As of late the mormons of the forum:

[Sir]

Originally Posted by ErikErik

Your church teaches/has taught that God is a polygamous, has many goddess wives and is busy producing spirit babies. That God has a body like ours. Now you want to turn around and claim that god has no reproductive organs. So either He has a body like yours or he doesn't. Which is it??

However, none of the above has any scriptural support from the word of God...Sorry

Guess you have forgotten what your past leaders said and taught. That Christ was begotten by an immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers. Young taught: 'The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood—was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers.'

This not only denies the virgin birth, but also denies the true deity of Jesus Christ, who said He is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending.

If God has a body like yours, then why do you now want to say His body is different and has different parts??? The Holy Scriptures says God is a Spirit. Mormons say no He is not! Guess you call God a liar.

It isn't MY position that Jesus resurrected without certain body parts. That would be James.

My point was that it is YOU who made 2 opposite claims. But apparently reading comprehension is becoming an issue and I don't feel like trying to help people who are unable to understand.

[Sir]

Originally Posted by James Banta

Really is this how apostles of your church understood the way in which Jesus was conceived? Do they not knew all about these other "Nature ways" by which a child could be convinced? And yet this is a teaching of a Prophet seer and revelator of your church:

These name ***les all signify that our Lord is the only Son of the Father in the flesh. Each of the words is to be understood literally. Only means only, Begotten means begotten; and Son means son. Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers. (Mormon Doctrine, 1979, pp. 546-47)

Seems your natural ideas clash with those of a prophet of your god..

I'm simply saying that Erik's claim that saying Jesus is the LITERAL son of God means God had sexual intercourse with a goddess is false. One can be a literal child of another without sexual intercourse.

I don't have any idea how the resurrection body of Jesus was built.. Neither do you! It is conceivable that unnecessary appendages would not be included remember Paul told us that body which is laid down in death is not the same body as in raised up. The natural is corrupt and the resurrection body is incorruption (1 Cor 15:37-42).. We don't know what we shall be but when that came come we know that we will be like Him (1John 3:2)..

IHS jim

Really? I've never met a christian who believed it is possible that Jesus resurrected without part of his body. You're the first.

[James Banta]

[Sir;73658]I'm simply saying that Erik's claim that saying Jesus is the LITERAL son of God means God had sexual intercourse with a goddess is false. One can be a literal child of another without sexual intercourse.

I was showing you that earlier on LDS church history it was believed that God conceived Jesus in "natural way". in the 19th century that didn't include anything but sexual intercourse.. You have no argument with me you will have to take that up with your historic church leaders..

The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood—was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers" (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, p. 115).

Now tell me that when Young said this he meant the aid of modern medicine.. Young was speaking of a pure sexual act here.. Now logic comes into play.. If God has a sexual union with Mary to bring about the body of Jesus, doesn't it follow that this is how He bring spirit babies into his family in their pre-existent state? I say Yes of course.. After all, as I have pointed out, with God there in no turning or shadow of change (James 1:17)..

Really? I've never met a christian who believed it is possible that Jesus resurrected without part of his body. You're the first.

Since those worthy of the resurrection of the just are like the angels it is doubtful that sexual organs are required. No one ever examined Jesus to see it His resurrection body is the same in every way as was His mortal body.. We can ***ume that His mortal body was because the Bible says that He was tempted in every way that we are yet He was without sin (Heb 4:15).. So if we will be like Him we too will have no need of sexual organs being like the angels, it isn't a far reach to say that His resurrection body is that much different than a mortal body.. See instead of just disagreeing with you I actually give reason from the Bible for the idea I put forward.. I'll bet the Christians you have spoken to about thing have never given it a moments thought.. IHS jim

[Sir]

Originally Posted by James Banta

I was showing you that earlier on LDS church history it was believed that God conceived Jesus in "natural way". in the 19th century that didn't include anything but sexual intercourse.. You have no argument with me you will have to take that up with your historic church leaders..

The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood—was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers" (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, p. 115).

Now tell me that when Young said this he meant the aid of modern medicine.. Young was speaking of a pure sexual act here.. Now logic comes into play.. If God has a sexual union with Mary to bring about the body of Jesus, doesn't it follow that this is how He bring spirit babies into his family in their pre-existent state? I say Yes of course.. After all, as I have pointed out, with God there in no turning or shadow of change (James 1:17)..



Since those worthy of the resurrection of the just are like the angels it is doubtful that sexual organs are required. No one ever examined Jesus to see it His resurrection body is the same in every way as was His mortal body.. We can ***ume that His mortal body was because the Bible says that He was tempted in every way that we are yet He was without sin (Heb 4:15).. So if we will be like Him we too will have no need of sexual organs being like the angels, it isn't a far reach to say that His resurrection body is that much different than a mortal body.. See instead of just disagreeing with you I actually give reason from the Bible for the idea I put forward.. I'll bet the Christians you have spoken to about thing have never given it a moments thought.. IHS jim

James,
You're arguing and posting quotes from LDS church history as if that is what is even being argued. It's not. The only thing being stated here is that one person is claiming that to be called a literal son, that son MUST have been conceived via sexual intercourse.

Obviously that is not true and so should end that argument. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make in regards to that.

[ErikErik]

Originally Posted by Sir

I'm simply saying that Erik's claim that saying Jesus is the LITERAL son of God means God had sexual intercourse with a goddess is false. One can be a literal child of another without sexual intercourse.


Really? I've never met a christian who believed it is possible that Jesus resurrected without part of his body. You're the first.

MY claims? So what do you do with what Brigham Young taught: "The birth of our Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of NATURAL ACTION. He partook of FLESH AND BLOOD--was begotten of his father, as we were of our fathers."

Young: "When the time came that His first-born, the Saviour, should come into the world and take a tabernacle, the Father came himself and favored that Spirit
with a tabernacle instead of letting any other man do it. The Saviour was begotten by the Father of His spirit, by the same being who is the Father of
our spirits, AND THAT IS ALL THE ORGANIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JESUS CHRIST AND YOU AND ME."

Joe F. Smith said: "We are told in the scriptures that Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of God in the flesh....how are children begotten? I answer, just as Jesus was begotten of his Father.."

Here's Orson Pratt: "The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been ***ociated in the capacity of husband and wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father."...


My guess is that the lds on here will either deny, redefine, or sweep it all under the rug.

[ErikErik]

Originally Posted by Sir

It isn't MY position that Jesus resurrected without certain body parts. That would be James.

My point was that it is YOU who made 2 opposite claims. But apparently reading comprehension is becoming an issue and I don't feel like trying to help people who are unable to understand.

Two opposite claims? I am merely pointing our how the lds seems not to understand that they are really talking out of both corners of their mouths. You cannot say that God has celestial wives and is producing spirit babies, and at the same time teach that God has a body as tangible as man's. And then balk and say: oh no he doesn't have sex. You church teaches god has a body like ours but you deny he has any parts or p***ions which your very own leaders taught. Guess you guys didn't notice the implication of such beliefs. Orson Pratt even said that God and Mary were in the capacity of husband and wife.

This is all doublespeak and the lds has been doing this since its inception.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Sir

James,
You're arguing and posting quotes from LDS church history as if that is what is even being argued. It's not. The only thing being stated here is that one person is claiming that to be called a literal son, that son MUST have been conceived via sexual intercourse.

Obviously that is not true and so should end that argument. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make in regards to that.

Since "Obviously that is not true" then my pointing out that such was the belief of LDS men that even today are considered prophets of God it shows that either that the Bible is wrong, you are wrong or that Brigham Young and Joseph Smith taught false doctrine.. If that is the case and you are correct then they are false prophet and you are in a false church.. I agree with you as I agree with the Bible "for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." Sex had nothing to do with the conception of Jesus within Mary's womb it was a miraculous work of the Power of God.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by ErikErik

MY claims? So what do you do with what Brigham Young taught: "The birth of our Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of NATURAL ACTION. He partook of FLESH AND BLOOD--was begotten of his father, as we were of our fathers."

Young: "When the time came that His first-born, the Saviour, should come into the world and take a tabernacle, the Father came himself and favored that Spirit
with a tabernacle instead of letting any other man do it. The Saviour was begotten by the Father of His spirit, by the same being who is the Father of
our spirits, AND THAT IS ALL THE ORGANIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JESUS CHRIST AND YOU AND ME."

Joe F. Smith said: "We are told in the scriptures that Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of God in the flesh....how are children begotten? I answer, just as Jesus was begotten of his Father.."

Here's Orson Pratt: "The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been ***ociated in the capacity of husband and wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father."...


My guess is that the lds on here will either deny, redefine, or sweep it all under the rug.

That's an easy one to answer he must believe that the Bible is telling the truth and that Brigham Young was wrong.. What it is unwilling to do is recognize that a prophets teaching must be 100% true or that prophet is not a real prophet and should be ignored.. Mormonism seem to (at least in this day as told by this member of that religion) want it both ways, Young was wrong but he is still a prophet.. Doesn't work though does it? IHS jim

[Knox]

Originally Posted by Sir

I'm simply saying that Erik's claim that saying Jesus is the LITERAL son of God means God had sexual intercourse with a goddess is false. One can be a literal child of another without sexual intercourse.

But for such an event to happen over 2000 years ago, would require what religious people would call a miracle. Surely Mormons don't believe that God is capable of miracles?

Really? I've never met a christian who believed it is possible that Jesus resurrected without part of his body. You're the first.

Well, I for one will not brand a person who has such a "weird" belief about Jesus, a non-Christian just because they happen to have that belief.

[bert10]

The Sword 99: There shall not be any more hell have you not read in Revelation...how Death and Hell are emptied of men before they are cast into the lake of fire?

The only choices after judgment day....is one of the many mansions in different degrees of glory or darkness.

There is nothing in between. After Judgment day there is only Light or Darkness...and if want to know which one who shall go into what Jesus called the "Outer Darkness" read Hebrews 6:4-6. It is they who have known the light and received gifts of the light and then willingly with eyes wide open choose darkness. For these the power of the Holy Ghost cannot renew them unto repentance.

And without repentance there is no forgiveness of sins. For forgiveness of sins is predicated on Repentance. The devils before Melchizedek took an oath on mount Hermon to never Repent. And God will hold them to their oath...So the devils teach men to rebel and that God should forgive them by Grace teaching men that the rain falls on the wheat as well as the tares.

They do not realize, that after judgment day it is not possible for men in their various degrees of filthiness to exist with those who are holy.

Only on this earth the wicked and the just can live side by side, where all even the wicked can benefit from the blessings of God for the sakes of the righteous.

At death the first separation begins. Prison for those who are wicked and unclean so that they can begin to repent and Paradise for them who have manage to earn forgiveness of sins by repentance before they died.

I repeat in the beginning there was light and darkness and after judgment it shall be as in the beginning when everything was new. There are going to be kingdoms of Glory [Light] and one Kingdom of Darkness where the light of Christ is not. And is also mentioned in Jude who took of from Enoch.

bert10

Originally Posted by TheSword99

Yes all men will resurrect, whether just or unjust, but not all men will spend eternity with God. Jesus Christ at the Judgment will cast some out and they will follow satan into hell. The lds always omits what the Bible says about hell.. No its not just for satan and the son of perdition, but for all men who reject Christ, preach a "different" christ, or teach a different gospel. In Matthew 7 we read about people whom Christ cast out. He said He never knew these people who had prophesied, cast our demons and did many wonderful things in His name. Why would Christ cast out such people from heaven? Because they had depended on their "good works" to save them or to merit points in the afterlife. They did not depend on Christ alone for their eternal salvation.

Are you depending on Christ or on your own efforts to strive to always be obedient so that you can obtain some kind of godhood? Why do you even need Jesus if you think you can become a god of another planet for all eternity through your own efforts?

Hell is not here and now for some men. Its future. Nor is universal salvation taught in the Bible. Read Luke 16 again. Our fates ares sealed at death. The gulf is fixed. One will either be with God or separated from God forever. Jesus spoke more about hell than heaven.

[TheSword99]

Originally Posted by bert10

The Sword 99: There shall not be any more hell have you not read in Revelation...how Death and Hell are emptied of men before they are cast into the lake of fire?


bert10

God will call the unsaved, those who rejected Christ or taught a different gospel and a different Christ from earth and from hell to the Great White Throne Judgment. The Judge will take His seat and the books will be opened. The Lambs Book of Life contains the names of those who were born again and will reign with Christ forever.
Those who refused to be saved, or adhered to a false gospel will not be listed in that book.

The Holy Bible says: "And death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works" (Rev. 20:13).
On that day the doors of hell will open and all that are in it will come forth to be judged and receive their sentence of eternal ****ation in the lake of fire.


Yes hell will be emptied. There will be a transfer from hell to the lake of fire because nobody, saved or unsaved, can receive their just rewards until the angel flying across the heavens declares "time shall be no more" (Rev.10:6)

[TheSword99]

Originally Posted by bert10

.



At death the first separation begins. Prison for those who are wicked and unclean so that they can begin to repent and Paradise for them who have manage to earn forgiveness of sins by repentance before they died.


bert10

The Bible nowhere teaches a 2nd chance after death. We are to choose this day, in this lifetime, whom we will serve. After death, all that remains for the unbeliever is judgment and all Judgment is final. (Rev 20:14-15) Nor can we earn forgiveness. It is freely given to those who repent and follow Jesus Christ and teach HIS Gospel.

In Luke 16 it is very clear that our eternal destiny is sealed at death. The gulf between the saved in Christ and the the unsaved is fixed. Notice that the rich man in Luke did not repent. But rather he begged Abraham to warn his brothers who were still alive on earth, about the terrible torment that awaits the unbeliever. That great gulf between Hell and Paradise, or Heaven, is fixed. Its permanent. No one ever can p*** from one to the other. There is no limbo, no purgatory, no middle ground, no 2nd chance! Beyond this life there remains only an eternal ****ation and an eternal Heaven, eternally separated!

The Lake of Fire is real and forever. Hebrews 9:27 says its appointed once for man to die, then the judgment. If your name isn't written in the Lamb's Book of Life you are judged already. You will be cast into the lake of fire.

Have you read the many p***ages where Jesus talked and warned about hell? He warned about the wrath to come.

“Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of ****ation” (John. 5:28-29)

“And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 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. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire” (Rev. 20:11-15)

[ErikErik]

Originally Posted by apexviper

You haven't read the Bible much have you?



.

Is this your favorite accusation? Generally accuse others of not reading the Holy Bible just because they disagree with you? As an lds, why would you recommend reading a book that your church teaches has errors and was tampered with by unscrupulous men and has "truths" deleted from it?

So which is it, do you believe the Holy Bible is trustworthy and God preserved it like He promised? ( and He did promise to, didn't He. You have read what He said about this haven't you? You wouldn't dare call God a liar I hope) Or do you believe its unreliable and suspect??

Who do you believe: God or your church?

[ErikErik]

Originally Posted by apexviper

So what you're saying is we can do anything we want and get away with it.



.

This is pure ig-norance. No born again Christian ever believes he can keep sinning. One of the evidence that one is truly saved and a child of God is the very fact that he hates sin. This has always been the accusation of those outside of Christianity that we believe we have a license to sin. You don't understand GRACE, God's unmerited favor. You are still striving to obey and be perfect even though God told you in His word, that your righteous acts are like filthy rags. (Isaiah 64:6)

The lds thinks he can please Almighty God by his "good deeds." But God still sees a sinner lost without Christ. When we are spiritually born-again, (which the lds church does not teach because you are striving your way to heaven) God sees Christ in us and that is what he approves of. We are stamped REDEEMED, because of Christ's perfect sacrifice. Our names are written in the Lamb's Book of Life. Unless one's name is in there, one is without hope in the hereafter. (Read the Bible and see for yourself) God then begins transforming us. Thus we lose the desire to sin. The Holy Spirit convicts us each time we sin which leads to repentance. Paul understood this and rejoiced at the wonderful riches of God's grace because he acknowledged that he wasn't doing what he should do and the very things he should do, he wasn't. He saw the hopelessness of trying to always be obedient. He couldn't do it. But Jesus Christ paid His and our sin debt in full. The lds is trying to do what Christ already did. This is what separates True Christians from all other religious groups. Christians understand what Christ meant when he said: "It is finished." All other groups say: "I must help Him, (or ***ist Him) Or: "I must contribute to my own salvation."

[James Banta]

[apexviper;7846]You haven't read the Bible much have you?

You have no idea how I read, when or where.. I quote from it far more than I have see you do.. All you seem to do it make unsupported claims without any scriptural authority.. When you can find Biblical p***ages that actually support what you are saying you might gain some level of credibility.. But these unsupported claims are nothing but a clanging gong. Noise without substance.

What you're saying is we can do anything we want and get away with it.

Is that supported in the Scripture? Yes it is! But while that is true not all things would be expedient.

1Cor 6:12
All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

A Christian isn't saved by our works but by His.

*** 3:5
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost

So can a Christian sin all they want.. Christians SIN FAR MORE THAN THEY WANT!! But we like Paul aren't perfect.. We are merely forgiven..

Your problem is you have no authority to baptize. No, His teachings have never left. You cannot harm the truth because it's constant. What other churches do is teach things not of the gospel & twist them. We mormons do not. We teach the only teachings of Christ there has ever been.

What more authority is there than to me made a child of God by faith in Jesus (John 1:12).. I agree that the truth is eternal and can't be destroyed.. Lies of the other hand change often and a lot.. Did you know that the BofM has been changed over 3,000 times since Smith said he received the translation from God? And that sections of the D&C have been totally removed one because it taught that polygamy is not the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ? Why all this change? Maybe because mormonism is the teaching of a man and not of God? That is what it looks like..

Shall, meaning all that will believe in Christ but if you truly believe IN Christ then you'll also believe His words and try to do good works. Otherwise you'd be a hypocrite.

YES, of course.. He has prepared good works for His children to walk in (Eph 2:10). Christian don't believe that Good works should be avoided.. No doing God's works is part of being His.. He can see out hearts but we members of the human race can't.. We need to see our faith in how we live and what we do.. But it isn't other people that bring salvation to us. That is from God and therefore the works we do don't enter into His knowledge of our hearts. He saves us by His grace through or faith in Jesus (Eph 2:8-9).. In short we don't do good work to get saved.. WE do good works because we are saved..

Please, don't get on the subject of "He is one with the Father". I've had to correct so many people on that it's not even funny as to how people misinterpret it. They're of one purpose, not one being.

Ok I won't then.. I will say that that the Bible says there is one God.. Jesus called the Father God (John 20:17). Jesus claimed to be God (John 8:58) and Peter the Apostle claimed the Holy Spirit to be God (Acts 5:3-4).. Three persons, right? And yet Moses and Jesus both affirmed that The the Lord (Jehovah) our God (Elohim) is one Lord (Jehovah).. How can that be expect in the doctrine of the trinity that I have explained?

You haven't shown anything except maybe the fact that you don't know the scriptures. As Ephesians 1:3 says, God is the Father of Jesus Christ but I guess you never saw that part or all other verses like it. And as far as the Bible goes, it does a good *** supporting the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and the Book of Mormon.

I don't deny that the Father is God.. I have just told you that Jesus confirms Him as God.. The same Bible, the same Person that confirmed that fact also confirmed that He is Go and that there is One GOD.. That is why the doctrine of God as taught within mormonism can't be the truth about His nature.. He isn't a creation of some other God he is the Only God that has ever existed (Isaiah 43:10). He wasn't ever anything but God, the Bible teaches that He has been God from everlasting and will be God to everlasting (Psalm 90:2).. Not that He has always existed, No that isn't the whole story.. He has always existed AS GOD.. The teachings of mormonism deny this God and teach one invented by Joseph Smith.. A God that became a God through obedience to the Laws and ordinances of a gospel that Smith invented..

Professor Charles Anthon told Martin Harris 3 times he cannot read a sealed book. Ezekiel 37: http://www.lightplanet.com/response/BofM/EZEK37.html

Yes I know the story.. But have you ever read that p***age of Ezek? In the context it shows that the book that was written couldn't be read by the learned man, nor could it be read by the unlearned. Changing the context so that the unlearned can read the book puts your interpretation outside what the Bible teaches.. You try to make that point and turn around and tell me I am the one that hasn't read the Bible.. That is a sad statement of a desperate person trying to hold on to the lies that are crumbling in his hands. and those lies are mormonism..

If that's the case then you're not much of a christian. You are just like the Pharisees. They too denied living prophets but accepted the ones of old. Christ called them hypocrites for it. We mormons do trust God which is how we know the Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-Day Saints is the only true church on the earth. It is His church. God has not called you to teach against Him.

I don't deny prophets.. I believe that Jesus is the prophets that has given us the final word of God, but if a person claims to be a prophet we are commanded as God's people to test their message.. It they aren't 100% true, they are a false prophet and we are required to reject him.. Smith was NOT 100%.. He was more like 5%.. That makes Him a false prophet according to the Bible (Deut 18:20-22)..


By saying he's never changing then you admit there is a true prophet on the earth. His methods don't change, right? So you're saying we can do bad all we want and get away with it. Riiight. By being alongside His righteousness means to do good genius.

There are many prophets.. But As I said Jesus is the main prophets.. All the others just restate the message Jesus gave us.. prophets existed in days of old directing the lives of men but in these last days God speaks to us by his Son (Heb 1:1). Can you show me where I said that the gift of prophecy is no longer in the Church? I never said that.. But prophecy must be tested.. Smith failed the test of a prophet in Deut 18..

As I have have said a Christian sin not just all they want but far more than they want.. And yet even while we were dead in our sins Jesus died for us (Romans 5:8)..

This statement slamming the intelligence of another poster has gotten many a person banned.. If I were you I would lay off saying things like "By being alongside His righteousness means to do good genius".. What we believe is that we have submitted to the righteousness of God instead of trying to establish our own righteousness (Romans 10:3). Before you say things like we are only in God's will by obedience to laws and ordinances maybe you should read what the Bible is all about for even Abraham was counted righteous by Faith (Gen 15:6).. That is the doctrine of God all the way through His word. The laws that Smith used to enslave his followers in is not the freedom that is found in Jesus.. IHS jim

[Knox]

Originally Posted by ErikErik

This is pure ig-norance. No born again Christian ever believes he can keep sinning.

Are you saying that James Banta is therefore not a born again Christian?
AV said " What you're saying is we can do anything we want and get away with it" and James replied:

"Is that supported in the Scripture? Yes it is!"

But you say that "no born again Christian ever believes he can keep sinning."

One of the evidence that one is truly saved and a child of God is the very fact that he hates sin.

LDS hate sin so much that they actually try not to sin. So is that evidence they are truly saved?

The lds thinks he can please Almighty God by his "good deeds."

The LDS think it pleases God when people try to obey His commandments. Guilty as charged. Does that make them non-Christians, really?

But God still sees a sinner lost without Christ.

LDS believe that without Christ, it is impossible for us to be saved.

[ErikErik]

Originally Posted by Knox

Are you saying that James Banta is therefore not a born again Christian?
AV said " What you're saying is we can do anything we want and get away with it" and James replied:

"Is that supported in the Scripture? Yes it is!"

But you say that "no born again Christian ever believes he can keep sinning."


LDS hate sin so much that they actually try not to sin. So is that evidence they are truly saved?


The LDS think it pleases God when people try to obey His commandments. Guilty as charged. Does that make them non-Christians, really?


LDS believe that without Christ, it is impossible for us to be saved.

The lds doesn't just try not to sin. They deny they sin. They rely on their own efforts to get to heaven, not on the finished work of Christ at Calvary.

[Knox]

Originally Posted by ErikErik

The lds doesn't just try not to sin. They deny they sin.

They deny that they commit sins?????? Wow. How many of them can you quote having made such a statement?

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by apexviper

The Bible even says Christ was conceived.

I would go as far as to say he was begotten. I don't think the word conceived is correct for how Jesus' body was made.. The Bible says that he was begotten by the Holy Spirit! But your church leaders deny that:

Now remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 51)

Again a mormon denial of the scripture.. IHS jim

[ErikErik]

Originally Posted by Sir

I'm simply saying that Erik's claim that saying Jesus is the LITERAL son of God means God had sexual intercourse with a goddess is false. One can be a literal child of another without sexual intercourse.





Really? I've never met a christian who believed it is possible that Jesus resurrected without part of his body. You're the first.

Sir, you need to reach more of your own church's history. You have many leaders saying many different things. Brigham Young taught that Jesus was born in the natural way the same as you and I were born of our parents. What do you think NATURAL means? This is what Young said: "The birth of our Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of NATURAL ACTION. He partook of FLESH AND BLOOD--was begotten of his father, as we were of our fathers.".

The Bible speaks of a miracle (supernatural) that a virgin conceived. It also says that the Holy Ghost overshadowed Mary and she was found to be with child. Why does your church deny this? You have past leaders that said because the Holy Ghost has no body, it was Heavenly Father who came down.

Your leader Orson Pratt said God and Mary were in the capacity of husband wife. I understand that this is shocking and embarr***ing to many lds today, but you can't rewrite history or redefine what your leaders taught.

I see this time and time again; denials that lds leaders taught the things they did. This is why Christians do not rely on men but the Holy Scriptures for Truth.

[Russianwolfe]

Originally Posted by ErikErik

Sir, you need to reach more of your own church's history. You have many leaders saying many different things. Brigham Young taught that Jesus was born in the natural way the same as you and I were born of our parents. What do you think NATURAL means? This is what Young said: "The birth of our Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of NATURAL ACTION. He partook of FLESH AND BLOOD--was begotten of his father, as we were of our fathers.".

Since BY talks about his birth, why do you ***ume this is about Christ' conception? The natural action could very well be natural birth instead of some kind of supernatural birth. IOW, Christ didn't just appear suddenly in Mary's arms as a child. He was born just like any other baby. Why is this not a valid understanding of what BY meant? After all, he said he was talking about the birth of Christ!!

Originally Posted by ErikErik

The Bible speaks of a miracle (supernatural) that a virgin conceived. It also says that the Holy Ghost overshadowed Mary and she was found to be with child. Why does your church deny this?

We don't.

Originally Posted by ErikErik

You have past leaders that said because the Holy Ghost has no body, it was Heavenly Father who came down.

Some might have speculated but there is no modern scripture that says this.

Originally Posted by ErikErik

Your leader Orson Pratt said God and Mary were in the capacity of husband wife. I understand that this is shocking and embarr***ing to many lds today, but you can't rewrite history or redefine what your leaders taught.

It is neither shocking nor embar***ing to me. It was Br. Pratt's opinion and has never been adopted as doctrine. It matters very little what the individual believes. We are all en***led to our own opinions which probably change from year to year. I know mine do. But you are gravely mistaken if you think that just because someone teaches something that every member is bound to believe it. That just isn't so.

Originally Posted by ErikErik

I see this time and time again; denials that lds leaders taught the things they did. This is why Christians do not rely on men but the Holy Scriptures for Truth.

And yet it is men of your own kind who teach these things that they claim is from the Bible. Galileo was under house arrest because the Catholic Church had determined from the Bible that his ideas of the solar system were wrong. Do you expect to be bound by that belief? After all, they enforced their belief and could prove it from the Bible!!! Why don't you believe it also? This is just like your attempt to 'embar*** and shock' us with the opinions of early leaders.

Marvin

[ErikErik]

Originally Posted by Russianwolfe

Since BY talks about his birth, why do you ***ume this is about Christ' conception? The natural action could very well be natural birth instead of some kind of supernatural birth. IOW, Christ didn't just appear suddenly in Mary's arms as a child. He was born just like any other baby. Why is this not a valid understanding of what BY meant? After all, he said he was talking about the birth of Christ!!



We don't.



Some might have speculated but there is no modern scripture that says this.



It is neither shocking nor embar***ing to me. It was Br. Pratt's opinion and has never been adopted as doctrine. It matters very little what the individual believes. We are all en***led to our own opinions which probably change from year to year. I know mine do. But you are gravely mistaken if you think that just because someone teaches something that every member is bound to believe it. That just isn't so.



And yet it is men of your own kind who teach these things that they claim is from the Bible. Galileo was under house arrest because the Catholic Church had determined from the Bible that his ideas of the solar system were wrong. Do you expect to be bound by that belief? After all, they enforced their belief and could prove it from the Bible!!! Why don't you believe it also? This is just like your attempt to 'embar*** and shock' us with the opinions of early leaders.

Marvin

Maybe YOU believe that the Holy Ghost overshadowed Mary, but you have leaders that had taught otherwise. Mormonism is ever changing. You take the liberty of redefining what Brigham Young said. The lds of his day knew full well what he taught and meant. Seems the lds church is still trying to find the Truth when its always been there in God's word the Holy Scriptures.

Young wasn't only talking about Christ's birth, he was also talking about how Christ was conceived. Read it again Marvin.

"The birth of our Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of NATURAL ACTION. He partook of FLESH AND BLOOD--was begotten of his father, as we were of our fathers."



Brigham Young said: "When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he (Christ) took a tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in Heaven, AFTER THE SAME MANNER as the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve. Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven." (JoD 1:50-51)...

Joseph F. Smith agreed with this when he said: The Holy Ghost is the messenger of the Father and the Son. Mortal beings could not endure the presence of the Father without the Spirit overshadowing them, and that was the mission of the Holy Ghost, but not to beget the Son of God, THAT WAS THE BUSINESS OF THE FATHER. Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God the Father in the flesh, and in holding to this doctrine President Brigham Young is in perfect accord with the teachings in the Bible."
(Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, vol. 5, p. 128).


"We are told in the scriptures that Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of God in the flesh....how are children begotten? I answer, just as Jesus was begotten of his Father. The Christian denominations believe that Christ was begotten not of God, but of the spirit that overshadowed his mother. THIS IS NONSENSE. Why will they not believe the Father when He says that Jesus Christ is His Only Begotten Son? Why will they try to EXPLAIN THIS TRUTH AWAY and make mystery of it?" ( Joseph F. Smith, 'Box Elder Times,' Sep. 22, 1914).

[Russianwolfe]

Originally Posted by ErikErik

Maybe YOU believe that the Holy Ghost overshadowed Mary, but you have leaders that had taught otherwise.

I don't think you understand LDS theology as well as you might think. In order for anyone to endure the presence of a holy heavenly being, the Holy Ghost must 'overshadow' them. In LDS speak, they must be transfigured at the very least. That is what would be implied in LDS thought.

Originally Posted by ErikErik

Mormonism is ever changing. You take the liberty of redefining what Brigham Young said. The lds of his day knew full well what he taught and meant. Seems the lds church is still trying to find the Truth when its always been there in God's word the Holy Scriptures.

This is what you would like to believe. Doesn't make it so. Someone from the outside might think that, but that would be far from the truth. Ever wonder why the D&C has had so little added to it in the past 160 years? Because the doctrine of the church hasn't changed. You might be observing the evolution of understanding that has occurred in the past 180 years. But not a change in the doctrines. This is the kind of thing that an antagonist would not be able to see because it is a fine point and beyond his ability to comprehend. There is a difference between trying to find fault and trying to understand. This is something that the antagonist will never be able to see until he obeys the commandment of Christ to love his enemies.

Originally Posted by ErikErik

Young wasn't only talking about Christ's birth, he was also talking about how Christ was conceived. Read it again Marvin.

"The birth of our Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of NATURAL ACTION. He partook of FLESH AND BLOOD--was begotten of his father, as we were of our fathers."

Then why does he use the word birth?

And your carnal minds immediately concludes that God had to have sex with Mary. Sorry I don't buy it just because you say it. If we can help a woman to conceive and do so without intercourse then I thnk we can credit God with a greater ability to do the same. After all, he is not limited by our knowledge or the knowledge of someone from the past.

Originally Posted by ErikErik

Brigham Young said: "When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he (Christ) took a tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in Heaven, AFTER THE SAME MANNER as the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve. Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven." (JoD 1:50-51)...

Gee, and from this you have your conclusions. But just make sure you don't even think this is doctrine. The church has a very formal protocol for establishing new doctrine and a man doing nothing more than speaking from the pulpit is not the way. You can say that BY taught this but that wouldn't be honest. BY said a lot of things about Adam before and after this statement and you would have to reconcile all of them in order to see what BY actually believe about Adam. But that would be part of obeying the command of Christ to love your enemies.

Originally Posted by ErikErik

Joseph F. Smith agreed with this when he said: The Holy Ghost is the messenger of the Father and the Son. Mortal beings could not endure the presence of the Father without the Spirit overshadowing them, and that was the mission of the Holy Ghost, but not to beget the Son of God, THAT WAS THE BUSINESS OF THE FATHER. Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God the Father in the flesh, and in holding to this doctrine President Brigham Young is in perfect accord with the teachings in the Bible."
(Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, vol. 5, p. 128).

Why do you want to make a li-ar of the Bible and thus God? If Christ is the only begotten of the Father, then he cannot be the begotten of the Holy Ghost. Can you help me to understand why you hate the Bible so much that you would make Christ and the Bible out to be liar-s?

Originally Posted by ErikErik

"We are told in the scriptures that Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of God in the flesh....how are children begotten? I answer, just as Jesus was begotten of his Father. The Christian denominations believe that Christ was begotten not of God, but of the spirit that overshadowed his mother. THIS IS NONSENSE. Why will they not believe the Father when He says that Jesus Christ is His Only Begotten Son? Why will they try to EXPLAIN THIS TRUTH AWAY and make mystery of it?" ( Joseph F. Smith, 'Box Elder Times,' Sep. 22, 1914).

See!!

Are you so lacking in Christian virtues that you will refuse to obey one of the commandments of Chrirst?

Marvin

[TheSword99]

Originally Posted by Russianwolfe

Since BY talks about his birth, why do you ***ume this is about Christ' conception? The natural action could very well be natural birth instead of some kind of supernatural birth. IOW, Christ didn't just appear suddenly in Mary's arms as a child. He was born just like any other baby. Why is this not a valid understanding of what BY meant? After all, he said he was talking about the birth of Christ!!



We don't.



Some might have speculated but there is no modern scripture that says this.



It is neither shocking nor embar***ing to me. It was Br. Pratt's opinion and has never been adopted as doctrine. It matters very little what the individual believes. We are all en***led to our own opinions which probably change from year to year. I know mine do. But you are gravely mistaken if you think that just because someone teaches something that every member is bound to believe it. That just isn't so.



And yet it is men of your own kind who teach these things that they claim is from the Bible. Galileo was under house arrest because the Catholic Church had determined from the Bible that his ideas of the solar system were wrong. Do you expect to be bound by that belief? After all, they enforced their belief and could prove it from the Bible!!! Why don't you believe it also? This is just like your attempt to 'embar*** and shock' us with the opinions of early leaders.

Marvin

Marvin, why do lds leaders always voice their opinions about spiritual truths? The bible describes the lds when it says in 2 Tim. 3:7 "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."

Opinions have no place in Christ's church. Nor does a pastor preach opinions. He is entrusted with God's word and will be judged much more harshly if he teaches untruths. Only the Truth must be taught and the sole source for Truth is the Holy Scriptures, not the JoD, BoM, PoGP, D&C, or any other BOOK. The mormon church is notorious for voicing opinions about the doctrine of God and salavtion. How can they possibly teach if they are supposed to be God's representatives when all they give are personal views that keeps changing when new leaders take over? Why is your church still undecided that they can't make doctrines "official??

The reason why Mormons are now denying or backpedaling from many of their former teachings is that it doesn't comport with their church's continual efforts to rid itself of its strange and unscriptual doctrines, in order to try and gain acceptance from the rest of the Christian world.

[Russianwolfe]

Originally Posted by TheSword99

Marvin, why do lds leaders always voice their opinions about spiritual truths? The bible describes the lds when it says in 2 Tim. 3:7 "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."

Funny, your world of Christianity hasn't come to an agreement on many more issues than the LDS world. You have so many sects and divisions that it seems that agreement is impossible. And yet they are learning, ever learning, and never able to agree on the truth. I think the pot is calling the kettle black. Physician heal thyself.

Originally Posted by TheSword99

Opinions have no place in Christ's church. Nor does a pastor preach opinions.

So everything you say here when speaking about spiritual matters is not your opinion. When James Banta claims that Christ is still suffering on the Cross for the sins of the world, that is not an opinion?

Originally Posted by TheSword99

He is entrusted with God's word and will be judged much more harshly if he teaches untruths.

Well, then I will pray for your pastors, past, present, and future. Since the language that is used is imperfect it would be impossible for them to speak of spiritual things without making errors. They all will fall short of the glory of Christ and pefection.

Originally Posted by TheSword99

Only the Truth must be taught and the sole source for Truth is the Holy Scriptures, not the JoD, BoM, PoGP, D&C, or any other BOOK.

I find you statement of this belief to be quite a fantasy. When I was a child I heard a pastor teach on Sunday that Christ went to hell when he died. I have since then, read the Bible and found that this was only an opinion and is not taught in the scriptures. So you might say that this is the way it should be but a reality check reveals that it is not this way. Every man teaches his opinion no matter what he is teaching. He might have scripture to back up what he is saying but nevertheless it is his opinion on what the Bible is saying. You are definitely living in a fantasy world.

Originally Posted by TheSword99

The mormon church is notorious for voicing opinions about the doctrine of God and salavtion.

But at least we know they are opinion and don't treat them as doctrine.

Originally Posted by TheSword99

How can they possibly teach if they are supposed to be God's representatives when all they give are personal views that keeps changing when new leaders take over? Why is your church still undecided that they can't make doctrines "official??

If it is not doctrine, then it is not official. There is no undecisiveness in this. This is you projecting your experience in your own church onto ours. Get over it. We know what is doctrine and what is not. We know when a man is attempting to voice opinion and we know when that opinion contradicts doctrine. If you are having trouble with this, you might consider that a reason for your confusion would be because you don't believe as we do.

Originally Posted by TheSword99

The reason why Mormons are now denying or backpedaling from many of their former teachings is that it doesn't comport with their church's continual efforts to rid itself of its strange and unscriptual doctrines, in order to try and gain acceptance from the rest of the Christian world.

Again, you are projecting your own problems onto your view of us.

We are not denying or backpedaling on any former leader's teachings. We still publish all the documents that you claim we are denying or backpedaling from. If we are still publishing them, then where is the denying? And then there is the Joseph Smith Papers Project. This project is attempting to publish all of the Joseph Smith papers in volumes that are designed to last a very long time. How is this backpedaling.

Like I said, you are projecting your own problems onto your view of us.

Marvin