So is Evan Jesus the father of Lucifer? Y or N?

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

The highly sexual nature of Mormonism is likely the result of the sexual fixation that the founding members of the Mormon CULT had with younger and younger women and girls.

Careful A...."You have already agreed to not make personal attacks when you first signed up for this message Board...Im not sure if your religion (whatever it is?) allows you to break your word anyway or Not?"

In my Bible School days we came to see the Mormon teachings about their God sexing it up all the time as a reflection of what Mormon men think is their idea of what heaven should be like.....(endless sex with women other than one's wife).

"But I do know that people that break their word and start to make personal attacks don't last long around here...
We can talk about issues...
we can talk about current events...and we can talk about Bible verses and about religions and stuff...
But we cant dip down into talking about each other's deity or past leaders in a personal manner or this place will get dragged down into the mud."

I once heard a story...

Typical anti-LDS propaganda alert! "Once heard a story" shows the quality and reliability of the typical anti-LDS libelous, fear-mongering conspiracy theory-level garbage...and the credulity of anti-LDS who so willingly believe something they once heard or saw on the Internet--no evidence required before accepting it as fact.
A, do you really want to drag this forum down into the mud?

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Careful A...

...once again, we gave our word not to attack personally any other member of this message board.
(see RULE #2..."Personal character attacks on board members")


Issues of religion, history, issues about popular stories in the news are open to discussion.
But we should not criticize members of this message board in an overly-personal manner.

So this means that you as a Mormon or a good Christian can criticize many well-known Mormons and Christians, and others who have their names in the news and in the history books.

So that being the case, it is no secret that the founder of the Mormon church really did sex-it up with younger and younger girls.

And it is no secret that when you raise this issue with Mormons today they mostly don't consider what Smith did with younger and younger girls to be a big deal.

In my Bible School days, we did a study of the founder of the Mormon and the JW and Moonie religions, and one of the things I noted then was that I started to see why Mormons don't have a problem with Smith's adultery...it seems to stem from their view that what Smith was simply doing here on earth was what their Mormon god was also guilty of too.

Thus the effect of a Christian raising the issue with a Mormon today is zip......it simply does not bother many Mormons the way it should because they seem conditioned to see sex with other women than your wife as simply following their god's example....

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

so willingly believe something they once heard or saw on the Internet--no evidence required

The full story is that i was teaching on how to reach out to the CULTS at our church night school.
I did the part where we talked about dealing with the JWs.

The person talking about how to reach out to the Mormons told this story of dealing with the girl who was christian and her getting married to the Mormon.

The reason this was brought up was that the christian parents of the girl were local to our area, and so many working in ministry to the Mormons knew the background to the story.

I do not have permission to list the names of people here in the open, however if there is any doubt as to the truth behind what i have said here, I guess i could try to do a google search for the people involved.

But for now the story is a first hand story, told to me in person by a nationally known Christian radio personality.
the story was widly known by others in my church, and there is even a chance i may have known the girl and boy involved in the story....(It was not that big of town..LOL)

[nrajeffreturns]

Your story is one that you had heard someone else tell. You have not provided any evidence that this tale is true, and if true, is accurate in its details.

You then re-told this tale on the Internet.

So to all us readers, this is what is called hearsay--you're spreading what you "claim" you heard "someone else" say.

The question for you is:

Did you automatically believe the story was true? If you do, why would you do that, instead of file it under "one of many stories that lack any evidence" ?

Also: What does the Bible say about spreading rumors and gossip that you might hear?

And the question for the readers of your tale is:

Are you going to automatically believe this story is true? If you do, what kind of standards to you hold unsubstantiated Internet stories up to? By what criteria do you decide that one Internet story you read is false, but another you read is true?

[alanmolstad]

The account I have given you is as.it.was.given to me.

Are.you now saying that the events talked about in the story "did not happen as told to me?

Or are you saying that the events "could not" happen?

If I contact the person who told me this story. And had him confirm that my account of what he said in cl*** is correct and that I have been very faithfully to the story as he first told it...would that be what you are seeking to learn?

[alanmolstad]

Because I was teaching a cl*** on outreach to the cults it may be very easy to contact the person who told me this story...I believe the story he told the cl*** was likely also shared on the radio too...

This means that thereis a good chance the guy remembers telling it...or remembers the people in the story.

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

The account I have given you is as.it.was.given to me.

So if the events you were told never happened, then you are spreading a false story.

Are.you now saying that the events talked about in the story "did not happen as told to me?

I am ASKING why you automatically swallowed the tale and ***umed it was a true story. And why any of us should do likewise.

Or are you saying that the events "could not" happen?

The issue is whether they DID happen. If someone told me that they saw a member of your church selling crack to kindergartners, I would have some decisions to make:

1. Am I going to believe this story I just heard?
2. Am I going to spread this story across the Internet?
3. If I do that, and the story isn't true (since I haven't found out whether it's true or not), what responsibility do I have for causing Internet readers to believe it?

If I contact the person who told me this story. And had him confirm that my account of what he said in cl*** is correct and that I have been very faithfully to the story as he first told it...would that be what you are seeking to learn?

The following ****ogy should answer your question: If I contacted the person who told me (in my hypothetical example) that they saw a member of your church sell crack to kindergartners, and that person said "Yup, I did tell you that," would that be all YOU needed to learn before believing the events really happened?

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

So if the events you were told never happened, then you are spreading a false story.


I am ASKING why you automatically swallowed the tale and ***umed it was a true story. And why any of us should do likewise.


The issue is whether they DID happen. If someone told me that they saw a member of your church selling crack to kindergartners, I would have some decisions to make:

1. Am I going to believe this story I just heard?
2. Am I going to spread this story across the Internet?
3. If I do that, and the story isn't true (since I haven't found out whether it's true or not), what responsibility do I have for causing Internet readers to believe it?



The following ****ogy should answer your question: If I contacted the person who told me (in my hypothetical example) that they saw a member of your church sell crack to kindergartners, and that person said "Yup, I did tell you that," would that be all YOU needed to learn before believing the events really happened?

Well, you go around spreading the story that the Father and Son appeared to a gl*** looker, an occultist, and money digger, and told him all of Christianity was an abomination. That sounds pretty lame to me.

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Apologette

Well, you go around spreading the story that the Father and Son appeared to a gl*** looker, an occultist, and money digger, and told him all of Christianity was an abomination. That sounds pretty lame to me.

I "foreknew" that someone would bring that up. The response that I had planned to use when it came up is:

There are several differences, IMO, including:

1. The name of the person making the claim is public knowledge. Indeed, the person who made the claim put his name to it. There was no anonymity that relegated the story to a "I heard this from some unidentified person" status.

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

I "foreknew" that someone would bring that up. The response that I had planned to use when it came up is:

There are several differences, IMO, including:

1. The name of the person making the claim is public knowledge. Indeed, the person who made the claim put his name to it. There was no anonymity that relegated the story to a "I heard this from some unidentified person" status.

The story about the Christian girl dating the Mormon guy rings true to me because most Christians have no clue that Mormons think they are going to be polygamous in heaven. And a Christian girl would be abashed if she learned that her husband to be was planning on that!

[alanmolstad]

Im still not clear what you want me to provide you with and what it will mean to you when I have the requested information?

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by Apologette

The story about the Christian girl dating the Mormon guy rings true to me because most Christians have no clue

This is so true.
inmost people have no clue the Mormons are so steeped in sex with their history.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Im still not clear what you want me to provide you with and what it will mean to you when I have the requested information?

The account I gave is about 20 years old by now...and so I may be hard pressed to get the permissions. From allninvolved. But if it will cause someone to question mormon teachings then it would be worth the attempt.

Is that the case?

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Im still not clear what you want me to provide you with and what it will mean to you when I have the requested information?

I want you to explain:

1. why you automatically swallowed the tale and ***umed it was a true story.

2.And why any of us should do likewise, when there is zero evidence being provided to prove that it ever occurred.

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post--- The scriptures have God the Father as the Father of all spirits. That is a paternal connection--regardless of what else you add to the equation. And those spirits are the offspring of God:

Acts 17:29---King James Version (KJV)

29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

Billyray--offspring are always of the same species as their Father--mother or no mother. And if God the Father is the Father of all spirits--then all spirits are brothers and sisters by virtue of the fact they share the same Father--mother or no mother. Your point is a moot one, unless you can show us what other God you believe is the Father of the remainder of the spirits.

Originally Posted by James Banta

But BD why does a person's offspring have a requirement to become his child in at all?

Acts17:29 is not a reference to our offspring--it's a reference to God the Father's offspring. They have to become Christ's children through the adoption to inherit the promises, eternal life.

The Bible makes it clear that we must become God's children through faith in Jesus (John 1:12-13).. We are His children to start with why wold we be required to be born spiritually of Him at all.. We should naturally be His children being born of Him the first time..

But we are not offspring of Jesus Christ. Not in the flesh--nor the spirit. God the Father is the Father of our spirits--and our earthly fathers are the natural fathers of our flesh and bones:


Hebrews 12:9---King James Version (KJV)


9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

That is the reason an adoption has to take place--it is transferring the Fatherhood to Christ. If Christ were the Father of our spirits--that would not have to happen. Even Christ's spirit was Fathered by God the Father--He had the same God and Father we do:


John 20:17---King James Version (KJV)


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

All spirits have the same Father--all of them.

By the FACT that God requires that we are to be born again spiritually becoming His children through faith in Jesus make it easy to see that being God's offspring is therefore not the same thing as being His children.

That is correct--and that is an obvious point, seeing that our spirits exist in our bodies before any adoption takes place. The fact that we are spirit offspring of God is a separate fact from the adoption that takes place following the Fathering of our spirits. Just like our flesh is fathered prior to becoming adopted. We are adopted both physically and spiritually. Christ is the Father of neither--an adoption must take place to be adopted to Jesus Christ, and become the seed of Abraham, and heir of the promises--and that adoption is to Christ, not the Father. And that is one reason Christ had to come in the flesh--because it was He who was cast into the die of the Abrahammic lineage--and links us to the seed of Abraham through the adoption, and becoming heirs to the promises:


Hebrews 2:16--King James Version (KJV)


16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.



Galatians 3:26-29----King James Version (KJV)


26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

By right of creation we are His offspring, that creation of our spirit being created within us (Zech 12:1).. BEING ALL HIS OFFSPRING IS A GENERAL STATEMENT ABOUT ALL MANKIND.

The scriptures do not have Jesus Christ as the Father of spirits--that is ***igned to God the Father only. Even Jesus consigned to that fact:

John 20:17---King James Version (KJV)


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

They are His offspring without regard to faith in Jesus.

I would agree that being offspring and the adoption are two different points--the spirit is indeed an offspring of God the Father without regard to faith--but that is God the Father--not Jesus Christ--- that is the natural Father of spirits.

If Jesus were the Father of spirits--there would not have to be an adoption--they would already be His children. The scriptures only ***ign one natural Father to spirits--and that is God the Father:

Hebrews 12:9---King James Version (KJV)


9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

Even Jesus called God the Father His Father.

To become His children there is that requirement. And those that have no faith in him? They are Children of their father, the Devil (John 8:44). IHS jim

That is correct--we become subject to the devil and his kingdom at that point--satan is a god also.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

Hebrews 12:9---King James Version (KJV)


9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

If Christ were the Father of our spirits--that would not have to happen. Even Christ's spirit was Fathered by God the Father--He had the same God and Father we do:

Christ created all things both visible and invisible which would include you and me and satan.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

Hebrews 12:9---King James Version (KJV)


9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

That is the reason an adoption has to take place--it is transferring the Fatherhood to Christ. If Christ were the Father of our spirits--that would not have to happen. Even Christ's spirit was Fathered by God the Father--He had the same God and Father we do:

Hebrews 12
4 In your struggle against sin, you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood.
5 And have you completely forgotten this word of encouragement that addresses you as a father addresses his son? It says, “My son, do not make light of the Lord’s discipline, and do not lose heart when he rebukes you,
6 because the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and he chastens everyone he accepts as his son.”

Who is "Lord" in these verses?

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post-----Hebrews 12:9---King James Version (KJV)


9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

If Christ were the Father of our spirits--that would not have to happen. Even Christ's spirit was Fathered by God the Father--He had the same God and Father we do:


John 20:17---King James Version (KJV)


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

Originally Posted by Billyray

Christ created all things both visible and invisible which would include you and me and satan.

The scriptures confirm that God the Father is the Father of all spirits--including Christ's spirit--as He conceded:

John 20:17---King James Version (KJV)


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


Paul confirms that:


Ephesians 4:4-6---King James Version (KJV)


4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

That is a reference to God the Father--not Jesus Christ. As Hebrews states--it is God the Father--not Christ--that is the Father of spirits. Jesus Christ did not created Himself, God the Father--or the Father's offspring--which included the spirits--all spirits.

They were not created in the typical sense a rock was--they were Fathered--as the scriptures show--a paternal connection. They are His offspring:


Acts 17:29---King James Version (KJV)


29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.


As the scriptures articulate:


John 1:1-3---King James Version (KJV)


1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

The offspring of God--all spirits--were not made by Christ---they were Fathered by God the Father.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

The scriptures confirm that God the Father is the Father of all spirits--including Christ's spirit--as He conceded:

Nowhere in you collection of verses does it disprove that Christ is the one who created all things both visible and invisible.

And why on earth do you keep posting John 1:1-3?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

Acts 17:29---King James Version (KJV)


29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

And why do you think that this verse helps you?

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Nowhere in you collection of verses does it disprove that Christ is the one who created all things both visible and invisible.

Yes there is. And for obvious reason--Christ did not create God the Father--the invisible God.

And if God the Father is the Father of all--including Christ's spirit--then Christ obviously is not the Father of spirits. That He conceded:

John 20:17---King James Version (KJV)


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


Billyray--that was a reference to His spirit and man's spirit. God the Father is the Father of them all:

Ephesians 4:4-6---King James Version (KJV)


4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

And why on earth do you keep posting John 1:1-3?

John 1:1-3---King James Version (KJV)


1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Because it is a conditional statement about Christ's creation being limited to things made--verses God the Father's ---Fathering offspring---which is obviously not in the "made" category.

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post----Acts 17:29---King James Version (KJV)


29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

Originally Posted by Billyray

And why do you think that this verse helps you?

Because it defines what the Fathering of spirits brings forth--His offspring. Offspring are always of the same species as their Father. And that is different than the creation of a rock, trees, water, etc. And it is the offspring of God the Father--not Jesus Christ. That is the reason God the Father is referred to as "Father".

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

Offspring are always of the same species as their Father.

Gen. 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”

Who is "your offspring" in verse 15?

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post---Offspring are always of the same species as their Father.

Originally Posted by Billyray

Gen. 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”

Who is "your offspring" in verse 15?

How does that somehow cancel out the fact that spirits are the offspring of God the Father?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

How does that somehow cancel out the fact that spirits are the offspring of God the Father?

You said "Offspring are always of the same species as their Father."

Gen. 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”

Who is "your offspring" in verse 15?