoken in love it will accomplish His purpose. It will either draw men unto Him or away from Him. If I become sounding br*** or clanging cymbals and not have love I am nothing.

Sincerely,
Charity

[theway]

Dear VladdIII

I am going on what former LDS Prophets and leaders have quoted. What's a person to believe if doctrines change? Thats why I love the Bible. It doesn't change.

Hell will have an end. ... After their resurrection, the great majority of those who have suffered in hell will p*** into the telestial kingdom; the balance, cursed as sons of perdition, will be consigned to partake of endless wo with the devil and his angels. Speaking of the telestial kingdom the Lord says: "These are they who are thrust down to hell. These are they who shall not be redeemed from the devil until the last resurrection, until the Lord, even Christ the Lamb, shall have finished his work. These are they who are cast down to hell and suffer the wrath of Almighty God, until the fulness of times." (D. & C. 76:84-85, 106.) As to the sons of perdition, the revelation says that after their resurrection "they shall return again to their own place" (D. & C. 88:32, 102), that is, they shall go back to dwell in the lake of fire with Perdition and his other sons. Thus those in hell "are the rest of the dead; and they live not again until the thousand years are ended, neither again, until the end of the earth." (D. & C. 88:101.) ... Since those going to a telestial kingdom travel to their destination through the depths of hell and as a result of obedience to telestial law, it follows that all those who live a telestial law will go to hell. Included among these are the carnal, sensual, and devilish -- those who live after the manner of the world. Among them are the sorcerers, adulterers, *****mongers (D. & C. 76:103), ... Such also is the fate of liars (2 Ne. 9:34), of "all those who preach false doctrines" (2 Ne. 28:15), of those who believe the ****able doctrine of infant baptism (Moro. 8:14, 21), ... "The sectarian world are going to hell by hundreds, by thousands and by millions," the Prophet said. (History of the Church, vol. 5, p. 554.) ... Thus, for those who are heirs of some salvation, which includes all except the sons of perdition (D. & C. 73:44), hell has an end, but for those who have wholly given themselves over to satanic purposes there is no redemption from the consuming fires and torment of conscience. They go on forever in the hell that is prepared for them.

I studied LDS doctrines and covenants and other scriptures said to come from Prophets of God.

You are here to defend. Why? Why if not to help others see the truth in love. I don't see this. Why take the time?. You could be sharing your gospel on those that will listen to you.

I do share what's good about Christianty. There is no end to the goodness of God. When I point out discrepencies it's not to tear a person down. God said that if He be lifted up He will draw all men unto Him. If His truth is spoken in love it will accomplish His purpose. It will either draw men unto Him or away from Him. If I become sounding br*** or clanging cymbals and not have love I am nothing.

Sincerely,
CharityAll this shows is how little you knew/know. The very fact that you're here preaching of Christ, means you are not a Son of Perdition going to outer darkness. What's sad is you may have rejected the LDS church, based on your understanding or by the understanding of critics.

[Novato]

Dearly Beloved,

LDS believe those of us former LDS that post here at WM are going to Outer Darkness. We've been lead away by the devil for not having a testimony of all the covenants and doctrines of Mormonism.

Evangelicals believe LDS have not received the Jesus Christ of the Bible and are unredeemed and thus are going to hell.

Is this the gist of it?

Do LDS tell us we're going to Outer Darkness and are concerned for us. Not that I've experienced.
Do evangelicals tell the LDS they're in danger of hell fire? Yes.

Do we speak the truth in love? Can the truth be accepted in any other way?

People are going to hell.

We are all beloved of God and He desires that none of us perish. How can we love those that are perishing?

This is not a rebuke. It's my hearts cry. I'm thinking outloud to myself and wonder what you think?

Why are you here at WM? Is this a forum where we defend the truth witout caring? Do we protect our hearts at all cost?

Sincerely in Grace,
Charity

Hi Charity:

I think your lack of understanding of the Lord’s Gospel shows through “big time” here. Charity wrote:


LDS believe those of us former LDS that post here at WM are going to Outer Darkness. We've been lead away by the devil for not having a testimony of all the covenants and doctrines of Mormonism.

I have not the slightest idea where you got this idea. One of the fundamental tenets of LDS belief is that almost all of Eternal Fathers children will inherit a degree of Glory.


40 And this is the gospel, the glad tidings, which the voice out of the heavens bore record unto us—
41 That he came into the world, even Jesus, to be crucified for the world, and to bear the sins of the world, and to sanctify the world, and to cleanse it from all unrighteousness;
42 That through him all might be saved whom the Father had put into his power and made by him;
43 Who glorifies the Father, and saves all the works of his hands, except those sons of perdition who deny the Son after the Father has revealed him.
44 Wherefore, he saves all except them—they shall go away into everlasting punishment, which is endless punishment, which is eternal punishment, to reign with the devil and his angels in eternity, where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched, which is their torment.
Doctrine and Covenants | Section 76:40 - 44

So only the “sons of perdition” so who are they?


31 Thus saith the Lord concerning all those who know my power, and have been made partakers thereof, and suffered themselves through the power of the devil to be overcome, and to deny the truth and defy my power—
32 They are they who are the sons of perdition, of whom I say that it had been better for them never to have been born;
Doctrine and Covenants | Section 76:31 - 32

You further wrote in another post, regarding this nonsense. Charity wrote:


I am going on what former LDS Prophets and leaders have quoted. What's a person to believe if doctrines change? Thats why I love the Bible. It doesn't change.

Can you please provide evidential data to support this complete untruth?

You then quoted the very scriptures that prove your OP in error. Charity hell is not “outer darkness". For goodness sake at least try to understand that which you blindly attack.

And then comes the “big Evangelical deception”. Charity wrote:


We are all beloved of God and He desires that none of us perish. How can we love those that are perishing?

Charity, out of the countless billions that have lived upon the earth, what %age do you think will be “saved” in the Evangelical concept of the Kingdom of God?

Novato

[Father_JD]

Thanks for demonstrating Mormon cognitive dissonance in which you can believe two mutually-exclusive truth claims at the same time:



LDS do not believe in a Heaven/ hell;

People are going to hell.


True.

:eek::eek::eek:

[Vlad III]

Thanks for demonstrating Mormon cognitive dissonance in which you can believe two mutually-exclusive truth claims at the same time:




People are going to hell.



:eek::eek::eek:

and thank YOU for 'demonstrating' your total ignorance of LDS beliefs.

Any honest reader (which excludes you, since you are apparently reading to find fault) can see that those are not two mutually exclusive things.

I said, "LDS do not believe in a Heaven/Hell; P***/Fail judgement." No, LDS believe in a gradation of Heaven; levels of Heaven and rewards. Not just the 2 places. It isn't either/or. That was the point.

Hell is a place reserved for the most wicked and Sons of Perdition. There will be people that go there. However, my response was that, unlike Evangelical theology, not all 'bad' people go to Hell. There are other rewards and degrees of Heaven.

Let me make it easier for Father JD to comprehend, as I see he is looking for fault here.

Evangelical Christians believe there are 2 options: Heaven and Hell

LDS believe there are at least 4 options: Celestial Kingdom (Heaven), Terrestial Kingdom (Heaven), Telestial Kingdom (Heaven), Outer Darkness (Hell).

So YES....some people will end up in Hell.
No, it isn't cognative dissonance to believe that and also maintain that we do not believe in a Heaven/Hell; P***/Fail system of judgement.

Yes, it is easy to see you finding fault and picking a fight. Is this what I can expect in MY lonely golden years?

[Bat-Man]

Dearly Beloved,

LDS believe those of us former LDS that post here at WM are going to Outer Darkness.
No, we don't believe that, or at least I don't.

I do believe you're not going to end up in the Celestial region of the kingdom of heaven because you're not living up to all of the covenants you made with our Father in heaven, but it's still possible for you to end up in the Terrestrial region of the kingdom of heaven and that may be the region of heaven that you are best suited for, now.


We've been lead away by the devil for not having a testimony of all the covenants and doctrines of Mormonism.
Well, either by the devil, directly, or from men who have accepted what the devil has told them is true.

Read up on D&C 76 and see which group you seem to fit in with the best.


Evangelicals believe LDS have not received the Jesus Christ of the Bible and are unredeemed and thus are going to hell.
Yes, and Evangelicals are wrong for believing that, in my perspective.


Is this the gist of it?
Yes, except for the part about Outer Darkness being your only option other than the Celestial region of the kingdom of heaven.


Do LDS tell us we're going to Outer Darkness and are concerned for us. Not that I've experienced.
Listen closely, Charity.

I believe the odds of you going to Outer Darkness are very remote, and that it is very likely that you will end up in the Terrestrial region of the kingdom of heaven, and while I would prefer that you go to the Celestial region of the kingdom of heaven, along with me, you can go wherever you want to go, even to Hell, if you want to, because our Lord will help you go to wherever you really want to go.


Do evangelicals tell the LDS they're in danger of hell fire? Yes.
We're all in danger of Hell fire, Charity. That possibility is open to each one of us, including all Evangelicals.


Do we speak the truth in love?
Sometimes yes, and sometimes no.

Telling people they are dishonest when they are telling you what they honestly believe is not nice, nor is it a sign of love, and there are even worse things than that done by some people of the Evangelical movement.


Can the truth be accepted in any other way?
Love is the only way in which truth can be accepted.

If you don't have the love of God inside of you, you're not going to accept the word of God.


People are going to hell.
Yes, and most LDS are going to the Celestial region of the kingdom of heaven... whether you believe that or not.


We are all beloved of God and He desires that none of us perish. How can we love those that are perishing?
We can love those that are perishing by trying to help them to both know and do whatever it takes to be saved.

From there, it's up to them to choose to do whatever it takes to be saved, just as it is up to each one of us to choose to do whatever it takes to be saved.


This is not a rebuke. It's my hearts cry. I'm thinking outloud to myself and wonder what you think?
I think you're right about some things, and wrong about some other things, and I suggest you go directly to God to find out what he wants you to do to be saved.


Why are you here at WM?
I'm here to correctly represent Mormonism, amidst people who seem intent on misrepresenting Mormonism, by sharing what I know and believe concerning Mormonism and why I believe what I believe concerning Mormonism, and during the whole process I am trying to point people to God as the one who can tell them what is really the truth inherent in Mormonism.


Is this a forum where we defend the truth without caring?
I care, but I can only do so much to help other people, which is why I direct people directly to God as the one who can help them to help themselves.


Do we protect our hearts at all cost?
I give my whole heart, and soul, and strength and spirit to try to help other people as I show my love to God, Charity.

There is nothing I have that I am holding back from God, or from my service to God as I try to help other people.

... and yet, even that, even all of me, is not enough to help people in the way they really need to be helped.

God is the one we should be pointing to, rather than our doctrines or even our faith that we have from God.

... and by "God", in this instance, I am referring to our Father in heaven, and His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit... the BIG 3.

[Father_JD]

and thank YOU for 'demonstrating' your total ignorance of LDS beliefs.

Any honest reader (which excludes you, since you are apparently reading to find fault) can see that those are not two mutually exclusive things.

I said, "LDS do not believe in a Heaven/Hell; P***/Fail judgement." No, LDS believe in a gradation of Heaven; levels of Heaven and rewards. Not just the 2 places. It isn't either/or. That was the point.

Hell is a place reserved for the most wicked and Sons of Perdition. There will be people that go there. However, my response was that, unlike Evangelical theology, not all 'bad' people go to Hell. There are other rewards and degrees of Heaven.

Let me make it easier for Father JD to comprehend, as I see he is looking for fault here.

Evangelical Christians believe there are 2 options: Heaven and Hell

LDS believe there are at least 4 options: Celestial Kingdom (Heaven), Terrestial Kingdom (Heaven), Telestial Kingdom (Heaven), Outer Darkness (Hell).

So YES....some people will end up in Hell.
No, it isn't cognative dissonance to believe that and also maintain that we do not believe in a Heaven/Hell; P***/Fail system of judgement.

Yes, it is easy to see you finding fault and picking a fight. Is this what I can expect in MY lonely golden years?

You just wrote, "They're not an either or", i.e. Heaven or hell...and then you go on to write that yes, people will go to hell.

You just can't see your own contradiction just like you can't see the Mormon contradiction of claiming salvation is a GIFT, and then bring back in works into the mix which means it's NOT a gift of all, but of MERIT. :rolleyes:

[Vlad III]

You just wrote, "They're not an either or", i.e. Heaven or hell...and then you go on to write that yes, people will go to hell.

You just can't see your own contradiction just like you can't see the Mormon contradiction of claiming salvation is a GIFT, and then bring back in works into the mix which means it's NOT a gift of all, but of MERIT. :rolleyes:

Exactly....since apparently you STILL cannot understand, let me help you out some more.

Evangelical belief = Option #1, Option #2

that's it.

LDS belief = Option #1, Option #2, Option #3, Option #4

If Hell is Option #1, it is PERFECTLY okay for an LDS to say that it isn't #1 or #2 and that's it. But it is also PERFECTLY okay to admit that SOME people will end up in Option #1 (Hell)

Senility is not very becoming of you.

[Charity]

Greetings Bat-Man

You responded by saying

I think you're right about some things, and wrong about some other things, and I suggest you go directly to God to find out what he wants you to do to be saved.

So I'm not saved either way? How was I saved as a member of the LDS Church? So my salvation then depended on being a member of the church and was conditional? When I left the church it was void.

Some LDS I've talked with admit they believe in another Jesus. They don't have a problem with announcing this just like President Kimball.

Just admit it. Then we can talk about the differences between the two jesus's

In His Light

Charity

[Charity]

Vladd III said

That's an incorrect statement. LDS DO NOT believe that someone who simply rejects the restored gospel after having received it are going to Outer Darkness. You might consider reading up on LDS beliefs again before making false statements like this.

Thats the problem Vladd III. When one reads everything on the admission into Outer Darkness its not clear to anyone. One leader in the past says one thing and contemporary leaders and memebrs another. It's simply not clear. The Gospel according to our Creator God is not confusing and complicated to me.

If I had left the church during the time of Brigham Young I have no doubt that my blood would have been shed for me in the Blood Atonement ritual.
Someone would have loved me enough to shed my blood so I could go to heaven.

What must I do to be saved?

Sincerely,
Charity

[Bat-Man]

So I'm not saved either way?
I didn't say you weren't saved either way. Where did you get that idea ?


How was I saved as a member of the LDS Church?
As a member of the (LDS) Church... aka The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints... you had accepted the ordinance of baptism by someone who had God's authority to baptize you with both water and the Holy Spirit, with the Holy Spirit being the one who would guide you as you exercised faith that you received from God our Father through Jesus Christ.

That's how salvation works for everyone, Charity, with the extent of a person's salvation determined by their level of obedience to the will of God as God directs them through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit and any other messengers who God has authorized to speak for God.


So my salvation then depended on being a member of the church and was conditional?
Yes, Charity, your salvation depended and still depends upon being a member of the body of people God saved and/or is saving through obedience to Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, and your salvation was and still is conditional upon your level of obedience to the will of God as God directs you through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.


When I left the church it was void ?
No, but you did limit how much you will be saved by limiting how much of God's direction you showed yourself willing to accept.


Some LDS I've talked with admit they believe in another Jesus. They don't have a problem with announcing this just like President Kimball.

Just admit it. Then we can talk about the differences between the two jesus's
I believe in the Jesus who speaks to me both personally and through his prophets and apostles, including his prophets and apostles of his true Church on this Earth today which is known to the world as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Which Jesus do you believe in ?

[Charity]

I didn't say you weren't saved either way. Where did you get that idea ?


As a member of the (LDS) Church... aka The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints... you had accepted the ordinance of baptism by someone who had God's authority to baptize you with both water and the Holy Spirit, with the Holy Spirit being the one who would guide you as you exercised faith that you received from God our Father through Jesus Christ.

That's how salvation works for everyone, Charity, with the extent of a person's salvation determined by their level of obedience to the will of God as God directs them through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit and any other messengers who God has authorized to speak for God.


Yes, Charity, your salvation depended and still depends upon being a member of the body of people God saved and/or is saving through obedience to Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, and your salvation was and still is conditional upon your level of obedience to the will of God as God directs you through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.


No, but you did limit how much you will be saved by limiting how much of God's direction you showed yourself willing to accept.


I believe in the Jesus who speaks to me both personally and through his prophets and apostles, including his prophets and apostles of his true Church on this Earth today which is known to the world as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Which Jesus do you believe in ?

Not your jesus. Why don't you just admit it ok? BTW thanks for taking the time. Do you post these messages at work or home. You don't look old enough to be retired.

[Charity]

Greetings Again Bat-Man

You said you didn't say that I wasn't saved. Below is your statement

I think you're right about some things, and wrong about some other things, and I suggest you go directly to God to find out what he wants you to do to be saved.

Sorry for misunderstanding the above statement. Your response in full explains what a non Mormon needs to do to be saved.

Sincerely,
Charity

[Bat-Man]

Not your jesus.
Okay, but remember that you said that, yourself, not me.



Why don't you just admit it ok?
I'll admit that you have admitted to not worshipping the Jesus I worship.

I'm not sure if that is true or not, though.

Would it help if I also told you that the Jesus I worship is the one who inspired men to write the Holy Bible, through the power of the Holy Ghost, and that the Jesus I worship is also the same Jesus who was crucified on a cross about 2000 years ago as part of his mission to save people from themselves ?

Do you still say that the Jesus you worship is not the Jesus I worship ?


BTW thanks for taking the time.
You're welcome.


Do you post these messages at work or home ?
Yes.


You don't look old enough to be retired.
Thank you, but I am old enough. I've been on this Earth now for 48 years.

[Charity]

Bat-Man

You said:

Would it help if I also told you that the Jesus I worship is the one who inspired men to write the Holy Bible, through the power of the Holy Ghost, and that the Jesus I worship is also the same Jesus who was crucified on a cross about 2000 years ago as part of his mission to save people from themselves

You either worship the Jesus of the Bible or the jesus of the LDS Church. They're not one in the same. They can't be both because they're opposed to one another where salvation is concerned and salvation is very important in Christianity. President Kimball said as much. Are you familiar with his statement? I would think a Prophet of God's knowledge would be sufficient. What's so difficult about saying it?Why beat around the bush.

What say you?

Charity





.

[Bat-Man]

You either worship the Jesus of the Bible or the jesus of the LDS Church. They're not one in the same.
Yes, they are the same Jesus. I deny your accusation.

I worshipped Jesus before I became a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, while I knew who I was worshipping then, and I'm still worshipping the same person that I knew then as Jesus Christ.

I simply know more about him now than I knew about him earlier.


They can't be both because they're opposed to one another
What some people say about Jesus contradicts what other people say about Jesus, but the testimony of Jesus revealed by prophets and apostles who wrote the Holy Bible is in perfect harmony with the testimony of Jesus revealed by prophets and apostles in these latter days in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.


President Kimball said as much. Are you familiar with his statement?
Yes, and what he meant is what I said in my response to you above.


I would think a Prophet of God's knowledge would be sufficient.
Then why do you reject what they have told you ?

[Charity]

Bat-Man

Is what Hinckley say below compatable with your belief of who Christ is?

"In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints 'do not believe in the traditional Christ.' 'No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak'" (LDS Church News, week ending June 20, 1998, p.7).

How do you define the traditional Christ?

Sincerely in God's Grace

Charity

[Bat-Man]

Bat-Man

Is what Hinckley said below compatable with your belief of who Christ is?

"In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints 'do not believe in the traditional Christ.' 'No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak'" (LDS Church News, week ending June 20, 1998, p.7).

How do you define the traditional Christ?

Sincerely in God's Grace

Charity
I believe President Hinckley was referring to a Christ who no longer reveals doctrine to his Church as he once did through the Holy Ghost and living prophets and apostles on this Earth as the "traditional" Christ, and the Christ I worship continues to reveal doctrine to his Church as he once did through the Holy Ghost and living prophets and apostles on this Earth now.

[Charity]

Yes, they are the same Jesus. I deny your accusation.

I worshipped Jesus before I became a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, while I knew who I was worshipping then, and I'm still worshipping the same person that I knew then as Jesus Christ.

What was your born again experience in the Lutheran Church (?) I mean do you remember giving your heart to Jesus?

I simply know more about him now than I knew about him earlier.

You don't mind that the Bible says no one is to add or take away from the Bible without consequences? You don't think this applies to how you think you know more about Jesus now? What you know is not in the Bible. Isn't that right? If Joseph Smith translated the Bible correctly then why didn't he include all the add on's you believe in?


What some people say about Jesus contradicts what other people say about Jesus, but the testimony of Jesus revealed by prophets and apostles who wrote the Holy Bible is in perfect harmony with the testimony of Jesus revealed by prophets and apostles in these latter days in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Your are absolutely right that what some people say about Jesus conradicts what other people say. It definitely doesn't mean that one of them is right and the other wrong. One wrong + One wrong= two wrongs.

The testimony of Jesus revealed by prophets and apostles through out the Bible being in perfect harmony with LDS Apostles and Prophets is so wrong.

Yes, and what he meant is what I said in my response to you above.

The reason President Hinckley said what he said is what many of us here believe to be true about LDS: You worship a different Jesus.


Then why do you reject what they have told you ?

I reject what your apostles and prophets say about who Jesus really is and I agree with what Kimball and Hinkley and others say in that some LDS believe in a different Jesus.

Why is this so important? Because believing in a false jesus will not get anyone into heaven. And I care about LDS.

Sincerely in grace,
Charity

[Father_JD]

LOL. Mormon reindeer games, vlad.

You're making it :

Heaven #1
Heaven #2
Heaven #3

vs.

Hell


doesn't solve your self-contradictory position of:

Saying Mormons don't believe in hell, but DO believe in three heavens and then turn around and state people DO go to hell.

[Vlad III]

LOL. Mormon reindeer games, vlad.

You're making it :

Heaven #1
Heaven #2
Heaven #3

vs.

Hell


doesn't solve your self-contradictory position of:

Saying Mormons don't believe in hell, but DO believe in three heavens and then turn around and state people DO go to hell.

Since I DIDN'T say the Mormons DON'T believe in Hell, I can understand why you are so obtuse to the LDS teachings. I'm sorry that the LDS teaching of 3 levels of Heaven AND a place called Outer Darkness still cannot sink into your understanding and you still are wont to misrepresent the LDS position.

Can I make it even easier for the Father JD? Maybe. Here goes:

Some people will end up in Heaven #1
Some people will end up in Heaven #2
Some people will end up in Heaven #3
Some people will end up in Outer darkness (Hell)

Sorry I cannot draw you colorful pictures for you to understand.

EDIT: You know, It's funny when you guys complain that LDS misrepresent your words/ beliefs. But yet you give a shining example of doing that very thing here; saying I claimed LDS do not believe in Hell. Scroll through the thread if you need to, but you'll not find that belief that you attributed to me. Do you intentially misrepresent others or is it just a sign of senility?

[Father_JD]

I know LDS doctrine only too well, vlad.

Listen to the reality of Mormon teaching:

3 heavens.
NO HELL

Although LDS pay lip service to "Outer Darkness" or "Hell" you guys deny the doctrine in practice...I mean you're the guys who believe MURDERERS, RAPISTS, all sorts of the most evil people imaginable will go to the LOWEST KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.

So why don't you get real, vlad??

[nrajeff]

So why don't you get real, vlad??
--- "Don't get mad--get VLAD!" For some reason that old Glad plastic bags commercial popped into my mind. Sorry. :D

[Bat-Man]

What was your born again experience in the Lutheran Church (?)
I was never a member of the Lutheran Church. SbT was, though.

My "born again experience" in the church I was once a member of before becoming a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints basically consisted of accepting the word of God and being baptized in water while allowing God to work with me through the Holy Spirit, at which point I had learned and was continuing to learn all I could from God as I felt God direct me through personal revelation to me and the writings I knew he had inspired other men to write.


I mean do you remember giving your heart to Jesus?
Yes.


You don't mind that the Bible says no one is to add or take away from the Bible without consequences?
That's a misunderstanding of what God said through men who wrote the Bible.

God isn't prevented from revealing information to his children, both personally and through other people, and when God reveals information to other people they generally write at least some of it down so that other people can benefit from what God has told them.


What you know is not in the Bible. Isn't that right?
No, that's not right, because a lot of what I know is in the Bible.

Someone wrote something which is now included in the Bible about how Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, and that is exactly the same thing I know, for myself, through personal revelation from God to me.

There are some things that I know that aren't written in any part of the Holy Bible, but those things are written that I know which are true are written in other revelations from God as men have written them down to share them.


If Joseph Smith translated the Bible correctly then why didn't he include all the add on's you believe in?
That wasn't necessary, Charity.

When a prophet of God reveals revelation from God, he doesn't have to tack it onto someone else's record of revelation in the same book or books.

The apostle John, for example, wrote his own book. He didn't record what he wanted to record in Matthew's record, or Marks' record, or Luke's record. He wrote his own book, or books, and somebody else then came along later to include them all together in the same book or volume of books in much the same way as we (LDS) have now done by putting together the "Quad".

We still have revelations that aren't a part of the Quad, though, and they don't need to be added together in the same volume as those other books.


Your are absolutely right that what some people say about Jesus contradicts what other people say. It definitely doesn't mean that one of them is right and the other wrong. One wrong + One wrong= two wrongs.
There are some people who have recorded the truth, though, Charity, and those are the people who have revealed the word of God to us.


The testimony of Jesus revealed by prophets and apostles through out the Bible being in perfect harmony with LDS Apostles and Prophets is so wrong.
No, it's not wrong. All of it is in perfect harmony, if correctly understood.

I deny your accusation that all of those revelations are not in harmony.


The reason President Hinckley said what he said is what many of us here believe to be true about LDS: You worship a different Jesus.
I've already told you that if you worship a Jesus who no longer reveals revelation to his church both personally and through his authorized messengers, you are not worshipping the same Jesus that we (LDS) worship.


I reject what your apostles and prophets say about who Jesus really is and I agree with what Kimball and Hinkley and others say in that some LDS believe in a different Jesus.
Okay, but as I've said, if you worship a Jesus who no longer reveals revelation to his church both personally and through his authorized messengers, you are not worshipping the same Jesus that we (LDS) worship.

We (LDS) are not the ones who deny continuing revelation from Jesus Christ both personally and through his authorized messengers, including his true prophets and apostles who are living today on this Earth... but if you do, then you are not worshipping the Jesus that we (LDS) worship.


Why is this so important? Because believing in a false jesus will not get anyone into heaven. And I care about LDS.
If you want to get to heaven, I suggest you start living by EVERY word that proceeds forth from the mouth of God, both personally and through his authorized messengers... including Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor... Ezra Benson, Howard Hunter, Gordon Hinckley, Thomas Monson, Henry Eyring, Dieter Uchtdorf, Boyd Packer ... the list goes on and on.

If you deny one true prophet of God who is actually speaking for God, with God's authority, you're in mighty big trouble, young lady, and I would not want to stand before God in those circumstances on the day of final judgment.

[Father_JD]

--- "Don't get mad--get VLAD!" For some reason that old Glad plastic bags commercial popped into my mind. Sorry. :D

LOL. You can add that to our "Evanly Father" John Calvin. :p:p

(That still cracks me up, jeff!)

[nrajeff]

LOL. You can add that to our "Evanly Father" John Calvin. :p:p(That still cracks me up, jeff!)

---You still remember that? The only time I think about it is when you bring it up every 6 months or so. (Just not many occasions to put it to use, I guess.)

[Father_JD]

---You still remember that? The only time I think about it is when you bring it up every 6 months or so. (Just not many occasions to put it to use, I guess.)

I've got a good memory for quips that crack me up, jeff...so YES, I still remember that. :p

[PostTribber]

What's sad is you may have rejected the LDS church, based on your understanding or by the understanding of critics.

... or based on the truth! ;)

[Mesenja]

Dearly Beloved,

LDS believe those of us former LDS that post here at Walter Martin are going to Outer Darkness. We've been lead away by the devil for not having a testimony of all the covenants and doctrines of Mormonism.

Evangelicals believe LDS have not received the Jesus Christ of the Bible and are unredeemed and thus are going to hell.

Is this the gist of it?

Do LDS tell us we're going to Outer Darkness and are concerned for us. Not that I've experienced. Do evangelicals tell the LDS they're in danger of hell fire? Yes.

Do we speak the truth in love? Can the truth be accepted in any other way?

People are going to hell.

We are all beloved of God and He desires that none of us perish. How can we love those that are perishing?

This is not a rebuke. It's my hearts cry. I'm thinking out loud to myself and wonder what you think?

Why are you here at Walter Martin? Is this a forum where we defend the truth without caring? Do we protect our hearts at all cost?

Sincerely in Grace,Charity



Please take the time to learn our true position on this particular topic. Your concern while I believe it to be well intentioned is never the less misguided.

[theway]

I know LDS doctrine only too well, vlad.

Listen to the reality of Mormon teaching:

3 heavens.
NO HELL

Although LDS pay lip service to "Outer Darkness" or "Hell" you guys deny the doctrine in practice...I mean you're the guys who believe MURDERERS, RAPISTS, all sorts of the most evil people imaginable will go to the LOWEST KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.

So why don't you get real, vlad??Actually, whenever I give this lesson I refer to it as one heaven and three degrees of hell, because for me, being out of the presence of my Father in Heaven would be hell, especially when I would be eternally reminded of what was possible.
But to be technical, the abode of the Sons of Perdition is the only permanent hell.

[Mesenja]

I know LDS doctrine only too well,Vlad.

Listen to the reality of Mormon teaching:3 heavens. NO HELL.

Although LDS pay lip service to "Outer Darkness" or "Hell" you guys deny the doctrine in practice...I mean you're the guys who believe MURDERERS,RAPISTS,all sorts of the most evil people imaginable will go to the LOWEST KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. So why don't you get real,Vlad??



The Book of Mormon teaches us that hell is a reality. The experience of hell is a state of guilt,pain,anguish,torment,despair and horror which torment is like an unquenchable fire. Hell is a permanent condition for some and a temporary condition for most. The Book of Mormon speaks of only two groups of people who inhabit the post mortal spirit world. The righteous who are in paradise and the wicked who will be resurrected to an endless hell. The Book of Mormon does not speak of kingdoms of glory or levels of heaven. However it teaches us that all men will be resurrected and return to the presence of God to be judged of their works. As our works are so varied this necessitates different levels of reward.

[Mesenja]

You either worship the Jesus of the Bible or the Jesus of the Latter-day Saint Church. They're not one in the same. They can't be both because they're opposed to one another where salvation is concerned and salvation is very important in Christianity. President Kimball said as much. Are you fami**** with his statement? I would think a Prophet of God's knowledge would be sufficient. What's so difficult about saying it? Why beat around the bush.

What say you?

Charity



If you so concerned with Latter-day Saints being straightforward then why don't you set the example? You've left the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints yet you can not leave it alone. The true intent of your thread is not to ask us sincere questions but to serve as a staging point for you to start an argument with us.

[Father_JD]

Actually, whenever I give this lesson I refer to it as one heaven and three degrees of hell, because for me, being out of the presence of my Father in Heaven would be hell, especially when I would be eternally reminded of what was possible.
But to be technical, the abode of the Sons of Perdition is the only permanent hell.


There's a term for your tactic, and it's called, "equivocation". :rolleyes:

[Father_JD]

Hell is a permanent condition for some and a temporary condition for most.

Now, try defending THAT sentiment from the Bible.


Oh, I forgot. You can't. :rolleyes:

[nrajeff]

Hell was a temporary condition, because it ended when Bob terminated our presence there.... :)

[Father_JD]

Hell was a temporary condition, because it ended when Bob terminated our presence there.... :)


Funny as usual, jeff.


Thanks! :D

[Mesenja]

No the reality is that you have demonstrated conclusively for all to see that you have absolutely no clue as to our doctrinal teachings. You boasted to Vlad that you knew "the reality of Mormon teaching" and then went on to say that we did not believe in the concept of Hell. Now you are trying to back peddle from this in a desperate attempt to distance yourself from your previous statements. My ability or lack of ability to defend Latter-day Saint (Mormon) doctrines as found in the Book of Mormon from the Bible is irrelevant. I have proven that you are wrong from The Book of Mormon. Deal with this.


Now, try defending THAT sentiment from the Bible. Oh,I forgot. You can't. :rolleyes:

This is deflection pure and simple. No matter what anyone says or how they say it,no matter if they are dead right true,one of your favourite responses will always be to deflect from the topic at hand as you have demonstrated here. Here is what you said previously.




Listen to the reality of Mormon teaching:

3 heavens.
NO HELL

Although LDS pay lip service to "Outer Darkness" or "Hell" you guys deny the doctrine in practice...I mean you're the guys who believe MURDERERS,RAPISTS,all sorts of the most evil people imaginable will go to the LOWEST KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. So why don't you get real,Vlad??

Now,try defending that sentiment from The Book of Mormon. Oh,I forgot. You can't.

Samuel Goldwyn - "I'm willing to admit that I may not always be right, but I am never wrong."

[Father_JD]

You keep missing it:

"Hell" exists in Mormon doctrine.

The equivocation of Mormonism?

No one EVER really goes there but to one of the "lower kingdoms" thereby making the existence of "hell" MOOT.

[theway]

You keep missing it:

"Hell" exists in Mormon doctrine.

The equivocation of Mormonism?

No one EVER really goes there but to one of the "lower kingdoms" thereby making the existence of "hell" MOOT.
Nonsense go back and read what I said


But to be technical, the abode of the Sons of Perdition is the only permanent hell.
But still you managed to miss it a few times already on this thread.
There is a temporary hell and one permanent hell.

[Father_JD]

Nonsense go back and read what I said

But still you managed to miss it a few times already on this thread.
There is a temporary hell and one permanent hell.

"Go back and read WHAT I SAID"????

Are you back to changing aliases yet again, Mesenja/Gentoo/nom du jour???

There is NO temporary hell according to the BIBLE....
But yes, I'm quite aware of MORMON LIP-SERVICE to the "permanent hell" to which only ex-Mormons go to.

And then you've got your typical Mormon equivocation that the two "lower kingdoms" cons***ute "hell".

All depends on whom you're talking to. I know of LDS who completely DENY any hell of any kind...only a "spiritual prison" and NOTHING MORE. :rolleyes:

[Mesenja]

First you say to Vlad:"Listen to the reality of Mormon teaching:3 heavens. NO HELL."




Listen to the reality of Mormon teaching:3 heavens. NO HELL
Although LDS pay lip service to "Outer Darkness" or "Hell" you guys deny the doctrine in practice...I mean you're the guys who believe MURDERERS,RAPISTS,all sorts of the most evil people imaginable will go to the LOWEST KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. So why don't you get real,Vlad??


Then your next post tells us that "'Hell' exists in Mormon doctrine."




You keep missing it:"Hell" exists in Mormon doctrine.
The equivocation of Mormonism? No one EVER really goes there but to one of the "lower kingdoms" thereby making the existence of "hell" MOOT.

And I am the one who keeps missing it?

[Mesenja]

If there was any doubt left in any ones mind that you may have some knowledge of Latter-day Saint doctrine and practice this is irrefutable evidence that you have absolutely no clue.




But yes,I'm quite aware of MORMON LIP-SERVICE to the "permanent hell" to which only ex-Mormons go to.

And then you've got your typical Mormon equivocation that the two "lower kingdoms" cons***ute "hell".

All depends on whom you're talking to. I know of LDS who completely DENY any hell of any kind...only a "spiritual prison" and NOTHING MORE. :rolleyes:




1. We don't believe that only ex-Mormons will go to hell.

2. We don't believe that the lower kingdoms of glory cons***utes hell.

3. We don't believe that the spiritual prison is equivalent to hell.

[Bat-Man]

1. We don't believe that only ex-Mormons will go to hell.
True, or I agree.


2. We don't believe that the lower kingdoms of glory cons***utes hell.
True, or I agree, technically, but I can understand how it can be considered hell to not return to our Father in heaven.


3. We don't believe that the spiritual prison is equivalent to hell.
Actually, this is a bit off, because spiritual prison is hell, in a certain sense.

Here is what our (LDS) Bible Dictionary says about Hell, with some highlights:


An English translation of the Hebrew word Shoel, hell signifies an abode of departed spirits and corresponds to the Greek Hades. In common speech it generally denotes the place of torment for the wicked, although it has been often held, both in the Jewish and the Christian churches, that Hades (meaning broadly the place of all departed spirits) consists of two parts, paradise and Gehenna, one the abode of the righteous and the other of the disobedient. “Gehenna,” or “Gehenna of fire,” is the Greek equivalent of the “valley of Hinnom,” a deep glen of Jerusalem where the idolatrous Jews offered their children to Moloch (2 Chr. 28: 3; 2 Chr. 33: 6; Jer. 7: 31; Jer. 19: 2-6). It was afterwards used as a place for burning the refuse of the city (2 Kgs. 23: 10), and in that way became symbolical of the place of torment (Matt. 5: 22, 29-30; Matt. 10: 28; Matt. 18: 9; Matt. 23: 15, 33; Mark 9: 43, 45, 47; Luke 12: 5; James 3: 6). Expressions about “hell-fire” are probably due to the impression produced on men’s minds by the sight of this ceaseless burning, and are figurative of the torment of those who willfully disobey God.
In latter-day revelation hell is spoken of in at least two senses. One is the temporary abode in the spirit world of those who were disobedient in this mortal life. It is between death and the resurrection, and persons who receive the telestial glory will abide there until the last resurrection (D&C 76: 84-85, 106), at which time they will go to the telestial glory. In this sense the Book of Mormon speaks of spiritual death as hell (2 Ne. 9: 10-12). Hell, as thus defined, will have an end, when all the captive spirits have paid the price of their sins and enter into a degree of glory after their resurrection. Statements about an everlasting hell (Hel. 6: 28; Moro. 8: 13) must be interpreted in their proper context in the light of D&C 19: 4-12, which defines eternal and endless punishment.
On the other hand, the devil and his angels, including the sons of perdition, are ***igned to a place spoken of as a lake of fire - a figure of eternal anguish. This condition is sometimes called hell in the scriptures (2 Pet. 2: 4; D&C 29: 38; D&C 88: 113). This kind of hell, which is after the resurrection and judgment, is exclusively for the devil and his angels, and is not the same as that consisting only of the period between death and resurrection. The one group are redeemed from hell and inherit some degree of glory. The other receive no glory. They continue in spiritual darkness. For them the conditions of hell remain. – Hell (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/h/32)

[Father_JD]

Thanks for demonstrating that no two Mormons can agree even on basic Mormon doctrine.

[Father_JD]

If there was any doubt left in any ones mind that you may have some knowledge of Latter-day Saint doctrine and practice this is irrefutable evidence that you have absolutely no clue.


1. We don't believe that only ex-Mormons will go to hell.

2. We don't believe that the lower kingdoms of glory cons***utes hell.

3. We don't believe that the spiritual prison is equivalent to hell.

LOL. And WHO are you to define Mormon doctrine??

Who ELSE goes to hell, M. when it's official LDS doctrine that even the worst kinds of people go at least to the lowest "kingdom"???

I have heard LDS leaders equate the lower kingdoms with hell.
I have heard LDS leaders equate "spirit prison" as a short-term "hell" or purgatory.

Whom are we to believe, especially in light of the CONTRADICTIONS between even your own "prophets" regarding basic LDS doctrine?? :eek:

[Bat-Man]

Thanks for demonstrating that no two Mormons can agree even on basic Mormon doctrine.
Thank you for demonstrating how devoid you are of the Holy Spirit, Father_JD.

[Father_JD]

You're NOT listening:

You pay lip-service to the existence of "hell", BUT DENY IT COMPLETELY IN PRACTICE AND IN YOUR TEACHING.

And yes, you're the one who keeps missing THIS POINT.

[Father_JD]

Thank you for demonstrating how devoid you are of the Holy Spirit, Father_JD.


LOL. You were taking the M. dude to task for not telling "ALL" of it, BM. Thanks for setting him straight as well as demonstrating the disunity of Mormon belief on major issues. :rolleyes:

[Bat-Man]

You pay lip-service to the existence of "hell", BUT DENY IT COMPLETELY IN PRACTICE AND IN YOUR TEACHING.
I don't do that, Father_JD. I reject your accusation, completely.


And yes, you're the one who keeps missing THIS POINT.
No, you are the one, or one of the ones, who keeps missing THIS point, Father_JD.

I teach and agree with the teachings concerning the fact that there is and will be a Hell for all people who are disobedient to God, and that all people will go to Hell unless they repent from ALL of their sins.

[Bat-Man]

LOL. You were taking the M. dude to task for not telling "ALL" of it, BM.
He was off just a little bit, Father_JD. I simply told him what we actually teach.


Thanks for setting him straight as well as demonstrating the disunity of Mormon belief on major issues. :rolleyes:
The doctrine is true and perfect, Father_JD.

It's just we (LDS) who are not perfect, yet.

... and FYI, you are not perfect either, so don't go throwing rocks.

[Father_JD]

"He was off a little bit".

What you don't understand is that you're ALL OFF...but not a "little bit", but by a chasm-sized bit.

[Father_JD]

Yes, that's what YOU believe...but Mormon universalism denies it.

[Bat-Man]

"He was off a little bit".

What you don't understand is that you're ALL OFF...but not a "little bit", but by a chasm-sized bit.
It depends on your perspective, I suppose.

Compared to God, we all have a long way to go to be as perfect as him.

Compared to you, though, you are the one who needs to catch up.

... and trying to drag us down or slow us down only makes you look worse.

[Bat-Man]

Yes, that's what YOU believe...but Mormon universalism denies it.
Does not.

I reject another one of your accusations, yet again.

[Father_JD]

You will never become as "perfect as him" by YOUR OWN EFFORTS, BM. You show you don't understand the meaning of GRACE.

[Father_JD]

Does not.

I reject another one of your accusations, yet again.

And what would it take to convince you otherwise??? Something out of "Mormon Doctrine" by McConkie, etc? ;)

[Bat-Man]

You will never become as "perfect as him" by YOUR OWN EFFORTS, BM. You show you don't understand the meaning of GRACE.
Grace is only effective for those who repent, or desire to repent.

You sin, you lose... unless you repent.

[Bat-Man]

And what would it take to convince you otherwise???
God telling me that I am wrong.

That's all.

I see your opinion as only your opinion, until I know God agrees with you.

... and, generally speaking, God doesn't agree with your perception of "Mormonism".

[Father_JD]

Grace is only effective for those who repent, or desire to repent.

You sin, you lose... unless you repent.


As I said before, you do NOT understand the meaning of "grace" in the salvivic sense:

UNMERITED FAVOR.

It's not a REWARD or "effictive" for those who repent...GRACE IS THE BASIS OF ENABLING REPENTANCE AND/OR THE DESIRE TO REPENT.

Now, please note WHICH Biblical MEANING of GRACE I am using. :eek:

[Father_JD]

God telling me that I am wrong.

That's all.

I see your opinion as only your opinion, until I know God agrees with you.

... and, generally speaking, God doesn't agree with your perception of "Mormonism".

God already told you're wrong, but you REFUSE to believe His Word, THE BIBLE. ;)

[Bat-Man]

God already told you're wrong, but you REFUSE to believe His Word, THE BIBLE. ;)
No, Father_JD.

God tells me that I am on the right path, and I accept what God tells me.

I don't agree with you or your perception of the Bible, generally, but I do agree with God and what God has inspired men to write in the Holy Bible.

[Bat-Man]

As I said before, you do NOT understand the meaning of "grace" in the salvivic sense:

UNMERITED FAVOR.

It's not a REWARD or "effictive" for those who repent...GRACE IS THE BASIS OF ENABLING REPENTANCE AND/OR THE DESIRE TO REPENT.

Now, please note WHICH Biblical MEANING of GRACE I am using. :eek:
I've already told you how grace works, Father_JD.

If you sin, you don't have it, and you won't until you repent or desire to repent.

God doesn't give grace to pardon those who refuse to repent.

[Mesenja]

He was off just a little bit, Father_JD. I simply told him what we actually teach.

Glad for your input and the time you spent going into more detail about this subject. The trouble with Father_JD is that he spends to much time trying to "strain at a gnat [i.e. our supposed doctrinal disunity] and swallow a camel [i.e. accept the tenants of Calvinism]." (Matthew 23:23-24)

[Mesenja]

And what would it take to convince you otherwise??? Something out of "Mormon Doctrine" by McConkie,etc? ;)

A sound argument taken from the four standard works of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. What say you Bat-Man?

[Father_JD]

No, Father_JD.

God tells me that I am on the right path, and I accept what God tells me.

I don't agree with you or your perception of the Bible, generally, but I do agree with God and what God has inspired men to write in the Holy Bible.

Sorry to break this to ya sonny, but God NEVER told you were on the right path with Mormonism.

It CONTRADICTS the Bible's teaching right and left. That's WHY Christians can be bold as lions in denouncing your doctrine. ;)

[Father_JD]

A sound argument taken from the four standard works of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. What say you Bat-Man?

LOL. You've set a goal post only to move it later once you start squirming with what's found therein.

Think about this:

If the "Four Standard Works" are the ONLY AUTHORITATIVE source, then you can't have it both ways and claim:

1. Living prophets whose words are binding in "The Ensign", etc.
2. Living apostles whose words are binding in "The Ensign" or any other Mormon publication.

You guys play both sides and then you wonder why we find your tactics less than honest! :rolleyes:

[Father_JD]

I've already told you how grace works, Father_JD.

If you sin, you don't have it, and you won't until you repent or desire to repent.

God doesn't give grace to pardon those who refuse to repent.

Given the MEANING of salvivic GRACE, i.e. UNMERITED FAVOR, it can't be reckoned as a "reward" to those who DO repent.

It's by virtue of the GRACE BESTOWED THAT ONE DOES REPENT. :eek:

[Libby]

Yes...we are saved by grace through faith...Ephesians 2

1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in tresp***es and sins;

2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,

5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved)

6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Yes...we are saved by grace through faith...Ephesians 2

1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in tresp***es and sins;

2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,

5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved)

6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Libby, a careful look at verse 8 and 9 will indicate that FAITH is the gift, and Faith is not man-made. Or, if you prefer, SALVATION is the gift, and is not man made.

A GIFT, by definition, is something we did not make ourselves. But it does not need to mean that we have no business being deserving of the GIFT.

And it isn't saying that works have nothing to do with salvation.

IMO.

Thanks.

[Libby]

Libby, a careful look at verse 8 and 9 will indicate that FAITH is the gift, and Faith is not man-made. Or, if you prefer, SALVATION is the gift, and is not man made.

A GIFT, by definition, is something we did not make ourselves. But it does not need to mean that we have no business being deserving of the GIFT.

And it isn't saying that works have nothing to do with salvation.

IMO.

Thanks.

Fig, I think verse 9 makes it clear that faith (and repentance, for that matter, which is really what I intended to address, but didn't make that clear) is an unmerited favor from God. ("not of works, lest any man should boast").

[Father_JD]

Libby, a careful look at verse 8 and 9 will indicate that FAITH is the gift, and Faith is not man-made. Or, if you prefer, SALVATION is the gift, and is not man made.

A GIFT, by definition, is something we did not make ourselves. But it does not need to mean that we have no business being deserving of the GIFT.

And it isn't saying that works have nothing to do with salvation.

IMO.

Thanks.

Incredible that you apparently can NOT understand the p***age, Fig! :eek:

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

It is NOT OF OURSELVES which MEANS we can NOT do anything to be "deserving".

Sheesh. And what don't you understand of "NOT BY WORKS LEST ANYONE SHOULD BOAST"???


Salvation:

By Grace, through Faith, NOT of works = by GRACE ALONE, THROUGH FAITH ALONE.

[seebok]

Fig, I think verse 9 makes it clear that faith (and repentance, for that matter, which is really what I intended to address, but didn't make that clear) is an unmerited favor from God. ("not of works, lest any man should boast").

Hi Libby

Just curious, where are you now during this cycle back to Evangelicalism? My observation is that you seem to me to be in more of a Calvin mode where if works have anything at all to do with eternal end-condition, sola fide and sola gratia are abandoned.

Of course you realize that Evangelicals are aggressively beginning to recognize what the Bible says, namely, that how we comport ourselves in this life matters in eternity. Erwin Lutzer, head pastor at Moody talks about the difference between "entering" Heaven and "inheriting" heaven. "Entering" cons***utes salvation, "inheriting" is something separate and meritorious. The compartmentalization helps them to maintain the optic of sola fide and sola gratia.

To see how big a deal rewards are becoming to Evangelicals, Try these short books:

Erwin W. Lutzer, Your Eternal Reward: Triumph and Tears at the Judgment Seat of Christ (Wheaton, IL: Moody Publishers, 1998)

Bruce Wilkinson, A Life God Rewards: Everything You Do Today Matters Forever (Sisters, OR: Multnomah Publishers, Inc, 2002)

Randy C. Alcorn, The Law of Rewards: Giving What You Can’t Keep to Gain What You Can’t Lose (Wheaton , IL : Tyndale House Publishers, 2003).

There are lots of others, even Hanegraaff got on the bandwagon. The Alcorn book has the best references to the clear statements of the Evangelical biggies like Melanchthon and Edwards which illustrate that the tension has been there for a long time. But now some Evans are boldly acknowledging the merit side of the tension. Good for them, but you already had a church that did that. So don't be so hard on the Church of Jesus Christ for understanding FIRST that our efforts have an indirect impact on our eternal end-condition. Just a caveat, that word, indirect, is very important. It allows grace it's rightful place.

And please don't be too enamored with JD. If you let him, he very well could have you hum'n like a robot in no time, Heaven and rewards there having been eternally determined in some lotto God held before you were born. Life is more than God just controlling your strings precisely according to what He put on his blueprint. JD's approach takes the meaning entirely out of life. It's easier, I'll grant that. But it makes no sense.

Best

Seebok

[Mesenja]

LOL. You've set a goal post only to move it later once you start squirming with what's found therein.

Think about this:

If the "Four Standard Works" are the ONLY AUTHORITATIVE source, then you can't have it both ways and claim:

1. Living prophets whose words are binding in "The Ensign", etc.
2. Living apostles whose words are binding in "The Ensign" or any other Mormon publication.

You guys play both sides and then you wonder why we find your tactics less than honest! :rolleyes:



This is not like the scenario where Lucy snatches the football away from Charlie Brown before he has a chance to kick it. I will take great delight in standing back and watching as you attempt to punt your theological football over the debate goal posts. You don't need anyones help falling flat on your rear end. You have done it so many times before.

[PostTribber]

A sound argument taken from the four standard works of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. What say you Bat-Man?

"For I (Jesus) testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book (the Bible)."

this is exactly what Joseph Smith did: he tried to add to Holy Writ the four standard works of the LDS, seeking to take away the sole authority of the Bible, based on the false mantra in Articles of Faith 1:8, "we believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly." this convenient loop hole provides the LDS avenues of escape whenever the truth of the Bible contradicts their four standard works. talk about having your cake and eating it too!! num nummy!!

cue that great theologian, Leslie Gore: 'it's my doctrine, so I'll deny if I want to, deny if I want to, deny if I want to. you'd deny too if this were happening to you.' :rolleyes:

[Father_JD]

Accidental double-post!!

[Father_JD]

That's what BrianH calls, "Moving the goal posts". That's what makes engaging Mormons consistently frustrating...just when you think they've esablished some kind of standard by which to discuss doctrine, they'll utilize their slippery "loopholes", such as the "translated correctly" even though they can NOT demonstrate that the English has been "mistranslated" from the oriignal Hebrew or Greek!!

And when shown that the translation is kosher, the next slippery Mormon tactic is to invoke the, "Plain and precious things were removed"...THEN the issue morphs from "translations" to that of "transmiision" of text.

It just never ends...that's why pinning down Mos is like nailing Jell-O to a tree. :rolleyes:

[Mesenja]

"For I (Jesus) testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book,If any man shall add unto these things,God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecyGod shall take away his part out of the book of life,and out of the holy city,and from the things which are written in this book (the Bible)."

This is exactly what Joseph Smith did:he tried to add to Holy Writ the four standard works of the LDS,seeking to take away the sole authority of the Bible,based on the false mantra in Articles of Faith 1:8,"we believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly." This convenient loop hole provides the LDS avenues of escape whenever the truth of the Bible contradicts their four standard works.Talk about having your cake and eating it too!! Num Nummy!!

cue that great theologian, Leslie Gore:'it's my doctrine,so I'll deny if I want to,deny if I want to,deny if I want to. You'd deny too if this were happening to you.' :rolleyes:

You are not keeping up with the latest anti-Mormon talking points.

[Mesenja]

That's what BrianH calls,"Moving the goal posts". That's what makes engaging Mormons consistently frustrating...just when you think they've established some kind of standard by which to discuss doctrine,they'll utilize their slippery "loopholes",such as the "translated correctly" even though they can NOT demonstrate that the English has been "mistranslated" from the original Hebrew or Greek!!

And when shown that the translation is kosher,the next slippery Mormon tactic is to invoke the,"Plain and precious things were removed"...THEN the issue morphs from "translations" to that of "transmision" of text.

It just never ends...that's why pinning down Mormons is like nailing Jell-O to a tree. :rolleyes:

See if you can both huff and puff and **** my house down. The simple truth is that you can't. So you will both engage in this sort of empty posturing and evade answering my challenge.

[Mesenja]

Now you are saying that Hell exists in Mormon doctrine.


You keep missing it:"Hell" exists in Mormon doctrine.

Before you pompously lectured Vlad 111 about the reality of Mormon teaching being there was no Hell.


Listen to the reality of Mormon teaching:3 heavens. NO HELL.

Yet in the very same post you reverse yourself and say we believe in Hell but erroneously equate only "Outer Darkness" with "Hell".


Although LDS pay lip service to "Outer Darkness" or "Hell" you guys deny the doctrine in practice...I mean you're the guys who believe MURDERERS,RAPISTS,all sorts of the most evil people imaginable will go to the LOWEST KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. So why don't you get real,Vlad??

Now you are telling me that yes we do teach the doctrine of Hell except we are equivocating because no one ever goes there.



The equivocation of Mormonism? No one EVER really goes there but to one of the "lower kingdoms" thereby making the existence of "hell" MOOT.

Your first answer was NO HELL. Your second answer was Hell exists in Mormon doctrine. Your third answer was you guys deny the doctrine in practice. Can you blame me for missing the point of what you have been saying? When will we receive from you the definitive reality about the Mormon teaching of Hell?

The answer, my friend, is ****in' in the wind,
The answer is ****in' in the wind.

[Father_JD]

In PRINCIPLE, there IS NO HELL in Mormon thought or teaching.
You invoke the TERM from time to time but even you guys have NO idea WHAT it is, or if it's "eternal" or not, or who MIGHT go there, given that "Murderers, adulterers, etc" go to one of your lower "kingdoms of heaven".

And to top it off, I know some LDS who absolutely DENY any kind of "hell" whatsoever, but then there are those few who DO say it "exists" but nothing more than that because the emphasis is on "Spirit Prison" from which one can ALWAYS escape.

If you're confused, it's because your own leaders teaching on it is CONFUSED.

I'm merely pointing out Mormon CONFUSION.

[Father_JD]

See if you can both huff and puff and **** my house down. The simple truth is that you can't. So you will both engage in this sort of empty posturing and evade answering my challenge.


LOL!!!!!!!!! "Empty posturing"???

Oh, pul-e-e-e-e-ze.

You guys are guilty of the above ALL THE TIME. :rolleyes:

You guys speak out of both sides of your mouths:

When it comes to "Official" teaching you EQUIVOCATE. Sometimes you invoke the "Four Standard Works ONLY" malarky, and then LATER invoke the "prophet's and apostle's sermons" in the Ensign or other Mormon publications as OFFICIAL TEACHING and JUST AS BINDING ON THE FAITHFUL MORMON AS THE STANDARD WORKS.

Sheesh. We've got your number and you just don't like your equivocation EXPOSED to the world.

[Father_JD]

This is not like the scenario where Lucy snatches the football away from Charlie Brown before he has a chance to kick it. I will take great delight in standing back and watching as you attempt to punt your theological football over the debate goal posts. You don't need anyones help falling flat on your rear end. You have done it so many times before.


I've seen Mormons do this time after time:

Invoke the "Standard Works" as the SOLE OFFICIAL TEACHING/DOCTRINE...only to invoke later Mormon leaders "sermons" or "teachings" from the Ensign AS JUST AS OFFICIAL AND BINDING AS THE STANDARD WORKS.

At this juncture, it suits your lame-o, vapid rhetoric to invoke JUST the "Standard Works" as "OFFICIAL"...but just wait and we'll see you sing another tune when THAT situation calls for making the claim that the Ensign is ALSO "OFFICIAL".

Equivocation, thy name is MORMON. :p You guys crack me up!!

[Mesenja]

LOL!!!!!!!!! "Empty posturing"??? Oh,pule-e-e-e-ze.
You guys are guilty of the above ALL THE TIME. :rolleyes:You guys speak out of both sides of your mouths:When it comes to "Official" teaching you EQUIVOCATE. Sometimes you invoke the "Four Standard Works ONLY" malarky,and then LATER invoke the "prophet's and apostle's sermons" in the Ensign or other Mormon publications as OFFICIAL TEACHING and JUST AS BINDING ON THE FAITHFUL MORMON AS THE STANDARD WORKS. Sheesh. We've got your number and you just don't like your equivocation EXPOSED to the world.

Provide evidence from the scriptures that anything you have to say about our beliefs in hell is true. Either put up or shut up.

[Father_JD]

Provide evidence from the scriptures that anything you have to say about our beliefs in hell is true. Either put up or shut up.


Uh...so you can invoke "Ensign" teaching later as also "official"??? :D

Oh, btw...do you RENOUCE your "eternal progression" doctrine that Mormonism has fiercly taught for 150+ Years BECAUSE it is NOT mentioned in the "Standard Works".

How about answering THAT question, M.???

[Mesenja]

I've seen Mormons do this time after time:Invoke the "Standard Works" as the SOLE OFFICIAL TEACHING/DOCTRINE...only to invoke later Mormon leaders "sermons" or "teachings" from the Ensign AS JUST AS OFFICIAL AND BINDING AS THE STANDARD WORKS.

At this juncture,it suits your lame-o, vapid rhetoric to invoke JUST the "Standard Works" as "OFFICIAL"...but just wait and we'll see you sing another tune when THAT situation calls for making the claim that the Ensign is ALSO "OFFICIAL".

Equivocation,thy name is MORMON. :p You guys crack me up!!

Evade. Evade. Evade.

[Father_JD]

Evade. Evade. Evade.

No, evasion is the MORMON tactic par excellence!!!! :p

What do you think I'm evading here?

Why do you EVADE the TRUTH that you play Mormon reindeer games such as sometimes RESTRICTING "Official" doctrine/teaching to ONLY the "Standard Works" but when convenient, expanding that to INCLUDE ENSIGN ARTICLES????

Can you not recognize your own equivocation when you Mos do that??????? :eek:

[Mesenja]

Uh...so you can invoke "Ensign" teaching later as also "official"??? :D

Oh,by the way...do you RENOUNCE your "eternal progression" doctrine that Mormonism has fiercely taught for 150+ Years BECAUSE it is NOT mentioned in the "Standard Works".

How about answering THAT question, M.???

Try to change topics in order to avoid answering the question.

[Mesenja]

No,evasion is the MORMON tactic par excellence!!!! :p What do you think I'm evading here? Why do you EVADE the TRUTH that you play Mormon reindeer games such as sometimes RESTRICTING "Official" doctrine/teaching to ONLY the "Standard Works" but when convenient,expanding that to INCLUDE ENSIGN ARTICLES???? Can you not recognize your own equivocation when you Mos do that??????? :eek:

Let's see how many times Father_JD avoids answering the challenge I gave him. The official count is now 6.

[Mesenja]

LOL. And WHO are you to define Mormon doctrine?? Who ELSE goes to hell,M. when it's official LDS doctrine that even the worst kinds of people go at least to the lowest "kingdom"??? I have heard LDS leaders equate the lower kingdoms with hell. I have heard LDS leaders equate "spirit prison" as a short-term "hell" or purgatory. Whom are we to believe,especially in light of the CONTRADICTIONS between even your own "prophets" regarding basic LDS doctrine?? :eek:

We are to believe the Book of Mormon.

[Father_JD]

We are to believe the Book of Mormon.


ONLY the BOM??

What about the REST of Mormon "scripture"?? :confused:

What about the OFFICIAL pronouncments of your leaders as published in "The Ensign"??? :eek:

[Father_JD]

Let's see how many times Father_JD avoids answering the challenge I gave him. The official count is now 6.

Well now. Refresh my memory exactly what "challenge" you gave me, huh? :rolleyes:

[Father_JD]

Try to change topics in order to avoid answering the question.


And the question is...?

1. The BOM teaches a literal firey HELL and is the same as described in the Bible? :confused:
2. The BOM doesn't teach the above? :confused:
3. Other Mormon screed you call "scripture" DO teach the Biblical concept of Hell?? :confused:

You can start by being SPECIFIC as to your question. ;)

But let's look at an OFFICIAL statement regarding Hell from your own "official" LDS website:

Hell
An English translation of the Hebrew word Shoel, hell signifies an abode of departed spirits and corresponds to the Greek Hades. In common speech it generally denotes the place of torment for the wicked, although it has been often held, both in the Jewish and the Christian churches, that Hades (meaning broadly the place of all departed spirits) consists of two parts, paradise and Gehenna, one the abode of the righteous and the other of the disobedient. “Gehenna,” or “Gehenna of fire,” is the Greek equivalent of the “valley of Hinnom,” a deep glen of Jerusalem where the idolatrous Jews offered their children to Moloch (2 Chr. 28: 3; 2 Chr. 33: 6; Jer. 7: 31; Jer. 19: 2-6). It was afterwards used as a place for burning the refuse of the city (2 Kgs. 23: 10), and in that way became symbolical of the place of torment (Matt. 5: 22, 29-30; Matt. 10: 28; Matt. 18: 9; Matt. 23: 15, 33; Mark 9: 43, 45, 47; Luke 12: 5; James 3: 6). Expressions about “hell-fire” are probably due to the impression produced on men’s minds by the sight of this ceaseless burning, and are figurative of the torment of those who willfully disobey God.
In latter-day revelation hell is spoken of in at least two senses. One is the temporary abode in the spirit world of those who were disobedient in this mortal life. It is between death and the resurrection, and persons who receive the telestial glory will abide there until the last resurrection (D&C 76: 84-85, 106), at which time they will go to the telestial glory. In this sense the Book of Mormon speaks of spiritual death as hell (2 Ne. 9: 10-12). Hell, as thus defined, will have an end, when all the captive spirits have paid the price of their sins and enter into a degree of glory after their resurrection. Statements about an everlasting hell (Hel. 6: 28; Moro. 8: 13) must be interpreted in their proper context in the light of D&C 19: 4-12, which defines eternal and endless punishment. On the other hand, the devil and his angels, including the sons of perdition, are ***igned to a place spoken of as a lake of fire - a figure of eternal anguish. This condition is sometimes called hell in the scriptures (2 Pet. 2: 4; D&C 29: 38; D&C 88: 113). This kind of hell, which is after the resurrection and judgment, is exclusively for the devil and his angels, and is not the same as that consisting only of the period between death and resurrection. The one group are redeemed from hell and inherit some degree of glory. The other receive no glory. They continue in spiritual darkness. For them the conditions of hell remain.

What do I see here? EQUIVOCATION. Hell exists, but it doesn't REALLY exist: everlasting hell (Hel. 6: 28; Moro. 8: 13) must be interpreted in their proper context in the light of D&C 19: 4-12, which defines eternal and endless punishment.

Always wanting it BOTH ways, M. Always.

And you can answer this:

Apparently you will base your beliefs ONLY on Mormon "Standard Works", so do you yet believe in "Eternal Progression" WHICH IS NOT FOUND IN THE STANDARD WORKS?????????????????

If so, WHY?
If not, why NOT?

[Mesenja]

Well now. Refresh my memory exactly what "challenge" you gave me, huh? :rolleyes:

You're sudden case of amnesia wont work.

[Mesenja]

And the question is...?

1. The Book of Mormon teaches a literal fiery HELL and is the same as described in the Bible? :confused:
2. The Book of Mormon doesn't teach the above? :confused:
3. Other Mormon screed you call "scripture" DO teach the Biblical concept of Hell?? :confused:

You can start by being SPECIFIC as to your question. ;)

And you can start out by not using the fallacy of presupposition that the Bible teaches a literal fiery HELL.


But let's look at an OFFICIAL statement regarding Hell from your own "official" LDS website:

Yes let us look at the Bible Dictionary.



Hell

An English translation of the Hebrew word Shoel, hell signifies an abode of departed spirits and corresponds to the Greek Hades. In common speech it generally denotes the place of torment for the wicked, although it has been often held, both in the Jewish and the Christian churches, that Hades (meaning broadly the place of all departed spirits) consists of two parts, paradise and Gehenna, one the abode of the righteous and the other of the disobedient. “Gehenna,” or “Gehenna of fire,” is the Greek equivalent of the “valley of Hinnom,” a deep glen of Jerusalem where the idolatrous Jews offered their children to Moloch (2 Chr. 28: 3; 2 Chr. 33: 6; Jer. 7: 31; Jer. 19: 2-6). It was afterwards used as a place for burning the refuse of the city (2 Kgs. 23: 10), and in that way became symbolical of the place of torment (Matt. 5: 22, 29-30; Matt. 10: 28; Matt. 18: 9; Matt. 23: 15, 33; Mark 9: 43, 45, 47; Luke 12: 5; James 3: 6). Expressions about “hell-fire” are probably due to the impression produced on men’s minds by the sight of this ceaseless burning, and are figurative of the torment of those who willfully disobey God.
In latter-day revelation hell is spoken of in at least two senses. One is the temporary abode in the spirit world of those who were disobedient in this mortal life. It is between death and the resurrection, and persons who receive the telestial glory will abide there until the last resurrection (D&C 76: 84-85, 106), at which time they will go to the telestial glory. In this sense the Book of Mormon speaks of spiritual death as hell (2 Ne. 9: 10-12). Hell, as thus defined, will have an end, when all the captive spirits have paid the price of their sins and enter into a degree of glory after their resurrection. Statements about an everlasting hell (Hel. 6: 28; Moro. 8: 13) must be interpreted in their proper context in the light of D&C 19: 4-12, which defines eternal and endless punishment. On the other hand, the devil and his angels, including the sons of perdition, are ***igned to a place spoken of as a lake of fire - a figure of eternal anguish. This condition is sometimes called hell in the scriptures (2 Pet. 2: 4; D&C 29: 38; D&C 88: 113). This kind of hell, which is after the resurrection and judgment, is exclusively for the devil and his angels, and is not the same as that consisting only of the period between death and resurrection. The one group are redeemed from hell and inherit some degree of glory. The other receive no glory. They continue in spiritual darkness. For them the conditions of hell remain.


However I will overlook as irrelevant all of your specious commentary that follows it.


What do I see here? EQUIVOCATION. Hell exists,but it doesn't REALLY exist:everlasting hell (Helaman 6: 28;Moroni 8:13) must be interpreted in their proper context in the light of D&C 19:4-12,which defines eternal and endless punishment.

I see it as supporting basic biblical teaching. Hell is a place of temporary punishment where those consigned there will stand before God at the resurrection to be judged according to their works. The devil and his angels,including the sons of perdition, are ***igned to a place described as a lake of fire or the second death.


Revelation 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it;and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.



Always wanting it BOTH ways, M. Always.

No at this point a defence of your statements concerning what we supposedly believe about hell from the Standard Works would be sufficient.


And you can answer this:Apparently you will base your beliefs ONLY on Mormon "Standard Works",so do you yet believe in "Eternal Progression" WHICH IS NOT FOUND IN THE STANDARD WORKS?

If so,WHY?
If not,why NOT?

Why? Because I want to see your scriptural support for every statement you made concerning our supposed teachings of hell. Why not? Because you will never publicly admit that you are wrong.

[Father_JD]

I see it as supporting basic biblical teaching. Hell is a place of temporary punishment where those consigned there will stand before God at the resurrection to be judged according to their works.

There's your good ol'fashioned equivocation at work.

Hell in Mormonism DOES NOT EXIST ACCORDING TO BIBLICAL DOCTRINE. It's "remedial".

The article demonstrated the EQUIVOCATION of Mormonism:

Hell exists, but NOT REALLY.

[nrajeff]

There's your good ol'fashioned equivocation at work.

Hell in Mormonism DOES NOT EXIST ACCORDING TO BIBLICAL DOCTRINE. It's "remedial".

---What makes you think that if a place is remedial, it therefore does not exist?

[Mesenja]

There's your good ol'fashioned equivocation at work.
Hell in Mormonism DOES NOT EXIST ACCORDING TO BIBLICAL DOCTRINE. It's "remedial". The article demonstrated the EQUIVOCATION of Mormonism:Hell exists,but NOT REALLY.

Death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them. The only ones consigned to a permanent hell at the resurrection where we will all be judged "every man according to their works" were the devil and his angels,including the sons of perdition. They were those who were consigned to Hell for time and all eternity. It is a place spoken of as a lake of fire - a figure of eternal anguish. This condition is sometimes called hell in the scriptures and is described here as the second death or spiritual death. It is therefore a temporary place for most and a permanent condition for some. You logic would dictate that all those dead which were in hell would be temporarily taken out of hell to be "judged every man according to his works" then sent back to hell with a judgment of eternal ****ation.


Revelation 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it;and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them:and they were judged every man according to their works. 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

[Mesenja]

As your stay in hell courtesy of Bob Betts was only temporary it never existed. It was all a nightmare.


Hell was a temporary condition,because it ended when Bob terminated our presence there....:)

It was only remedial.


---What makes you think that if a place is remedial it therefore does not exist?

[nrajeff]

As your stay in hell courtesy of Bob Betts was only temporary it never existed. It was all a nightmare.
It was only remedial.

---LOL. "It was all just a dream...." :)

[Bat-Man]

---LOL. "It was all just a dream...." :)
I have a dream.

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.

Yes, I have a dream, today.

[Father_JD]

I agree with your Biblical citations, S...but as I've written before, "Hell" is greatly downplayed...exactly as demonstrated in an "official" definition from LDS.org.

I guess you'd better set them straight.

[Father_JD]

---What makes you think that if a place is remedial, it therefore does not exist?

The Mormon remedial VERSION of "hell" does NOT exist, jeff. That's my point. ;)

[nrajeff]

The Mormon remedial VERSION of "hell" does NOT exist, jeff. That's my point. ;)

--Oh, come on, FJD, the LDS version is a lot like the Catholic version, from which your church schismed, so you should have at least a LITTLE room in your heart for the idea! :D

[Mesenja]

ONLY the Book of Mormon? What about the REST of Mormon "scripture"?? :confused: What about the OFFICIAL pronouncements of your leaders as published in "The Ensign"??? :eek:

Begin with the Book of Mormon first.


Bill Cosby-"A word to the wise ain't necessary-it's the ****** ones that need the advice."

[Mesenja]

In PRINCIPLE,there IS NO HELL in Mormon thought or teaching.

If you ever took the time to study the Book of Mormon while you were still a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints you would know that it speaks of hell as a reality not as a principle in theory.


You invoke the TERM from time to time but even you guys have NO idea WHAT it is,or if it's "eternal" or not,or who MIGHT go there,given that "Murderers,adulterers, etcetra" go to one of your lower "kingdoms of heaven."

Yes we do know what hell is,if it is eternal and who goes there. Read the Book of Mormon and then get back to me.


And to top it off,I know some LDS who absolutely DENY any kind of "hell" whatsoever,but then there are those few who DO say it "exists" but nothing more than that because the emphasis is on "Spirit Prison" from which one can ALWAYS escape.

My arguments are based on the Book of Mormon and official church teachings. You appear to pin your hopes on winning based on a small sampling of members who are confused and ign***nt
as to what is taught.


If you're confused,it's because your own leaders teaching on it is CONFUSED.

I can only deal with one confused person at a time Father_JD. At the moment my focus and attention is on you.


I'm merely pointing out Mormon CONFUSION.

I am merely pointing out yours.

[Mesenja]

I agree with your Biblical citations, S...but as I've written before, "Hell" is greatly downplayed...exactly as demonstrated in an "official" definition from lds.org. I guess you'd better set them straight.

Agree in what way. That they prove your doctrinal concept of hell? Give us now the official interpretation of Revelation 20:12-15.

[Mesenja]

Listen to the reality of Mormon teaching:3 heavens. NO HELL

You keep missing it:"Hell" exists in Mormon doctrine.

You pay lip-service to the existence of "hell",BUT DENY IT COMPLETELY IN PRACTICE AND IN YOUR TEACHING.

First you said that there is no hell. Then you said that hell exists. Then you say that we deny it completely in practice and in teaching. So which is it FatherJD?

[Father_JD]

I've already explained it...sorry for any confusion, M-dude.

The "official" teaching as found on LDS.org displays the equivocation regarding the subject:

It does, but not really.

Re-read the article.

[Father_JD]

Your problem, M., is that the BOM doesn't teach much cardinal Mormon doctrine which IS found in other "scripture" such as the D&C, POGP, Book-O-Abraham. And lest we forget, the "Eteranl Progression" doctrine is NOT TAUGHT IN THE STANDARD WORKS AT ALL, but in the "King Follet Sermon" and yet it's OFFICIAL TEACHING AS WELL.

[Father_JD]

Begin with the Book of Mormon first.


Bill Cosby-"A word to the wise ain't necessary-it's the ****** ones that need the advice."


But WHY restrict ourselves to the BOM????

Is it because it comes the closest to actual Biblical teaching?

I mean, it DOES teach there's ONE GOD ONLY...therefore making JS polytheistic pronouncements FALSE.

Are ya sure you wanna go there? :eek:

[Father_JD]

You're sudden case of amnesia wont work.

Humor me. :)

[Father_JD]

--Oh, come on, FJD, the LDS version is a lot like the Catholic version, from which your church schismed, so you should have at least a LITTLE room in your heart for the idea! :D

Right again, i.e. the LDS version is a lot like the Catholic version...an accretion dating from the Medieval period. The 39 Articles denounce it as "Romish" garbage in so many words, jeff. :p

[Father_JD]

According to LDS.org, ONLY THE DEVIL AND HIS ANGELS GO TO HELL, AND THEN LATER TO THE LAKE OF FIRE.

Human beings do NOT.

This isn't "biblical".

[Mesenja]

According to LDS.org,ONLY THE DEVIL AND HIS ANGELS GO TO HELL,AND THEN LATER TO THE LAKE OF FIRE. Human beings do NOT. This isn't "biblical".



BIBLE DICTIONARY
Hell

On the other hand,the devil and his angels,including the sons of perdition,are ***igned to a place spoken of as a lake of fire-a figure of eternal anguish. This condition is sometimes called hell in the scriptures (2 Peter 2:4;D&C 29:38;D&C 88:113).

[Mesenja]

Your problem, M.,is that the Book of Mormon doesn't teach much cardinal Mormon doctrine which IS found in other "scripture" such as the Dotrine & Covenants,Pearl of Great Price,Book of Abraham. And lest we forget,the "Eter**** Progression" doctrine is NOT TAUGHT IN THE STANDARD WORKS AT ALL, but in the "King Follet Sermon" and yet it's OFFICIAL TEACHING AS WELL.

This is the least of my problems. I don't even have a problem with you refusing to admit that you have no clue as to what we teach about hell.

[Father_JD]

BIBLE DICTIONARY
Hell

On the other hand,the devil and his angels,including the sons of perdition,are ***igned to a place spoken of as a lake of fire-a figure of eternal anguish. This condition is sometimes called hell in the scriptures (2 Peter 2:4;D&C 29:38;D&C 88:113).

Oh, so you wanna include the "sons of perdition" which means EX-MORMONS??

Ok. :rolleyes:

[Mesenja]

But WHY restrict ourselves to the Book of Mormon? Is it because it comes the closest to actual Biblical teaching? I mean,it DOES teach there's ONE GOD ONLY...therefore making Joseph Smith polytheistic pronouncements FALSE. Are you sure you wan to go there? :eek:

I want to finish this non debate once and for all. Prove anything you have said on this thread about hell from the Book of Mormon.

[Father_JD]

I want to finish this non debate once and for all. Prove anything you have said on this thread about hell from the Book of Mormon.

I think I've already stated that the BOM's teaching on "hell" is close to resembling the Biblical teaching.

It's just that Mormonism for the most part DOESN'T TEACH IT. ;)

[Father_JD]

This is the least of my problems. I don't even have a problem with you refusing to admit that you have no clue as to what we teach about hell.


Here's Mormon teaching in a nutshell...according to your OWN organization's pontification about it:

Hell for humans is merely remedial and temporary.
Hell for the devil, his angels, and "sons of perdition" (i.e. ex-Mormons) is NOT remedial and those will be there until hell itself is thrown into the "Lake of Fire".

Again, humans don't go either to Hell (with the exception of "sons of perdition"), or the Lake of Fire.

Happy now? :rolleyes:

[Mesenja]

And WHO are you to define Mormon?

And WHO are you to define Mormon?

[Mesenja]

I think I've already stated that the Book of Mormon's teaching on "hell" is close to resembling the Biblical teaching. It's just that Mormonism for the most part DOESN'T TEACH IT. ;)

Nothing you have said concerning hell is taught in the Book of Mormon.

[Father_JD]

Nothing you have said concerning hell is taught in the Book of Mormon.


So now, why don't you recap what you think the BOM is teaching about "hell", ok? :)

[Father_JD]

And WHO are you to define Mormon?

LOL. You're the one who's denying cardinal Mormon teaching without a blink, M. :rolleyes:

[Mesenja]

LOL. You're the one who's denying cardinal Mormon teaching without a blink, M. :rolleyes:

Can you list some of them for me or is this just one more example of your empty rhetoric?

[Father_JD]

Can you list some of them for me or is this just one more example of your empty rhetoric?

1. God once a mortal man (NOT taught in the "Standard Works").
2. God "progressed" to godhood (NOT taught in the "Standard Works").
3. LDS are gonna become godlets themselves (NOT taught in the "Standard Works".

These CARDINAL Mormon beliefs derive from "The King Follet Sermon". :eek:

[Father_JD]

And please don't be too enamored with JD. If you let him, he very well could have you hum'n like a robot in no time, Heaven and rewards there having been eternally determined in some lotto God held before you were born. Life is more than God just controlling your strings precisely according to what He put on his blueprint. JD's approach takes the meaning entirely out of life. It's easier, I'll grant that. But it makes no sense.



More mischaracterization I see. For the umpteenth time, Seebokji:

1. Humans are NOT robots. You WILL be held accountable for your rejection of the Biblical God, Biblical Christ, Biblical Gospel. (CF Romans 9...that pesky chapter ALL LDS love to .)
2. God does NOT "control our strings"...but God USES our actions/choices in congruence to bring about His SOVEREIGN DECREES.
3. "Meaning"?? God is SOVEREIGN and the Mormon deity and you are NOT. :D

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

More mischaracterization I see. For the umpteenth time, Seebokji:

1. Humans are NOT robots. You WILL be held accountable for your rejection of the Biblical God, Biblical Christ, Biblical Gospel. (CF Romans 9...that pesky chapter ALL LDS love to .)
2. God does NOT "control our strings"...but God USES our actions/choices in congruence to bring about His SOVEREIGN DECREES.
3. "Meaning"?? God is SOVEREIGN and the Mormon deity and you are NOT. :D

If God does not "control your strings", then how can he be absolutely Sovereign?

[nrajeff]

1. Humans are NOT robots.
---Could you please tell that to those "ministering the truth in love" people who say that LDS people are brainwashed robots who get programmed by SLC?

[Father_JD]

---Could you please tell that to those "ministering the truth in love" people who say that LDS people are brainwashed robots who get programmed by SLC?

I wouldn't say LDS are "robots", jeff...but I would say that most LDS are indoctrinated to the degree that they can NOT read Biblical p***ages IN CONTEXT, but unconsciously superimpose Mormon meaning onto the Biblical texts...and when this is pointed out, the Mormon can NOT see that he's done this.

Case in point?

Eze. 37 is a cl***ic example of Mormon indoctrination because the CONTEXT does NOT support the Mormon contention that the "sticks" represent "scripture".

And when that rare LDS CAN and DOES read that p***age in context, he THEN engages in "special pleading" that Mormon "revelation" TELLS HIM THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS while FINALLY admitting that the context does NOT support the Mormon belief of the "sticks" representing "scripture".

[Father_JD]

If God does not "control your strings", then how can he be absolutely Sovereign?

Then I must ask you, "If God CONTROLS all the strings", WHY is there EVIL when we KNOW the Bible clearly teaches that "God is NOT the author of evil"???

[Mesenja]

Here's Mormon teaching in a nutshell...according to your OWN organization's pontification about it:

Hell for humans is merely remedial and temporary.
Hell for the devil,his angels, and "sons of perdition" (i.e. ex-Mormons) is NOT remedial and those will be there until hell itself is thrown into the "Lake of Fire".

Again,humans don't go either to Hell (with the exception of "sons of perdition"),or the Lake of Fire. Happy now? :rolleyes:

Latter-day scriptures describe at least three senses of hell (http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Hell):(1) that condition of misery which may attend a person in mortality due to disobedience to divine law;(2) the miserable,but temporary, state of disobedient spirits in the spirit world awaiting the resurrection;(3) the permanent habitation of the sons of perdition,who suffer the second spiritual death and remain in hell even after the resurrection.

Sons of perdition (http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Sons_of_Perdition) are not merely wicked;they are incorrigibly evil. In sinning against the revelations of the Holy Ghost,they have sinned against the greater light and knowledge of God. They willfully and utterly pervert principles of righteousness and truth with which they were once endowed,and transform them into principles of evil and deception.

[Bat-Man]

Sons of perdition (http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Sons_of_Perdition) are not merely wicked;they are incorrigibly evil. In sinning against the revelations of the Holy Ghost,they have sinned against the greater light and knowledge of God. They willfully and utterly pervert principles of righteousness and truth with which they were once endowed,and transform them into principles of evil and deception.
Good quote, but there is even more information about the sons of perdition than is referenced at that link.

Joseph Smith once said something about how the sons of perdition or those who deny the Holy Ghost by denying the testimony of the Holy Ghost are such people who would say the sun isn't shining while it is actually shining on them.

They basically see it, or sense it, and then just dismiss it.

To deny the truth all a person has to say is that what is true is not true.

[Mesenja]

Good quote,but there is even more information about the sons of perdition than is referenced at that link. Joseph Smith once said something about how the sons of perdition or those who deny the Holy Ghost by denying the testimony of the Holy Ghost are such people who would say the sun isn't shining while it is actually shining on them. They basically see it,or sense it,and then just dismiss it. To deny the truth all a person has to say is that what is true is not true.



Joseph Smith said a son of perdition is one who would "say that the sun does not shine while he sees it;he has got to deny Jesus Christ when the heavens have been opened unto him,and to deny the plan of salvation with his eyes open to the truth of it."


All sins shall be forgiven,except the sin against the Holy Ghost;for Jesus will save all except the sons of perdition. What must a man do to commit the unpardonable sin? He must receive the Holy Ghost, have the heavens opened unto him,and know God, and then sin against him. After a man has sinned against the Holy Ghost,there is no repentance for him. He has got to say that the sun does not shine while he sees it;he has got to deny Jesus Christ when the heavens have been opened unto him,and to deny the plan of salvation with his eyes open to the truth of it. ("The King Follett Sermon,"Ensign May 1971)

Rober Millet explained "The sons of perdition don't just deny -- they defy,It is not just a person who loses his or her testimony. It's not just a bitter person,it's a person who is so bitter that knowing what they know they have become a vicious enemy to the cause of truth and fight it."

So when Father_JD is making the accusation that we believe in a final everlasting "Hell for the devil,his angels,and 'sons of perdition' (i.e. ex-Mormons)" I do not think that he grasps the full extent of all the implications in what he is saying.

[Father_JD]

Latter-day scriptures describe at least three senses of hell (http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Hell):(1) that condition of misery which may attend a person in mortality due to disobedience to divine law;(2) the miserable,but temporary, state of disobedient spirits in the spirit world awaiting the resurrection;(3) the permanent habitation of the sons of perdition,who suffer the second spiritual and remain in hell even after the resurrection.

Sons of perdition (http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Sons_of_Perdition) are not merely wicked;they are incorrigibly evil. In sinning against the revelations of the Holy Ghost,they have sinned against the greater light and knowledge of God. They willfully and utterly pervert principles of righteousness and truth with which they were once endowed,and transform them into principles of evil and deception.


Uh...so you think you've somehow "corrected" what I've already stated?? You're quibbling for the sake of quibbling which is evident that your statement above merely expresses what I've already stated but in slightly alterered form:

1. Temporary state of disobedient spirits.
2. Permanent state of "sons of perdidtion" which used to mean: EX-MORMONS.

No argument should you NOW want to include a "condition of misery" for a "person in mortality", but the other two I've ALREADY STATED.

Sheesh. :rolleyes:

[Father_JD]

Rober Millet explained "The sons of perdition don't just deny -- they defy,It is not just a person who loses his or her testimony. It's not just a bitter person,it's a person who is so bitter that knowing what they know they have become a vicious enemy to the cause of truth and fight it."

Thanks for restating what I've been saying all along: "Sons of Perdition" MEANS EX-MORMONS. :rolleyes:


So when Father_JD is making the accusation that we believe in a final everlasting "Hell for the devil,his angels,and 'sons of perdition' (i.e. ex-Mormons)" I do not think that he grasps the full extent of all the implications in what he is saying.


I think you don't even know what you're talking about any more. :eek:

[BigJulie]

Thanks for restating what I've been saying all along: "Sons of Perdition" MEANS EX-MORMONS. :rolleyes:




Only if ex-Mormons had an absolute surety of the truth of the gospel and then chose to leave it--most ex-Mormons I have talked to say that their testimony was never strong--hence the reason they left.

[Father_JD]

Only if ex-Mormons had an absolute surety of the truth of the gospel and then chose to leave it--most ex-Mormons I have talked to say that their testimony was never strong--hence the reason they left.

My testimony was rock-solid. Therefore you'd better alter you're understanding of it. :eek:

[Mark Beesley]

My testimony was rock-solid. Therefore you'd better alter you're understanding of it. :eek:
Are you campaigning??? :eek:

[Father_JD]

Are you campaigning??? :eek:

For what? :confused:

[BigJulie]

My testimony was rock-solid. Therefore you'd better alter you're understanding of it. :eek:

If it was rock solid, why did you leave the church?

[Az4x4]

If it was rock solid, why did you leave the church?

Don't know Julie if you're truly interested in understanding whether someone who professes a "rock solid" testimony of the LDS church can actually turn around and leave it or not, or if your question is mostly rhetorical. If in fact you are truly interested, and if this present inquiry you made fails to answer your question in a satisfactory manner, I'd be happy to share my own experience with you.

[BigJulie]

Don't know Julie if you're truly interested in understanding whether someone who professes a "rock solid" testimony of the LDS church can actually turn around and leave it or not, or if your question is mostly rhetorical. If in fact you are truly interested, and if this present inquiry you made fails to answer your question in a satisfactory manner, I'd be happy to share my own experience with you.

I've heard a little bit of it on another thread---grew up in a Mormon family, served a mission in Brazil---but none of those things necessarily add up, in my mind, to a "rock solid" testimony. To me a rock solid testimony is what occurs when one listens to the Holy Ghost, acts on it, sees the results of that action and that it in fact does bring the peace and joy promised.

So, how did you see your testimony and what changed it? (Have I sensed right that you have been looking for the right opportunity to tell me?)

[Mark Beesley]

For what? :confused:
For a spot in perdition. ;)

[Snow Patrol]

If it was rock solid, why did you leave the church?

BigJulie,

Over the years I've tried to figure out in my own mind what people were thinking when they left the Church after being in it for a long time. I've read where, like JD, they say their testimony was rock solid. Well after challenging some calvinist Christians I've sort of adopted their method of thinking. See, they are of the opinion that if someone left the Christian faith then they were never really Christians to begin with. I sort of feel that if an LDS person leaves the Church, they were never "REALLY" were LDS to begin with.

Just as they can say that these "Christians" were not strong in the faith before leaving, I think I can say that these LDS were never really strong in the faith before they left.

[Mesenja]

I think you don't even know what you're talking about any more. :eek:

However I was thinking the exact same thing when you pointed to the Robert Millet quote as supporting your contention that only ex-Mormons go to Outer Darkness.



Rober Millet explained "The sons of perdition don't just deny -- they defy,It is not just a person who loses his or her testimony. It's not just a bitter person,it's a person who is so bitter that knowing what they know they have become a vicious enemy to the cause of truth and fight it."


Thanks for restating what I've been saying all along: "Sons of Perdition" MEANS EX-MORMONS. :rolleyes:

[BigJulie]

BigJulie,

Over the years I've tried to figure out in my own mind what people were thinking when they left the Church after being in it for a long time. I've read where, like JD, they say their testimony was rock solid. Well after challenging some calvinist Christians I've sort of adopted their method of thinking. See, they are of the opinion that if someone left the Christian faith then they were never really Christians to begin with. I sort of feel that if an LDS person leaves the Church, they were never "REALLY" were LDS to begin with.

Just as they can say that these "Christians" were not strong in the faith before leaving, I think I can say that these LDS were never really strong in the faith before they left.

Interesting...I somewhat agree, but not quite. I believe that someone can have received a witness of the Holy Ghost and then leave it because the spirit is not a one-time shot and then you are "fat" for life kind of deal. I think one can spiritually starve themselves to death because they "let go of the rod." Therefore, I do think it is possible to have had a witness of the Holy Ghost--but I agree with you in the fact that if they had a "rock solid" testimony it means that they have had more than just a witness but have learned to feast on the word to the point where they would never let go. When a good friend of mine was begging me to leave the Mormon church, I asked him, what church would he like me to join? He said any faith would do (I ***ume he meant christian faith) as long as it was not the Mormon faith. I told him that he was asking me to give up a smorgasbord for a peanut ****er and jelly sandwich. How does one leave the church when one has feasted for so long and have become "fat" in the spirit?

[Snow Patrol]

Interesting...I somewhat agree, but not quite. I believe that someone can have received a witness of the Holy Ghost and then leave it because the spirit is not a one-time shot and then you are "fat" for life kind of deal. I think one can spiritually starve themselves to death because they "let go of the rod." Therefore, I do think it is possible to have had a witness of the Holy Ghost--but I agree with you in the fact that if they had a "rock solid" testimony it means that they have had more than just a witness but have learned to feast on the word to the point where they would never let go. When a good friend of mine was begging me to leave the Mormon church, I asked him, what church would he like me to join? He said any faith would do (I ***ume he meant christian faith) as long as it was not the Mormon faith. I told him that he was asking me to give up a smorgasbord for a peanut ****er and jelly sandwich. How does one leave the church when one has feasted for so long and have become "fat" in the spirit?


I agree with you here. Very good insights. I like your smorgasbord ****ogy because it fits my experiences perfectly. Some people are so stuck in a rut that all they ever order is the "Grand Slam" special at Denny's. That is all they ever go to. So, yes, when a friend takes them out to Olive Garden and they experience something different they give up the "Grand Slam" even though that has been satisfying them for years.

I, on the other hand, was introduced early to Chuck-a-Rama or Hometown Buffet and have feasted often on different varieties of the gifts of the Spirit. I know the benefit of trying a variety of foods and will not limit myself to eating at Olive Garden for the rest of my life even though I know how tasty it is.

I have experienced far too many varieties of the witnesses of the Holy Spirit to turn my back on the Church. I believe I would offend God by saying what He has blessed me with was all a hoax, self-imposed emotional reaction or whatever else critics like to call personal affirmative witnesses of the Holy Spirit.

I really enjoy reading your posts here. Keep up the valient effort.

[BigJulie]

I agree with you here. Very good insights. I like your smorgasbord ****ogy because it fits my experiences perfectly. Some people are so stuck in a rut that all they ever order is the "Grand Slam" special at Denny's. That is all they ever go to. So, yes, when a friend takes them out to Olive Garden and they experience something different they give up the "Grand Slam" even though that has been satisfying them for years.

I, on the other hand, was introduced early to Chuck-a-Rama or Hometown Buffet and have feasted often on different varieties of the gifts of the Spirit. I know the benefit of trying a variety of foods and will not limit myself to eating at Olive Garden for the rest of my life even though I know how tasty it is.

I have experienced far too many varieties of the witnesses of the Holy Spirit to turn my back on the Church. I believe I would offend God by saying what He has blessed me with was all a hoax, self-imposed emotional reaction or whatever else critics like to call personal affirmative witnesses of the Holy Spirit.

I really enjoy reading your posts here. Keep up the valient effort.

Wait...but all I ever order is the grand slam at Denny's. :D

Thanks, I enjoy you posts as well.

[Az4x4]

I've heard a little bit of it on another thread---grew up in a Mormon family, served a mission in Brazil---but none of those things necessarily add up, in my mind, to a "rock solid" testimony...

As you know Julie, I've pulled back from any desire to enter into the fray in threads such as this, with all the sniping and negative commentary that would follow even if I were to elaborate on what my LDS testimony amounted to. It's not something I'd be comfortable posting here even though I feel that better informing you and certain others about my decision to leave the LDS church would no doubt be graciously and thoughtfully received.

And yes, you're correct, I would greatly enjoy the opportunity to speak with you and others not only about what I experienced as a long time member of the LDS church, but also what I've come to know and understand as a Christian of some 26 years standing.

As a Mormon, much like most of the LDS posting here, my claim was that the church I deeply loved and believed in was misunderstood and misrepresented by those who I was taught "opposed it". At the same time I confidently repeated, both as a missionary in Brazil as well as an active member of the church, those stereotypical errors and falsehoods that we as Mormons were taught to apply to Christian believers in our understanding of and conversations about the "gross religious error" our leaders told us "they" were involved in.

Having experienced both sides of the aisle, and with great empathy for both my Mormon friends and extended family as well as for brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ that I share in the blessings of the gospel message with, I find the sort of tunnel visioned religious sniping that goes on here quite distressing. Those like myself who might more accurately speak to the issues from a perspective of actually knowing what we're talking about find ourselves all too quickly drowned out by the religious hack and slashers living under the bridges in the drainage ditches when we do post in a constructive manner, so it seems better not to.

While I enjoy careful conversation centered on the gospel of Christ, doing so in a forum such as this with the barking and howling that would accompany whatever I might say is not something I want to subject either myself or you or anyone else who may be seriously interested in such a meaningful discussion to.

If there were another more amiable venue that you and others might be comfortable with, that would work for me. Even an email exchange, as I suggested at one point, would be preferable to trying to carry on a conversation here. I have no objection to anyone who truly cares joining in, asking only that the conversation be carried on as friends sitting down to reason together, and not as enemies like some tend to see things.

But I defer to you Julie, and will proceed or not based on what you think best.

Az

[BigJulie]

As you know Julie, I've pulled back from any desire to enter into the fray in threads such as this, with all the sniping and negative commentary that would follow even if I were to elaborate on what my LDS testimony amounted to. It's not something I'd be comfortable posting here even though I feel that better informing you and certain others about my decision to leave the LDS church would no doubt be graciously and thoughtfully received.

And yes, you're correct, I would greatly enjoy the opportunity to speak with you and others not only about what I experienced as a long time member of the LDS church, but also what I've come to know and understand as a Christian of some 26 years standing.

As a Mormon, much like most of the LDS posting here, my claim was that the church I deeply loved and believed in was misunderstood and misrepresented by those who I was taught "opposed it". At the same time I confidently repeated, both as a missionary in Brazil as well as an active member of the church, those stereotypical errors and falsehoods that we as Mormons were taught to apply to Christian believers in our understanding of and conversations about the "gross religious error" our leaders told us "they" were involved in.

Having experienced both sides of the aisle, and with great empathy for both my Mormon friends and extended family as well as for brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ that I share in the blessings of the gospel message with, I find the sort of tunnel visioned religious sniping that goes on here quite distressing. Those like myself who might more accurately speak to the issues from a perspective of actually knowing what we're talking about find ourselves all too quickly drowned out by the religious hack and slashers living under the bridges in the drainage ditches when we do post in a constructive manner, so it seems better not to.

While I enjoy careful conversation centered on the gospel of Christ, doing so in a forum such as this with the barking and howling that would accompany whatever I might say is not something I want to subject either myself or you or anyone else who may be seriously interested in such a meaningful discussion to.

If there were another more amiable venue that you and others might be comfortable with, that would work for me. Even an email exchange, as I suggested at one point, would be preferable to trying to carry on a conversation here. I have no objection to anyone who truly cares joining in, asking only that the conversation be carried on as friends sitting down to reason together, and not as enemies like some tend to see things.

But I defer to you Julie, and will proceed or not based on what you think best.

Az

Hmmm, what is the best venue? I am not sure. I would prefer it to be more open then an email exchange, and less open then this forum. What would you think about letting me open up a private forum at yahoo and then we can invite a few guests other than just ourselves as I think you probably are aware of other LDS and non-LDS that you feel could have an honest and respectful exchange?

[Az4x4]

Hmmm, what is the best venue? I am not sure. I would prefer it to be more open then an email exchange, and less open then this forum. What would you think about letting me open up a private forum at yahoo and then we can invite a few guests other than just ourselves as I think you probably are aware of other LDS and non-LDS that you feel could have an honest and respectful exchange?

Sounds like a good idea Julie. Go ahead and set things up, then let me know how to access the forum and we'll go from there. If you'd like to invite someone you know and trust to participate along side you that's fine by me. We're not going to be poking sharp sticks at each other, so make sure whoever you invite is agreeable to engaging in carefully considered and respectful conversation between those who would be friends, not someone who lives for the sort of exchange that's so sadly typical of this forum in many of its threads.

[BigJulie]

Sounds like a good idea Julie. Go ahead and set things up, then let me know how to access the forum and we'll go from there. If you'd like to invite someone you know and trust to participate along side you that's be fine by me. We're not going to be poking sharp sticks at each other, so make sure whoever you invite is agreeable to engaging in carefully considered and respectful conversation between those who would be friends, not someone who lives for the sort of exchange that's so sadly typical of this forum in many of its threads.

Okay, I will do this. I have a sister coming into town for a few days--so give me few days to do this as I will be busy with her. I look forward to the discussion.

[Mesenja]

You will never become as "perfect as him" by YOUR OWN EFFORTS,Bat_Man. You show you don't understand the meaning of GRACE.



Once again you demonstrate that you have no clue as to any of the doctrinal teachings of The Book of Mormon. I would venture to say what Bat_Man doesn't understand or accept and most likely is not willing to do is engage you on this strawman argument you just gave.

[Father_JD]

Well, then, M...you shoulda pointed out just "how" mine is a straw-man argument. What you consistently fail to engage is your own confused, contradictory teachings of the BOM and OTHER LDS screed you FEEL is "scripture".

[Mesenja]

Well,then,Mesenja...you should have pointed out just "how" mine is a straw-man argument. What you consistently fail to engage is your own confused,contradictory teachings of the Book of Mormon and OTHER Latter-day Saint screed you FEEL is "scripture".



Read The Book of Mormon and it will point out just how your previous argument to Bat_Man is a fallacy. Either that or read my previous posts on this subject. I am under no compulsion and presently have absolutely no desire to constantly repeat this scriptural argument to someone who does not want to accept our actual position.

[Father_JD]

Read The Book of Mormon and it will point out just how your previous argument to Bat_Man is a fallacy. Either that or read my previous posts on this subject. I am under no compulsion and presently have absolutely no desire to constantly repeat this scriptural argument to someone who does not want to accept our actual position.

I know your "actual position":

Faith + works = salvation.

I exposed your confused and contradictory stance on the subject dozens of times. :rolleyes:

[nrajeff]

I know your "actual position":
Faith + works = salvation.
I exposed your confused and contradictory stance on the subject dozens of times. :rolleyes:

---Tell me how "unbiblical" you think MY description of LDS soteriology is:

Faith + obedience to Jesus' teachings results in grace which leads to salvation.

[Mesenja]

---Tell me how "unbiblical" you think MY description of LDS soteriology is:Faith + obedience to Jesus' teachings results in grace which leads to salvation.



Don't try and confuse him with the facts. As you well know his razor sharp ****ysis of what I have posted in our exchanges on this topic and encyclopedic knowledge of The Book of Mormon is as rock solid as his testimony was. :D

[Mesenja]

1. God once a mortal man (NOT taught in the "Standard Works").
2. God "progressed" to godhood (NOT taught in the "Standard Works").
3. LDS are going to become godlets themselves (NOT taught in the "Standard Works".

These CARDINAL Mormon beliefs derive from "The King Follet Sermon".

:eek:



John 14:7,9
7 If ye had known me,ye should have known my Father also:and from henceforth ye know him,and have seen him.
9 Jesus saith unto him,Have I been so long time with you,and yet hast thou not known me,Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father;and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

• • •

John 5:19
19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them,Verily,verily, I say unto you,The Son can do nothing of himself,but what he seeth the Father do:for what things soever he doeth,these also doeth the Son likewise.

• • •

John 10:34
34 Jesus answered them,Is it not written in your law,I said,Ye are gods?

[Mesenja]

And both Vlad and myself both get the point. You haven't a clue as to the reality of Mormon teaching on hell. I suggest that before you post that you try and do a study of the reality of The Book of Mormon teaching on hell. Then you would not make such an asinine statement that we "DENY IT COMPLETELY IN PRACTICE AND IN YOUR TEACHING".



Listen to the reality of Mormon teaching:3 heavens. NO HELL

You keep missing it:"Hell" exists in Mormon doctrine.

You're NOT listening:You pay lip-service to the existence of "hell",BUT DENY IT COMPLETELY IN PRACTICE AND IN YOUR TEACHING. And yes,you're the one who keeps missing THIS POINT.

[Mesenja]

Thanks for restating what I've been saying all along:"Sons of Perdition" MEANS EX-MORMONS. :rolleyes:



The Standard Works disagrees with you. The doctrine of the Church disagrees with you. The only one that agrees with you is the authority of Father_JD.

[Father_JD]

The Standard Works disagrees with you. The doctrine of the Church disagrees with you. The only one that agrees with you is the authority of Father_JD.

I replicated from posts given right here, that's exactly what "sons of perdition" means: Ex-LDS.

Who ya tryin' to kid here, M.? :eek:

[Father_JD]

---Tell me how "unbiblical" you think MY description of LDS soteriology is:

Faith + obedience to Jesus' teachings results in grace which leads to salvation.




Salvivic grace is unmerited and unearned, jeff. It's by grace that anyone is regenerated, repents, and believes on the Lord Jesus for salvation. The LDS soteriology is NOT biblical in the least.

[Father_JD]

Don't try and confuse him with the facts. As you well know his razor sharp ****ysis of what I have posted in our exchanges on this topic and encyclopedic knowledge of The Book of Mormon is as rock solid as his testimony was. :D

I don't give a flip what your phony "scripture", says, M. I don't argue points from a demonstrable 19th Century hoax whose theology/soteriology is confused.

What I DO care about is Mormon twisting of BIBLICAL scripture in a vain attempt to make it agree with Mormon heresy. :D

[Father_JD]

And both Vlad and myself both get the point. You haven't a clue as to the reality of Mormon teaching on hell. I suggest that before you post that you try and do a study of the reality of The Book of Mormon teaching on hell. Then you would not make such an asinine statement that we "DENY IT COMPLETELY IN PRACTICE AND IN YOUR TEACHING".

I've already clarified the Mormon position on the Mormon hell from your own writings:

The devil and his angels go there.
"Sons of Perdition", i.e. "Ex-LDS" go there.

Virtually the whole of mankind goes to one of your imaginary three-tiered "heaven". :rolleyes:

[Father_JD]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

1. God once a mortal man (NOT taught in the "Standard Works").
2. God "progressed" to godhood (NOT taught in the "Standard Works").
3. LDS are going to become godlets themselves (NOT taught in the "Standard Works".

These CARDINAL Mormon beliefs derive from "The King Follet Sermon".



John 14:7,9
7 If ye had known me,ye should have known my Father also:and from henceforth ye know him,and have seen him.
9 Jesus saith unto him,Have I been so long time with you,and yet hast thou not known me,Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father;and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?


How does this teach that God the Father is or was once a "mortal" man?? It doesn't. In typical Mormon fashion you commit two heremeutical errors:

1. Not reading in context:

Jhn 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.


Jhn 14:11 Believe me that I [am] in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.


How can Jesus be "in the Father", or the "Father in Jesus" if the Father is just as incarnate as the Son?

2. Dismissing explicit texts in favor of implicit ones:

Jhn 4:24 God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth.

And before you can pull out the lame Mormon explanation of what "worship him in spirit" means, I must draw your attention to John 3 in which Jesus says that one "must be born from above"...to be born of the Spirit is the ONLY way one can worship the Father "in spirit".

Luk 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have .

Therefore, Jesus says the Father is "spirit" and even defines a "spirit" as not possessing flesh and bones, i.e. incarnate as you would have the Father to be.

Your proof-text just when "poof"! :rolleyes:


• • •

John 5:19
19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them,Verily,verily, I say unto you,The Son can do nothing of himself,but what he seeth the Father do:for what things soever he doeth,these also doeth the Son likewise.


Another text wrenched out of context, and unwarranted inferences made from the text. So, as usual, I have to lead the Mormon by the hand through the context to show just how wrong the Mormon's understanding of the text is:

Jhn 5:15 The man departed, and told the Jews that it was Jesus, which had made him whole.


Jhn 5:16 ¶ And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things ( i.e. healed) on the sabbath day.


Jhn 5:17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.

Jhn 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.


Jhn 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.


Jhn 5:20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.


Jhn 5:21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth [them]; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.


Jesus is saying that as the Father heals, He heals. As the Father raises up the dead and makes them alive, So does the Son make alive whom He will. Notice the PRESENT tense used throughout:

The Father WORKS, the Son WORKS.
What the Father DOES, the Son DOES.
The Father LOVES the Son and SHOWS Him what He DOES.
The Father SHOWS Him what to do.
The Father RAISES the dead, the Son RAISES the dead.

"Poof" went another Mormon proof-text! :eek:


• • •

John 10:34
34 Jesus answered them,Is it not written in your law,I said,Ye are gods?


Just another text out of context that you desperate hope Jesus is literally teaching that human beings are "gods", but WHAT does the context say:

Jhn 10:30 I and [my] Father are one.

(BTW, Jesus intended meaning of "Oneness" here is not that of "purpose")


Jhn 10:31 ¶ Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.


Jhn 10:32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?


Jhn 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.


Jhn 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?


Jhn 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;


Jhn 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?


A difficult p***age to be sure, and is such as the cults feast upon to further their non-biblical agenda. Here's an excellent explanation of the p***age as found in Jamieson, Fausset & Brown:

34-36. Is it not written in your law--in Psa 82:6 , respecting judges or magistrates.
Ye are gods--being the official representatives and commissioned agents of God.

35, 36. If he called them gods unto whom the word of God came . . . Say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest--The whole force of this reasoning, which has been but in part seized by the commentators, lies in what is said of the two parties compared. The comparison of Himself with mere men, divinely commissioned, is intended to show (as NEANDER well expresses it) that the idea of a communication of the Divine Majesty to human nature was by no means foreign to the revelations of the Old Testament; but there is also a contrast between Himself and all merely human representatives of God--the one "sanctified by the Father and sent into the world"; the other, "to whom the word of God (merely) came," which is expressly designed to prevent His being m***ed up with them as only one of many human officials of God. It is never said of Christ that "the word of the Lord came to Him"; whereas this is the well-known formula by which the divine commission, even to the highest of mere men, is expressed, as John the Baptist ( Luk 3:2 ). The reason is that given by the Baptist himself (see on JF & B for Joh 3:31). The contrast is between those "to whom the word of God came"--men of the earth, earthy, who were merely privileged to get a divine message to utter (if prophets), or a divine office to discharge (if judges)--and "Him whom (not being of the earth at all) the Father sanctified (or set apart), and sent into the world," an expression never used of any merely human messenger of God, and used only of Himself.
because, I said, I am the Son of God--It is worthy of special notice that our Lord had not said, in so many words, that He was the Son of God, on this occasion. But He had said what beyond doubt amounted to it--namely, that He gave His sheep eternal life, and none could pluck them out of His hand; that He had got them from His Father, in whose hands, though given to Him, they still remained, and out of whose hand none could pluck them; and that they were the indefeasible property of both, inasmuch as "He and His Father were one." Our Lord considers all this as just saying of Himself, "I am the Son of God"--one nature with Him, yet mysteriously of Him. The parenthesis ( Jhn 10:35 ), "and the Scripture cannot be broken," referring to the terms used of magistrates in the eighty-second Psalm, has an important bearing on the authority of the living oracles. "The Scripture, as the expressed will of the unchangeable God, is itself unchangeable and indissoluble" [OLSHAUSEN]. (Compare Mat 5:17 ).


Another Mormon proof-text just went "poof"!!! :rolleyes:

But being "Mormon", you will simply ignore the contexts of these verses because they don't promote the Mormon agenda; you will ignore and dismiss the CONTEXTUAL understanding of the p***age; you will pretend you were NEVER told what these p***ages REALLY mean, and you will post your baseless ***ertions yet again that these verses somehow teach Mormon doctrine!!! ;)

[Mesenja]

I don't give a flip what your phony "scripture",says,Mesenja. I don't argue points from a demonstrable 19th Century hoax whose theology/soteriology is confused. What I DO care about is Mormon twisting of BIBLICAL scripture in a vain attempt to make it agree with Mormon heresy. :D



You don't give a flip what The Book of Mormon says despite the fact that it is the theological standard upon which we base our religion on. You don't give a flip that if any doctrine disagrees with The Book of Mormon then it is spurious and heretical. All you give a flip about is your twisting of our position in a vain attempt to make it agree with your argument.

[Mesenja]

So now,why don't you recap what you think The Book of Mormon is teaching about "hell",ok? :)

First why don't you recap your confused position on what you think The Book of Mormon teaching is concerning hell.

[Father_JD]

First why don't you recap your confused position on what you think is The Book of Mormon teaching is concerning hell.

The BOM teaching on hell is fairly orthodox and mirrors biblical teaching. The problem is, you don't believe it because latter-developing Mormonism equivocated and re-defined it...coming up with your "three-tiered heaven" system. :rolleyes:

[Russianwolfe]

The BOM teaching on hell is fairly orthodox and mirrors biblical teaching. The problem is, you don't believe it because latter-developing Mormonism equivocated and re-defined it...coming up with your "three-tiered heaven" system. :rolleyes:

There, now you've done it. You have just proven that you don't know a pig from a fiddle. And you don't know LDS beliefs concerning hell, either.

Marvin

[nrajeff]

There, now you've done it. You have just proven that you don't know a pig from a fiddle. And you don't know LDS beliefs concerning hell, either.Marvin

---I know the difference between a piano and a fish. :D

[Father_JD]

There, now you've done it. You have just proven that you don't know a pig from a fiddle. And you don't know LDS beliefs concerning hell, either.

Marvin


Ri-i-i-i-ight. I couldn't help but notice that yours is mere ***ertion without any kind of demonstration of just why I was wrong! :rolleyes:

[Russianwolfe]

Ri-i-i-i-ight. I couldn't help but notice that yours is mere ***ertion without any kind of demonstration of just why I was wrong! :rolleyes:

You don't recognize your own tactics??? This is what you do all the time.

But in the interest of fairness I will show this:

You said:


The BOM teaching on hell is fairly orthodox and mirrors biblical teaching. The problem is, you don't believe it because latter-developing Mormonism equivocated and re-defined it...coming up with your "three-tiered heaven" system.

Showing that you don't know LDS doctrine. The "3-tiered heaven" system is not related to hell. Hell is a place the wicked go before the resurrection. The 3-tiered system is a place where we all will end up after the resurrection. You are attempting to compare apples and oranges. And showing just how little you know about LDS doctrine. You really lost it this time.

Marvin

[Russianwolfe]

---I know the difference between a piano and a fish. :D

Hello, Monte???

Marvin

[Father_JD]

You misunderstood me. Nothing more.

I'm saying that JS once taught a REAL hell, where ALL people who don't believe in Jesus go to. This was later equivocated into a kind of "heaven" where even the most wicked sinners, murderers, etc. or your garden-variety heathen can STILL GO TO.

Got it. Now?

[Mesenja]

I replicated from posts given right here,that's exactly what "sons of perdition" means:Ex-LDS. Who ya tryin' to kid here,Mesenja.? :eek:



First of all no Latter-day Saint poster here claims or can claim to speak authoritatively for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So this appeal to what they have posted on this forum will get you nowhere.

Second you have not shown that "sons of perdition means:Ex-LDS" from the Standard Works.

Third you have not provided any proof from what is considered by us to be a doctrinal teaching or statement from the Church.

Third from this post and your previous ones it is obvious you haven't even understood the Robert Millet quote yet.

Finally the sad fact of the matter is that you only rely on the authority of Father_JD as all these sources still all disagree with you.

[Russianwolfe]

You misunderstood me. Nothing more.

I'm saying that JS once taught a REAL hell, where ALL people who don't believe in Jesus go to. This was later equivocated into a kind of "heaven" where even the most wicked sinners, murderers, etc. or your garden-variety heathen can STILL GO TO.

Got it. Now?

Prove it; show it from references directly quoting Joseph Smith. I have my doubts. Your ***ertions as baseless unless backed up with references.

Show me the references.

Marvin

[Mesenja]

Thanks for restating what I've been saying all along: "Sons of Perdition" MEANS EX-MORMONS. :rolleyes: I think you don't even know what you're talking about any more. :eek:


Rober Millet explained what Joseph Smith said by saying "The sons of perdition don't just deny--they defy,It is not just a person who loses his or her testimony. It's not just a bitter person,it's a person who is so bitter that knowing what they know they have become a vicious enemy to the cause of truth and fight it."


Not every ex-Mormon has even the capacity to "have the heavens opened unto him,and know God,and then sin against him" or have the desire to afterwards deny "Jesus Christ"and "the plan of salvation with his eyes open to the truth of it".

Not every ex-Mormon come to that point where they can "say that the sun does not shine while he sees it" and still be "a vicious enemy to the cause of truth and fight it".

So yes Father_JD when you make the accusation that we believe in a final everlasting "Hell for the devil,his angels,and 'sons of perdition' (i.e. ex-Mormons)" you do not grasp the full extent of all the implications in what you are saying. This just proves time and time again that your knowledge of Mormonism is about as rock solid as your testimony was.

[Father_JD]

Back to the Mormon reindeer game of quibbling I see.

<sigh>

So what if it isn't EVERY "Ex-Mormon" who becomes a "son of perdition"????

The fact remains:

"Sons of Perdition" = EX MORMONS.

Sheesh.

[Father_JD]

So then, why should I even bother with anything YOU say, M-dude??

Apparently, it's YOU who can't understand Millet's article just like you can't understand that Eze. 37 is NOT about "scripture"!! :D

[Mesenja]

So then, why should I even bother with anything YOU say,Mesenja-dude?? Apparently,it's YOU who can't understand Millet's article just like you can't understand that Ezekiel 37 is NOT about "scripture"!! :D



Provide your evidence. Either put up or shut up.

[Billyray]

Rober Millet . . .It's not just a bitter person,it's a person who is so bitter that knowing what they know they have become a vicious enemy to the cause of truth and fight it.
How can you become an enemy "to the cause of truth" if you don't have the truth to begin with?

[Mesenja]

Back to the Mormon reindeer game of quibbling I see. <sigh> So what if it isn't EVERY "Ex-Mormon" who becomes a "son of perdition"? The fact remains:"Sons of Perdition" = EX MORMONS. Sheesh.


Yes so what if you first say emphatically that the "Sons of Perdition=EX MORMONS" then back away from this statement and ask "So what if it isn't EVERY Ex-Mormon who becomes a son of perdition" then out of the other side of your mouth say "Sons of Perdition=EX MORMONS" Your credibility as an expert witness is still as rock solid as your testimony once was.

[Russianwolfe]

You misunderstood me. Nothing more.

I'm saying that JS once taught a REAL hell, where ALL people who don't believe in Jesus go to. This was later equivocated into a kind of "heaven" where even the most wicked sinners, murderers, etc. or your garden-variety heathen can STILL GO TO.

Got it. Now?

Was this before D&C 76 was received? And you requie a prophet to have all the answers before the question is asked? Then why weren't they perfect.

I still need to see your references to Joseph talking about a "a REAL hell, where ALL people who don't believe in Jesus go to. "

It is not equivocation to learn more of the truth and change the way you believe and teach and preach.

And in the words of that immortal of swordfight, Indigo Montoya, "That word. You use it so much. I don't think it means what you think it means."

Marvin

[Mesenja]

How can you become an enemy "to the cause of truth" if you don't have the truth to begin with?

These little acts of rhetorical gamesmanship prove absolutely nothing.

[Mesenja]

So now,why don't you recap what you think the Book of Mormon is teaching about "hell",ok? :)

So why don't you recap what you think the Book of Mormon is teaching about hell,ok? This time actually open up The Book of Mormon and base your argument on what it actually teaches on the subject.

[Father_JD]

So why don't you recap what you think the Book of Mormon is teaching about hell,ok? This time actually open up The Book of Mormon and base your argument on what it actually teaches on the subject.

I'll take your word for what it teaches. Personally, I don't care to darken my mind with its bogus "teaching", M. :rolleyes:

[Father_JD]

Quibbling, M-dude. Nothing but quibbling.

[Mesenja]

Quibbling,Mesenja-dude. Nothing but quibbling.



Pointing out that you first said that the "Sons of Perdition=EX MORMONS" then your backing away from this statement by asking "So what if it isn't EVERY Ex-Mormon who becomes a son of perdition" and how you once again changed your position to say "Sons of Perdition=EX MORMONS" is nothing but quibbling? No this just proves that your credibility as an expert witness is still as rock solid as your testimony once was.

[Mesenja]

I'll take your word for what it teaches. Personally, I don't care to darken my mind with its bogus "teaching",Mesenja. :rolleyes:



But after saying this don't ever presume to lecture us again on what the Book of Mormon teaches on the subject.

[Father_JD]

But after saying this don't ever presume to lecture us again on what the Book of Mormon teaches on the subject.

No need to. Although the BOM's theology is somewhat confused, it's actually closer to Biblical teaching than it is to "official" doctrines of Mormonism. :eek:

[Mesenja]

First you say that there is no need to lecture me on The Book of Mormon. Then you lecture me on The Book of Mormon saying that "Although The Book of Mormon's theology is somewhat confused,it's actually closer to Biblical teaching than it is to "official" doctrines of Mormonism."




No need to. Although The Book of Mormon's theology is somewhat confused,it's actually closer to Biblical teaching than it is to "official" doctrines of Mormonism. :eek:

[Father_JD]

Wow. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you should take my comments out of context...just like you do the whole of the Bible, M.

[Mesenja]

No need to try and take your words out of context. All I have to do is quote you. It is really that simple and that easy.



No need to. Although The Book of Mormon's theology is somewhat confused,it's actually closer to Biblical teaching than it is to "official" doctrines of Mormonism.


Wow. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you should take my comments out of context...just like you do the whole of the Bible,Mesenja.

[Father_JD]

No need to try and take your words out of context. All I have to do is quote you. It is really that simple and that easy.

Sorry, M, but your point got lost in the shuffle. :confused:

[Sara]

I believe the odds of you going to Outer Darkness are very remote, and that it is very likely that you will end up in the Terrestrial region of the kingdom of heaven, and while I would prefer that you go to the Celestial region of the kingdom of heaven, along with me, you can go wherever you want to go, even to Hell, if you want to, because our Lord will help you go to wherever you really want to go.




What makes you think you're going there?

[alanmolstad]

Dearly Beloved,

LDS believe those of us former LDS that post here at WM are going to Outer Darkness. We've been lead away by the devil for not having a testimony of all the covenants and doctrines of Mormonism.

Evangelicals believe LDS have not received the Jesus Christ of the Bible and are unredeemed and thus are going to hell.

Is this the gist of it?

Do LDS tell us we're going to Outer Darkness and are concerned for us. Not that I've experienced.
Do evangelicals tell the LDS they're in danger of hell fire? Yes.

Do we speak the truth in love? Can the truth be accepted in any other way?

People are going to hell.

We are all beloved of God and He desires that none of us perish. How can we love those that are perishing?

This is not a rebuke. It's my hearts cry. I'm thinking outloud to myself and wonder what you think?

Why are you here at WM? Is this a forum where we defend the truth witout caring? Do we protect our hearts at all cost?

Sincerely in Grace,
Charity

Mormons die....they go to hell.....at the resurrection they are given their final condemnation and I believe cast into the lake of fire.....nothing else happens after that.

Nothing new happens to the ones cast into the Lake of fire.

[theway]

Mormons die....they go to hell.....at the resurrection they are given their final condemnation and I believe cast into the lake of fire.....nothing else happens after that.

Nothing new happens to the ones cast into the Lake of fire.Interesting.... and why exactly do you believe Mormons will be going to Hell?

[alanmolstad]

Interesting.... and why exactly do you believe Mormons will be going to Hell?
Based on their rejection of the Bible's message, their teaching false teaching about God....their rejection of the message of the church to repent....their trusting in their works to save them....etc....

In Mormonism what I believe we are looking at is a CULT , started by a con-man, in his effort to gain people's trust / money, as well as gaining access to younger women for his bed.

His history of running the con of getting people to believe he could dig up money on their land was instrumental in his later greater con of getting people to believe that he dug up Golden Tablets....



Modern Mormons are guilty of sin due to the fact that regardless of where they live that have plenty of connection to the truth, given that the Christian church and it's message are found nearly everywhere in the world in this age.....on radio...in print...on the TV...and most importantly to us,on the internet!

So in this age, there is no one else for the Mormon to point to as being the reason they continue to be Mormon.

In other words...."They were warned..."



No Mormon can say to the Lord as they are cast into Hell, "But I never knew..."
For by now, every Mormon has clearly heard the message of what a con-man old Joe Smith was, and how the teachings of Smith are in error and lead to a false religion.



So, "THAT" is why I believe that Mormons go to Hell...

[theway]

Based on their rejection of the Bible's message, their teaching false teaching about God....their rejection of the message of the church to repent....their trusting in their works to save them....etc....

In Mormonism what I believe we are looking at is a CULT , started by a con-man, in his effort to gain people's trust / money, as well as gaining access to younger women for his bed.

His history of running the con of getting people to believe he could dig up money on their land was instrumental in his later greater con of getting people to believe that he dug up Golden Tablets....



Modern Mormons are guilty of sin due to the fact that regardless of where they live that have plenty of connection to the truth, given that the Christian church and it's message are found nearly everywhere in the world in this age.....on radio...in print...on the TV...and most importantly to us,on the internet!

So in this age, there is no one else for the Mormon to point to as being the reason they continue to be Mormon.

In other words...."They were warned..."



No Mormon can say to the Lord as they are cast into Hell, "But I never knew..."
For by now, every Mormon has clearly heard the message of what a con-man old Joe Smith was, and how the teachings of Smith are in error and lead to a false religion.



So, "THAT" is why I believe that Mormons go to Hell...So basically you believe Mormons are going to hell because they have not done a lot of necessary steps they need to do, and taken on or rejected a lot of beliefs which we also need to research.

Do you have this list of works I need to do or not do, and televangelists on TV which I need to believe or not believe, in order to be saved?

It's already sounding like too much work.

[teenapenny]

So basically you believe Mormons are going to hell because they have not done a lot of necessary steps they need to do, and taken on or rejected a lot of beliefs which we also need to research.

Do you have this list of works and televangelists on TV which I need to do or not do, believe or not believe, in order to be saved?

It's already sounding like too much work. .
You just need to believe in the true Jesus in the Bible.

[theway]

.
You just need to believe in the true Jesus in the Bible.i do!

Therefore that means that Alan is wrong then... Mormons can be saved.

[disciple]

i do!

Therefore that means that Alan is wrong then... Mormons can be saved.

I don't know much about Mormon beliefs but do you believe that Jesus was created by God and is a "brother" to Satan?

[theway]

I don't know much about Mormon beliefs but do you believe that Jesus was created by God and is a "brother" to Satan?
Now wait a minute.....
All three of you need to huddle together and come up with a unified gospel expanding how a person is saved.
Because you are now contradicting teenapenny by starting to add extra criteria onto my faith in the Jesus of the Bible in order for me to be saved.

As such, I think you will need to provide us all with a list of approved beliefs for salvation; as well as a list of beliefs that will keep one from being saved?

[disciple]

Now wait a minute.....
All three of you need to huddle together and come up with a unified gospel expanding how a person is saved.
Because you are now contradicting teenapenny by starting to add extra criteria onto my faith in the Jesus of the Bible in order for me to be saved.

As such, I think you will need to provide us all with a list of approved beliefs for salvation; as well as a list of beliefs that will keep one from being saved?

For my part I will start with John 1:1-4
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men."

One becomes saved by realizing their need for a Savior, believing that Jesus Christ is that Redeemer as well as Lord and God, confessing your sins and trusting that Jesus will do what we cannot do for ourselves, pay our sin debt and declare us righteous and justified before God. The one who is now born again from above will as a result produce fruit (works) and show true repentance if they sin. No one goes to hell because they are bad just as no one goes to heaven because they are good. The lost have rejected Jesus Christ and His work as God has revealed it in the Bible, the saved have believed God's revelation of Jesus Christ and have trusted that He is willing and able to completely save and keep us.
There ya go.

[theway]

For my part I will start with John 1:1-4
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men."

One becomes saved by realizing their need for a Savior, believing that Jesus Christ is that Redeemer as well as Lord and God, confessing your sins and trusting that Jesus will do what we cannot do for ourselves, pay our sin debt and declare us righteous and justified before God. The one who is now born again from above will as a result produce fruit (works) and show true repentance if they sin. No one goes to hell because they are bad just as no one goes to heaven because they are good. The lost have rejected Jesus Christ and His work as God has revealed it in the Bible, the saved have believed God's revelation of Jesus Christ and have trusted that He is willing and able to completely save and keep us.
There ya go.The only problem with this is that none of this agrees with what your fellow AntiMormons here believe. That is why whenever you guys post scriptures it is meaningless because you guys can not even agree amongst yourself what the verses mean, so how am I supposed to tell how you interpret it?
So all you have really posted is "The Gospel of Salvation according to disciple"

Let's start with the first of your criteria.

"One becomes saved by realizing their need for a Savior"

85% to 90% of the owners of these web sites and the nonMormon Posters to the Mormonism forums, believe in a Evangelical form of Calvinism. This majority dictates that before we are saved we are unregenerated. Being unregenerated we would NEVER seek out God or realize the need for a Savior (as God does it all)
Also given that those same percentages believe in Faith Alone, no amount of repentance or confession will add to... or lack thereof, take away from our salvation. Otherwise we have done a work, making it not a Faith Alone road to salvation. You attempt like most Faith Aloners to p*** off this paradox with a "Chicken or Egg" argument where you says the works will come after salvation. However whether the works come before or after one's salvation is meaningless if it is a requirement to salvation. If it is not a requirement, then most of your post is likewise unnecessary wordplay as repentance and good works are not germane to the topic of salvation at all. In fact I can sin all I want either before or after salvation and it wouldn't matter.
For instance, if I murdered two people after having been saved, would I still be saved?

The rest of your post is slightly contradictory and a little nutty. In one sentence you claim that repentance is required before salvation, but then only after salvation can true repentance be shown if they sin????
There is only one type of repentance that The Lord recognizes and requires of us... "True repentance".
True repentance means not repeating the sin, which means that if they sin again, it was anything but True Repentance.

[RealFakeHair]

The only problem with this is that none of this agrees with what your fellow AntiMormons here believe. That is why whenever you guys post scriptures it is meaningless because you guys can not even agree amongst yourself what the verses mean, so how am I supposed to tell how you interpret it?
So all you have really posted is "The Gospel of Salvation according to disciple"

Let's start with the first of your criteria.

"One becomes saved by realizing their need for a Savior"

85% to 90% of the owners of these web sites and the nonMormon Posters to the Mormonism forums, believe in a Evangelical form of Calvinism. This majority dictates that before we are saved we are unregenerated. Being unregenerated we would NEVER seek out God or realize the need for a Savior (as God does it all)
Also given that those same percentages believe in Faith Alone, no amount of repentance or confession will add to... or lack thereof, take away from our salvation. Otherwise we have done a work, making it not a Faith Alone road to salvation. You attempt like most Faith Aloners to p*** off this paradox with a "Chicken or Egg" argument where you says the works will come after salvation. However whether the works come before or after one's salvation is meaningless if it is a requirement to salvation. If it is not a requirement, then most of your post is likewise unnecessary wordplay as repentance and good works are not germane to the topic of salvation at all. In fact I can sin all I want either before or after salvation and it wouldn't matter.
For instance, if I murdered two people after having been saved, would I still be saved?

The rest of your post is slightly contradictory and a little nutty. In one sentence you claim that repentance is required before salvation, but then only after salvation can true repentance be shown if they sin????
There is only one type of repentance that The Lord recognizes and requires of us... "True repentance".
True repentance means not repeating the sin, which means that if they sin again, it was anything but True Repentance.

John 4:16, For God so love the World He gave His only Begotten Son, (That) Who ever believes in Him shall have everlasting life.

If you believe in the God of the Holy Bible and His Son, you have everlasting life.
The problem with LDSInc. TBMs is you believe in another god, and another jesus. Get right or get left. I just made that one up.

[teenapenny]

Now wait a minute.....
All three of you need to huddle together and come up with a unified gospel expanding how a person is saved.
Because you are now contradicting teenapenny by starting to add extra criteria onto my faith in the Jesus of the Bible in order for me to be saved.

As such, I think you will need to provide us all with a list of approved beliefs for salvation; as well as a list of beliefs that will keep one from being saved?
The Jesus in the Bible is not a brother of Satan. I think we have it right and that you are the one with the wrong understanding.

[John T]

The Jesus in the Bible is not a brother of Satan. I think we have it right and that you are the one with the wrong understanding.

It is my opinion that the poster, whom I have on ignore is continuing to be as disingenuous as ever.
If he were sincere, he would ask, "How shall I escape from the wrath to come?"
Instead, he is sitting back and attempting to tie Christians up in knots when they take the bait he offers, and then attempts to make them look ridiculous. The sad truth of his situation is that he will one day have to give an account to the One whom he mocks; there will be no snarkiness for anyone at the Judgment Seat of Jesus Christ.

I have had too much of this sort of prattle from here, and on CARM. Therefore, I wipe the dust off my feet, and go on to better pastures.

[alanmolstad]

The Jesus in the Bible is not a brother of Satan. .
This is correct!

Of all the teachings that helped in the loss of Mitt in the Presidential Election, it was this one single teaching that I heard was the biggest reason people rejected him as being someone you would want as the next president.

The moment it came out during one of the debates that this crazy Mormon idea was something Mitt also believed?...Mitt was finished.

I remember listening to people talk about the election and the moment someone suggested voting for Mitt the response from others was that no Christian could vote for Mitt as Mitt's/the Mormons view that Jesus and Satan are brothers comes very close to the Bible's teaching about the "Unforgivable Sin"

And the fact is, that I have to admit that the Mormon teaching that Jesus and Satan are brothers does resemble the unforgivable Sin.

I mean let's face it, there is a connection between the two ideas.

[alanmolstad]

If you believe in the God of the Holy Bible and His Son, you have everlasting life.


This is true...
This also is the reason the Mormons all burn.

This simple thing is the one thing no Mormon can do.

[TheSword99]

Now wait a minute.....
All three of you need to huddle together and come up with a unified gospel expanding how a person is saved.
Because you are now contradicting teenapenny by starting to add extra criteria onto my faith in the Jesus of the Bible in order for me to be saved.

As such, I think you will need to provide us all with a list of approved beliefs for salvation; as well as a list of beliefs that will keep one from being saved?


Disciple asked you a simple question which was this: do you believe that Jesus was created by God and is a "brother" to Satan?

Do you think you could answer it?

[theway]

John 4:16, For God so love the World He gave His only Begotten Son, (That) Who ever believes in Him shall have everlasting life.

If you believe in the God of the Holy Bible and His Son, you have everlasting life.
The problem with LDSInc. TBMs is you believe in another god, and another jesus. Get right or get left. I just made that one up.Once again... Posting scripture is meaningless when you are trying to prove your beliefs because every one of you interpreters them differently, as we can see in this thread.

Your theology is also paradoxical and contradictory.

For instance, you state that all I need to do is believe in the God Holy Bible and His Son, and I will be saved. (I'm guessing that by eternal life you meant saved)

Well, I believe in the God of the Holy Bible and His Son, I must be saved then.... Right?

Something tells me however that you are now going to start adding on works and beliefs to your previous statement in order to keep me out of your Christian Club.

[theway]

Disciple asked you a simple question which was this: do you believe that Jesus was created by God and is a "brother" to Satan?

Do you think you could answer it?Why? Is it germane to the conversation about how one gets saved?
Are these on the list of the "do not believe" that will keep me from being saved?
If these are the dos and donts of salvation, then I will agree that it is germane to the conversation. However if that is the case, before I answer, I would like to see the complete list first, and then I will gladly reply.
Otherwise this is nothing more than an attempt to draw attention away from your failed arguments and theologies.

[disciple]

The only problem with this is that none of this agrees with what your fellow AntiMormons here believe. That is why whenever you guys post scriptures it is meaningless because you guys can not even agree amongst yourself what the verses mean, so how am I supposed to tell how you interpret it?
So all you have really posted is "The Gospel of Salvation according to disciple"

Let's start with the first of your criteria.

"One becomes saved by realizing their need for a Savior"

85% to 90% of the owners of these web sites and the nonMormon Posters to the Mormonism forums, believe in a Evangelical form of Calvinism. This majority dictates that before we are saved we are unregenerated. Being unregenerated we would NEVER seek out God or realize the need for a Savior (as God does it all)
Also given that those same percentages believe in Faith Alone, no amount of repentance or confession will add to... or lack thereof, take away from our salvation. Otherwise we have done a work, making it not a Faith Alone road to salvation. You attempt like most Faith Aloners to p*** off this paradox with a "Chicken or Egg" argument where you says the works will come after salvation. However whether the works come before or after one's salvation is meaningless if it is a requirement to salvation. If it is not a requirement, then most of your post is likewise unnecessary wordplay as repentance and good works are not germane to the topic of salvation at all. In fact I can sin all I want either before or after salvation and it wouldn't matter.
For instance, if I murdered two people after having been saved, would I still be saved?

The rest of your post is slightly contradictory and a little nutty. In one sentence you claim that repentance is required before salvation, but then only after salvation can true repentance be shown if they sin????
There is only one type of repentance that The Lord recognizes and requires of us... "True repentance".
True repentance means not repeating the sin, which means that if they sin again, it was anything but True Repentance.

Come on Way, I thought you were interested in a real discussion. My post is neither contradictory nor nutty and while you can twist things to try and make me look foolish or wrong, it doesn't matter. I'm not here to best someone, I just want you to see the truth. I'm not anti-mormon, I'm pro-salvation. I don't want you to find yourself separated from God forever. Better think about it.

[theway]

The Jesus in the Bible is not a brother of Satan. I think we have it right and that you are the one with the wrong understanding.Im sorry???? But how in the world do you know whether you got anything right or not?
You believe in a Trinity which is a declared Great Mystery. The problem is that your argument is wrong from the outset, yet I understand it plays well with the uninformed, so you continue in its fallacy.
We do not have a different Jesus. Jesus was the name of a person in the Bible who lived, died, and was resurrected, we can all agree on that. What is true is that we believe in a different type of Christ. Christ is a ***le representing a type of Christology or soteriology, as it were.

However as has been shown even though it can be said that we believe in a different Christ, you guys likewise believe in different Christs and soteriologies as well.
You have one Christ which requires repentance, ordinances, and works for salvation (this is believed by about 85% of people you believe are Christian)
To a Christ that requires you first come to a belief in Him in order to then be saved.
To a minority of Christians who will tell you that Christ doesn't require anything of man in order to be saved.

An example would be....
The Jews and writers in the Old Testament of the Bible, and the Jews of today, DO NOT believe in the Christ or the Messiah that you as a Christian believe in...
Therefore does this mean that they believe in a different God? Are none of them to be saved then?

I find it silly for you guys to come here in order to try and school us Mormons, and tell us the way to salvation, when you guys really have no idea what you are talking about.

[theway]

Come on Way, I thought you were interested in a real discussion. My post is neither contradictory nor nutty and while you can twist things to try and make me look foolish or wrong, it doesn't matter. I'm not here to best someone, I just want you to see the truth. I'm not anti-mormon, I'm pro-salvation. I don't want you to find yourself separated from God forever. Better think about it.
There is the problem...
What truth?
What type or way of salvation are you "Pro" on?

Every time I have this discussion I feel like I am having different discussions with each one of you as your beliefs are so totally different from each other.
While I can understand differences in some doctrine... Doctrines of salvation matter.

So if you are going to come here claiming that your way to salvation is correct, then you had absolutely better know you are correct. Otherwise, you will be held partly responsible for those who listened to you and yet came up short at judgement time because of what you were able to convince them of.

[disciple]

"So if you are going to come here claiming that your way to salvation is correct, then you had absolutely better know you are correct. Otherwise, you will be held partly responsible for those who listened to you and yet came up short at judgement time because of what you were able to convince them of."

Your statement is one that could be made to you also. The problem is that you think I'm your enemy and want to win a debate so you don't really think about what I say but you just want to retaliate. People don't convince others to believe the Gospel, that's the Holy Spirit's ***, so if anyone is convinced by a man, whether he is the founder of a religion or a pastor or teacher, they are starting with a bad foundation. The convincing and ***urance should come from the Bible, so everyone is responsible for their own relationship with God. Either you trust what He says or you trust what a man says.

[theway]

Your statement is one that could be made to you also. Absolutely!


The problem is that you think I'm your enemy...But you are if you are trying to turn people from the truth. It won't work with me because I understand the nature of the thing, and how you are influenced, I feel sorry for those who you would convince, so I simply point out the flaws in your theology to give them a bigger perspective in which to make their decision.

...and want to win a debate so you don't really think about what I say but you just want to retaliate. No, it's not like that... I simply have heard all your guy's arguments in all their different versions; have considered them, and I am not impressed by them. I am not here to win a debate... At this point I am only here for the entertainment value of it.

People don't convince others to believe the Gospel, that's the Holy Spirit's ***, so if anyone is convinced by a man, whether he is the founder of a religion or a pastor or teacher, they are starting with a bad foundation. The convincing and ***urance should come from the Bible, so everyone is responsible for their own relationship with God. Either you trust what He says or you trust what a man says.
You are so right and this is all I have ever asked of anyone. This is why I said I am only here for the entertainment value. I realized long ago that trying to change someone's mind here would be futile, and even if I could change them to believing the Mormon Church is true through some argument of mine, I know they would not last long because they have based their belief on a man and his ability to argue a point.
Although you contradicted yourself in your point about a convincing and ***urance coming from the Bible. As you stated that only comes from the Holy Ghost.
This is one of those false doctrine that you tell people which will lead them astray.

[disciple]

Absolutely!

But you are if you are trying to turn people from the truth. It won't work with me because I understand the nature of the thing, and how you are influenced, I feel sorry for those who you would convince, so I simply point out the flaws in your theology to give them a bigger perspective in which to make their decision.
No, it's not like that... I simply have heard all your guy's arguments in all their different versions; have considered them, and I am not impressed by them. I am not here to win a debate... At this point I am only here for the entertainment value of it.

You are so right and this is all I have ever asked of anyone. This is why I said I am only here for the entertainment value. I realized long ago that trying to change someone's mind here would be futile, and even if I could change them to believing the Mormon Church is true through some argument of mine, I know they would not last long because they have based their belief on a man and his ability to argue a point.
Although you contradicted yourself in your point about a convincing and ***urance coming from the Bible. As you stated that only comes from the Holy Ghost.
This is one of those false doctrine that you tell people which will lead them astray.

See Way, its not hard to be civil in a discussion. How could someone be led astray by reading the Bible? Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.
And what about what Paul said in Galatians 1:8-9 "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed."
What Gospel did Paul preach? The one that's in the Bible, not in later extra-biblical books.

[Snow Patrol]

See Way, its not hard to be civil in a discussion. How could someone be led astray by reading the Bible? Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.



So, every single person who reads the Bible with come away with the exact same belief set?

[theway]

See Way, its not hard to be civil in a discussion. How could someone be led astray by reading the Bible? Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.
but knowledge or confirmation of the word of God only comes from one place as Jesus pointed out to Peter.... Direct revelation from God.
Reading the scriptures is great and you will indeed grow in Faith by so doing, if done with the guidance of the Holy Ghost. However the scriptures are not the final authority, the scriptures are a tool given to us to help us become more Christlike, the same as repentance is a tool, prayer, fasting, good works, gifts of the Spirit, baptism, church attendance, etc, etc... They are all important to developing our faith.
However just using the scriptures alone, or using the scriptures as the final authority will get you into hot water.
Ironically, proof of this is had in the same scriptures you use to prove the scriptures as the final authority of the word of God.

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

You use this one without quoting verse 12 as to what happened after they did this.

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

In this one Jesus was pointing out that they did indeed search the scriptures of the Old Testament, and that the Scriptures of the Old Testament did nothing but testifying of him, but they had so completely misinterpreted it to not recognize him when he had finally came. But in fact used those same scriptures to condemn Him and put Him to death.



And what about what Paul said in Galatians 1:8-9 "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed."This is not a good scripture to use as I can use it as proof against your point of view of the scriptures as well. Not to mention that this scripture is nothing more than exaggerated hyperbole rhetoric that Paul ofttimes uses. Most commentaries points out the impossibility of taking this verse in any way literal.
Also we have no idea what was preached to them, or how they interpreted that gospel, so all you can do is guess what was preach to them and then claim without proof that your interpretation matched theirs.



What Gospel did Paul preach? The one that's in the Bible, not in later extra-biblical books.Ironic that you should use Paul when he actually is proof that basing the viability or your authority on the Bible is misplaced. Paul thought that he was following God's Will and what the scriptures stated when he persecuted the early Saints. Yet he was wrong. This is what you are doing, you are basing your doctrine on YOUR interpretation of it, just as all the other AntiMormons here do as well. This is why you are getting differing views on the path to salvation while at the same time each if you are claiming that your doctrine comes from the Bible.

[disciple]

So, every single person who reads the Bible with come away with the exact same belief set?
Hi SP,
Obviously not, but there is nowhere else to find the truth. If someone reads the scriptures and doesn't believe what they say or molds God's word to fit their own need that doesn't change the truth of the message. Don't you wish everyone that read God's word believed? I do.

[theway]

Hi SP,
Obviously not, but there is nowhere else to find the truth. If someone reads the scriptures and doesn't believe what they say or molds God's word to fit their own need that doesn't change the truth of the message. Don't you wish everyone that read God's word believed? I do.It's not a matter of believing after you read the scriptures, but about what it is that you are believing the scriptures are saying after having read them. If I read the scriptures and came away with a Calvinist view of them, them I would soon reject them as they create a God which is unfair, contradictory, unknowable and nonsensical.

[disciple]

but knowledge or confirmation of the word of God only comes from one place as Jesus pointed out to Peter.... Direct revelation from God.
Reading the scriptures is great and you will indeed grow in Faith by so doing, if done with the guidance of the Holy Ghost. However the scriptures are not the final authority, the scriptures are a tool given to us to help us become more Christlike, the same as repentance is a tool, prayer, fasting, good works, gifts of the Spirit, baptism, church attendance, etc, etc... They are all important to developing our faith.
However just using the scriptures alone, or using the scriptures as the final authority will get you into hot water.
Ironically, proof of this is had in the same scriptures you use to prove the scriptures as the final authority of the word of God.

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

You use this one without quoting verse 12 as to what happened after they did this.

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

In this one Jesus was pointing out that they did indeed search the scriptures of the Old Testament, and that the Scriptures of the Old Testament did nothing but testifying of him, but they had so completely misinterpreted it to not recognize him when he had finally came. But in fact used those same scriptures to condemn Him and put Him to death.


This is not a good scripture to use as I can use it as proof against your point of view of the scriptures as well. Not to mention that this scripture is nothing more than exaggerated hyperbole rhetoric that Paul ofttimes uses. Most commentaries points out the impossibility of taking this verse in any way literal.
Also we have no idea what was preached to them, or how they interpreted that gospel, so all you can do is guess what was preach to them.



Ironic that you should use Paul when he actually is proof that basing the viability or your authority on the Bible is misplaced. Paul thought that he was following God's Will and what the scriptures stated when he persecuted the early Saints. Yet he was wrong. This is what you are doing, you are basing your doctrine on YOUR interpretation of it, just as all the other AntiMormons here do as well. This is why you are getting differing views on the path to salvation while at the same time each if you are claiming that your doctrine comes from the Bible.

I'm surprised Jesus didn't know scripture wasn't the final authority when He taught from it, since it was God's Spirit that inspired every word. I'm also glad that Paul didn't write all the New Testament since we can't take what he says literally. You're kidding, right?

[Snow Patrol]

Hi SP,
Obviously not, but there is nowhere else to find the truth. If someone reads the scriptures and doesn't believe what they say or molds God's word to fit their own need that doesn't change the truth of the message. Don't you wish everyone that read God's word believed? I do.

Then how can you say something like "How could someone be led astray by reading the Bible?" if you then admit that everyone that reads the Bible is not going to come to the same belief set. Who knows what the percentage is of people that read the Bible and then come away with beliefs that in your opinion would not be sufficient to get them saved.

[theway]

I'm surprised Jesus didn't know scripture wasn't the final authority when He taught from it, since it was God's Spirit that inspired every word. I'm also glad that Paul didn't write all the New Testament since we can't take what he says literally. You're kidding, right?Jesus NEVER said the Bible or the scriptures had final authority. You have bought into a belief which does not exist.

Also, you misstated me, I said that this verse of Paul's can not be taken literally. This is backed up by most commentaries on this verse... This is not a Mormon thing.

[disciple]

Then how can you say something like "How could someone be led astray by reading the Bible?" if you then admit that everyone that reads the Bible is not going to come to the same belief set. Who knows what the percentage is of people that read the Bible and then come away with beliefs that in your opinion would not be sufficient to get them saved.

Isn't it their own heart that leads the astray? I'm sure you have read the parable of the sower, the seed is the word, if all the ground is not good that doesn't make the seed bad.

[disciple]

Jesus NEVER said the Bible or the scriptures had final authority. You have bought into a belief which does not exist.

Also, you misstated me, I said that this verse of Paul's can not be taken literally. This is backed up by most commentaries on this verse... This is not a Mormon thing.

Come on Way, the Scriptures are God's very thoughts, how could they not carry His authority which is final?

[theway]

Isn't it their own heart that leads the astray? I'm sure you have read the parable of the sower, the seed is the word, if all the ground is not good that doesn't make the seed bad.
But then my original point stands.
Most AntiMormon posters subscribe to a belief that ALL men's hearts are deceitful and would only choose evil. They would never seek after God, and it is only because God forces the gospel on someone against their will that a person is saved.

That doesn't appear to be your belief, but then it begs the question... Who is right?
And where did you come up with your doctrine? Was it not the same place that they did? Was it not from the same authority?

[disciple]

But then my original point stands.
Most AntiMormon posters subscribe to a belief that ALL men's hearts are deceitful and would only choose evil. They would never seek after God, and it is only because God forces the gospel on someone against their will that a person is saved.

That doesn't appear to be your belief, but then it begs the question... Who is right?
And where did you come up with your doctrine? Was it not the same place that they did? Was it not from the same authority?

I don't have a doctrine, its the doctrine of God that I believe, Jesus Christ is God, Savior and Judge and I believe what the Scriptures say about Him and what they say about me.
And yes, Jesus knocks on the door, He doesn't kick it in and drag you out.

[theway]

Come on Way, the Scriptures are God's very thoughts, how could they not carry His authority which is final?
No they are not! God's thoughts are God's thoughts. The scriptures are what witnesses wrote down they heard Jesus said, most of the time many years later. They then were retranslated from one language to the next most times. We then interpreted them based mostly on our own understanding and biases.
We hope we have the true meaning, but can not be sure unless we receive a confirmation, and that confirmation does not come from the scriptures.

You sound like you believe in a inerrant Bible? This is a minority view which will cause all types of problems and will actually cause some to reject the Bible altogether.

[theway]

I don't have a doctrine, its the doctrine of God that I believe, Jesus Christ is God, Savior and Judge and I believe what the Scriptures say about Him and what they say about me.
And yes, Jesus knocks on the door, He doesn't kick it in and drag you out.So given that the doctrine of God which you believe is so different than the doctrine of God which the rest of the Posters on this forum believe, you are in essence saying that all other Posters but you are wrong when it comes to how one is saved.

Does that about sum it up?

[disciple]

So given that the doctrine of God which you believe is so different than the doctrine of God which the rest of the Posters on this forum believe, you are in essence saying that all other Posters but you are wrong when it comes to how one is saved.

Does that about sum it up?

I'm saying the Bible is right and it's plain to see. That about sums it up.

[disciple]

No they are not! God's thoughts are God's thoughts. The scriptures are what witnesses wrote down they heard Jesus said, most of the time many years later. They then were retranslated from one language to the next most times. We then interpreted them based mostly on our own understanding and biases.
We hope we have the true meaning, but can not be sure unless we receive a confirmation, and that confirmation does not come from the scriptures.

You sound like you believe in a inerrant Bible? This is a minority view which will cause all types of problems and will actually cause some to reject the Bible altogether.

I see now why you continually discount scripture references from other posters. Of course the Scriptures are inerrant, you don't think that God could keep His word pure for a few thousand years?

[theway]

I'm saying the Bible is right and it's plain to see. That about sums it up.do you now see the futility of any "conversation" with you?

You are reduced to nothing more than spouting useless pla***udes to try and prove your nonsensical version of Gods Word.

[theway]

I see now why you continually discount scripture references from other posters. Of course the Scriptures are inerrant, you don't think that God could keep His word pure for a few thousand years?
Not true... I merely discount your interpretation of scripture based on God's Word, the one which never does fail.

[disciple]

do you now see the futility of any "conversation" with you?

You are reduced to nothing more than spouting useless pla***udes to try and prove your nonsensical version of Gods Word.

It's not very entertaining having a conversation with someone who agrees with everything you say.:p

[theway]

It's not very entertaining having a conversation with someone who agrees with everything you say.:pNo it's downright boring... That is the point of the pla***ude you posted, it hides your heresies without you having to actually answer the question.

[disciple]

No it's downright boring... That is the point of the pla***ude you posted, it hides your heresies without you having to actually answer the question.

Ya know Way, you are not a very good amb***ador for Christ. I wonder why? Maybe because Paul is an exaggerator and can't be taken literally. The scriptures answer your questions but alas, they hold no authority in your eyes.

[RealFakeHair]

No it's downright boring... That is the point of the pla***ude you posted, it hides your heresies without you having to actually answer the question.

Mormons typing about heresies, now that's a laugh! lol

[theway]

Ya know Way, you are not a very good amb***ador for Christ. I wonder why? Maybe because Paul is an exaggerator and can't be taken literally. The scriptures answer your questions but alas, they hold no authority in your eyes.Im here for entertainment value only...
I'm under no delusions that this forum is in any way a place for learning the truth.
Also, when I first started posting here one of my posting criteria for having a conversation, was to not try to guilt or shame me into retracting what I say.

In any case you yourself do not believe in the Bible as the final authority either.
Like all the rest you give lip service to the Bible, but do not actually believe in what you preach.

[RealFakeHair]

Im here for entertainment value only...
I'm under no delusions that this forum is in any way a place for learning the truth.
Also, when I first started posting here one of my posting criteria for having a conversation, was to not try to guilt or shame me into retracting what I say.

In any case you yourself do not believe in the Bible as the final authority either.
Like all the rest you give lip service to the Bible, but do not actually believe in what you preach.
Are you saying people here give lip service to the Holy Bible in the same way Joseph Smith jr. Did?

[theway]

Are you saying people here give lip service to the Holy Bible in the same way Joseph Smith jr. Did?

No... I didn't say anything about Joseph Smith. You seem obsessed with Joseph Smith.

What I am saying is that you guys do not practice or even believe in, what you preach; and I will prove this by the way he answers my question. Although there is the small chance that he actually does... However I have not found that true in the dozens of times I have asked this question.

[RealFakeHair]

No... I didn't say anything about Joseph Smith. You seem obsessed with Joseph Smith.

What I am saying is that you guys do not practice or even believe in, what you preach; and I will prove this by the way he answers my question. Although there is the small chance that he actually does... However I have not found that true in the dozens of times I have asked this question.

When was the last time you stoned one of your children? Leviticus 20:9 For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon him.

[alanmolstad]

the Law was a school master...but as the Christian is no longer under the rule of the school, then the Laws of the School master are moot..

this is because the Law only can control the living, and the Christian has died in baptism with Christ, and is raised anew...therefore the law can not hold they who are dead...

[theway]

When was the last time you stoned one of your children? Leviticus 20:9 For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon him.
Ah.... Nope, sorry...... Not a clue as to what your point is????