Shawn and the Mormon Caller

[Apologette]

Give Mormons enough rope and they will always hang themselves. They are not Christians, and not bound by Christian constraints. They have absolutely no knowledge of the Bible (which is why these foolish cultists are Mormons in the first place), and have traded the Lord Jesus for the "god" of Mormonism, Joseph Smith. They believe their works will save them (as we can see from here, they trust in themselves and not in Jesus), and when they are confronted with the Gospel they lapse into nasty comments, condemnation and whatever else they have in their ****nal of abuse, as they deny the sufficiency of Christ's Blood and cling to their own works (which so reek with the smell of sulfur):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f06lEjML6yM

This is the first of three consecutive videos anybody being lured into Mormonism needs to watch.

[Erundur]

For the lurkers:

Originally Posted by Apologette

They are not Christians, and not bound by Christian constraints.

You should know that this is a lie. Mormons believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ, therefore we are by definition Christians.

They have absolutely no knowledge of the Bible

This is not even remotely true. This survey suggests that the average Mormon knows more about the Bible than the average Protestant.

and have traded the Lord Jesus for the "god" of Mormonism, Joseph Smith.

This is a lie. Joseph Smith is not our god, he was merely a prophet.

They believe their works will save them (as we can see from here, they trust in themselves and not in Jesus)

This is a lie. We do not believe our works will save us; the atonement of Jesus Christ will.

and when they are confronted with the Gospel they lapse into nasty comments, condemnation and whatever else they have in their ****nal of abuse

Who is actually lapsing into nasty comments and condemnation here?

as they deny the sufficiency of Christ's Blood and cling to their own works

This is a lie. Mormons ***ert the sufficiency of Christ's blood to save all men (as opposed to some Protestants who say Jesus died only for an elite few).

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by Erundur

For the lurkers:


You should know that this is a lie. Mormons believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ, therefore we are by definition Christians.


This is not even remotely true. This survey suggests that the average Mormon knows more about the Bible than the average Protestant.


This is a lie. Joseph Smith is not our god, he was merely a prophet.


This is a lie. We do not believe our works will save us; the atonement of Jesus Christ will.


Who is actually lapsing into nasty comments and condemnation here?

This is a lie. Mormons ***ert the sufficiency of Christ's blood to save all men (as opposed to some Protestants who say Jesus died only for an elite few).

Were you the caller?

[Erundur]

Originally Posted by Apologette

Were you the caller?

No. Will you retract the lies in your OP?

[John T]

Originally Posted by Erundur

No. Will you retract the lies in your OP?

When you can show us the Snowden couplet in the text of the New Testament, I am sure that she will.
Until such a time comes, then she is the one telling the truth about the fact that you LDS people worship a different jesus christ, than is found in the Bible.


You need to know that we Christians know that you are merely parroting the lies told to you; therefore I am NOT calling you a liar. Calling a person a liar speaks to the intention of the other, but stating that a person is repeating the lies told to him/her is really a statement of understanding, and is neither an insult nor a condemnation because it is merely a statement of fact.

[Erundur]

Originally Posted by John T

When you can show us the Snowden couplet in the text of the New Testament, I am sure that she will.

Well, I'm not aware of any Snowden couplet in the New Testament, so I guess you're telling me that she will never retract her lies. Sad, but that's what I've come to expect from her.

You need to know that we Christians know that you are merely parroting the lies told to you

Another example of anti-Mormon projection.

[alanmolstad]

thats better.....

[John T]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

thats better..... From the Forum RULES : "As you know, the Walter Martin website takes the position that Mormon theology is not Christian theology. Use of the term "LDS Christian" is inaccurate and misleading, and as such is not acceptable on this board."

Does the term "anti-Mormon" fall into that category? We Christians surely are against mormonISM, the religion, but we are not against the LDS PEOPLE.

[John T]

Originally Posted by John T [IMG]http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/images/****ons/viewpost-right.png[/IMG] You need to know that we Christians know that you are merely parroting the lies told to you

Originally Posted by Erundur

Another example of EDIT projection.

You acceded to the point of my post which is that you LDS people get your views about jesus Christ from other sources, other than the Bible. Thank you.
Since you also believe in the Bible (with stipulations) can you reconcile the glaring differences between your alternative sources, which I listed and the Bible?

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Erundur

Well, I'm not aware of any Snowden couplet in the New Testament, so I guess you're telling me that she will never retract her lies.

dang that Snowden! First he hacks into the NSA's cl***ified files on foreign leaders, and now he's hacked into the New Testament? He better not leave Russia and return to the USA, or he will be in big trouble!

[John T]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

dang that Snowden! First he hacks into the NSA's cl***ified files on foreign leaders, and now he's hacked into the New Testament? He better not leave Russia and return to the USA, or he will be in big trouble!

Your silliness is noted. Here are the facts:

LDS President Lorenzo Snow. In June of 1840, Snow declared, “As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.” Besides correctly illustrating the Latter-day Saint teaching that God was once a mere mortal man, this couplet also declares that man has the potential to become God. According to LDS theology, eternal life is synonymous with exaltation and godhood. In the words of LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie, “Thus those who gain eternal life receive exaltation. . . They are gods.” (Mormon Doctrine, pg. 237).

from http://www.mrm.org/lorenzo-snow-couplet

Please refer to that in your answer.

[Erundur]

Originally Posted by John T

You acceded to the point of my post which is that you LDS people get your views about jesus Christ from other sources, other than the Bible.

I did what now?

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by John T

Calling a person a liar speaks to the intention of the other, but stating that a person is repeating the lies told to him/her is really a statement of understanding, and is neither an insult nor a condemnation because it is merely a statement of fact.

Okay, I will concede that Apollogette is not a liar but merely repeating the lies to to her (Even though she has been told repeated by Mormons that her statements are not correct.)

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by John T

Your silliness is noted. Here are the facts:

LDS President Lorenzo Snow. In June of 1840, Snow declared, “As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.” Besides correctly illustrating the Latter-day Saint teaching that God was once a mere mortal man, this couplet also declares that man has the potential to become God. According to LDS theology, eternal life is synonymous with exaltation and godhood. In the words of LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie, “Thus those who gain eternal life receive exaltation. . . They are gods.” (Mormon Doctrine, pg. 237).

from http://www.mrm.org/lorenzo-snow-couplet

Please refer to that in your answer.

Yes, I completely agree with the comments of Lorenzo Snow. But if you do not believe him, here is backing of it from the Bible:

“As man is, God once was;".

... Jhn 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

"as God is, man may become.”

1Pe 5:4 And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.

1Jo 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

Besides correctly illustrating the Latter-day Saint teaching that God was once a mere mortal man, this couplet also declares that man has the potential to become God. According to LDS theology, eternal life is synonymous with exaltation and godhood. In the words of LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie, “Thus those who gain eternal life receive exaltation. . . They are gods.” (Mormon Doctrine, pg. 237).

As you said to Apologette--I will just not see you as a liar, but someone who has repeated the lies told to you. As you can note even in your own quoting of Bruce R. McConkie--when you state what you believe we believe in your words, you use the term "become God." But when you quote using resources, it states "They are gods." Do you see the difference that Bruce R. did not use a capitol G as you did? You therefore, misunderstand what is meant.

Look at this scripture: Mat 25:21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. The terms "gods" is synonymous with ruler. As a Bible reader, I am sure you know this. But you believe and repeat the lies you hear and repeat them. Can you see this error when pointed out to you?

[John T]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Yes, I completely agree with the comments of Lorenzo Snow. But if you do not believe him, here is backing of it from the Bible:

... John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

1Pe 5:4 And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.

1Jo 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

HUMBUG!

These verses taken in their entirety, and taken within their context have ZEDRO to do with the Lorenzo Snowden couplet.
The Jesus of the Bible only is NOT a chameleon:

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.

9 The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. 11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. 12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

The Jesus of the Bible is wholly God 100%, and there never was a time that He was not god. NOR is there a time when He was NOT 100% human, simultaneously, having two natures, each complete, and unmixrd or diluted, but there is no "God part" nor "human part"

.
Philippians 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

As you said to Apologette--I will just not see you as a liar, but someone who has repeated the lies told to you. As you can note even in your own quoting of Bruce R. McConkie--when you state what you believe we believe in your words, you use the term "become God." But when you quote using resources, it states "They are gods." Do you see the difference that Bruce R. did not use a capitol G as you did? You therefore, misunderstand what is meant.

YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO CALL ME A LIAR WHEN I QUOTED A SOURCE, AND GAVE A REFERENCE

Your beef is with that source, not me.

[John T]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

thats better.....

really?????

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by John T

HUMBUG!

These verses taken in their entirety, and taken within their context have ZEDRO to do with the Lorenzo Snowden couplet.
The Jesus of the Bible only is NOT a chameleon:

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.

9 The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. 11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. 12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

The Jesus of the Bible is wholly God 100%, and there never was a time that He was not god. NOR is there a time when He was NOT 100% human, simultaneously, having two natures, each complete, and unmixrd or diluted, but there is no "God part" nor "human part"

.

What about the couplet makes you Lorenzo Snow did not see Jesus Christ as fully God? Are you saying that you do not believe that as man is God once was? Do you disagree. You stated, God was 100% human. So, to me, you agree, God was as we are. 100% human.

Philippians 2:5

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

So yes, Jesus Christ-God--was once a man. You agree, you point out scriptures that agree. Keep in mind, the couplet never states, God was never God or was not God or stopped being God.

YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO CALL ME A LIAR WHEN I QUOTED A SOURCE, AND GAVE A REFERENCE

I never called you a liar. I just agreed with you that people often repeat what they have heard because they believe it is true--even when it is not.

Your beef is with that source, not me.

[/QUOTE] No, I merely noted that your source did not match your statement. The source used a "little" g when speaking of "gods"--or, merely another word for a ruler. When you referred to it, you did not state "gods" but "God"--you paraphrased the source to match your beliefs, rather than what it really stated.

[BigJulie]

To make my point that you change what it states to match your belief of our beliefs.

Here is your understanding our our beliefs:

Originally Posted by John T

Ythis couplet also declares that man has the potential to become God.

And here is your reference:

They are gods.” (Mormon Doctrine, pg. 237).

You asked me to refer to the quote in my answer. My answer noted that there is a difference in your understanding and your quote. You made a small difference which has a large difference in meanings.

I ask that you acknowledge this difference and that it does change the meaning--and provided a reference where Christ declares that his righteous servants will become rulers--which can be translated as "gods."

[alanmolstad]

the Word became flesh...

The Word was and always is God.

But so that he could die for us, the Word became flesh.

The Word was not flesh before....that is why we use the word "became".

The Word never stopped being God..
But the Word took on to himselfa 2nd nature....the nature of a man.


So this means that the Word now has two totally different natures.
One as God almighty, the one and only God.
The other nature is this new nature as a man.

So thats 2 natures.

The Father was not made flesh.
The Father and the Holy Spirit are not man.

But so that he could die for us, the Word "BECAME"flesh.......

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

the Word became flesh...

and so did mankind.

Word was not flesh before....that is why we use the word "became".

mankind was not flesh before, either...so mankind became flesh.

So as mankind now is, The Word once was--about 2000 years ago, to be more precise.

The Word now is resurrected.
So as the Word now is, mankind may become.

But so that he could die for us, the Word "BECAME"flesh.......

Yes, you are correct. So the Word became as we are now, so that we could someday become as He now is.

well said, glad you agree with all the above.

[John T]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

What about the couplet makes you Lorenzo Snow did not see Jesus Christ as fully God? Are you saying that you do not believe that as man is God once was? Do you disagree. You stated, God was 100% human. So, to me, you agree, God was as we are. 100% human.

So yes, Jesus Christ-God--was once a man. You agree, you point out scriptures that agree. Keep in mind, the couplet never states, God was never God or was not God or stopped being God.


I never called you a liar. I just agreed with you that people often repeat what they have heard because they believe it is true--even when it is not.

Originally Posted by John T [IMG]http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/images/****ons/viewpost-right.png[/IMG] Your silliness is noted. Here are the facts:

LDS President Lorenzo Snow. In June of 1840, Snow declared, “As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.” Besides correctly illustrating the Latter-day Saint teaching that God was once a mere mortal man, this couplet also declares that man has the potential to become God. According to LDS theology, eternal life is synonymous with exaltation and godhood. In the words of LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie, “Thus those who gain eternal life receive exaltation. . . They are gods.” (Mormon Doctrine, pg. 237).

from http://www.mrm.org/lorenzo-snow-couplet

Please refer to that in your answer.

BJ posted:

Yes, I completely agree with the comments of Lorenzo Snow. But if you do not believe him, here is backing of it from the Bible:

No, I merely noted that your source did not match your statement. The source used a "little" g when speaking of "gods"--or, merely another word for a ruler. When you referred to it, you did not state "gods" but "God"--you paraphrased the source to match your beliefs, rather than what it really stated.

How can you state two such contradictory statements?
First you agree, then you disagree over a capital/lower case letter.

The wonder of it all comes because you are blaming me for what is posted on the website, and which I cut-and-pasted accurately. Therefore, this is an accurate statement:

YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO CALL ME A LIAR WHEN I QUOTED A SOURCE, AND GAVE A REFERENCE

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by John T

How can you state two such contradictory statements?
First you agree, then you disagree over a capital/lower case letter.

Because the capital/lower case letter changes the meaning. You do not understand the meaning therefore do not see the difference.

The wonder of it all comes because you are blaming me for what is posted on the website, and which I cut-and-pasted accurately. Therefore, this is an accurate statement:

YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO CALL ME A LIAR WHEN I QUOTED A SOURCE, AND GAVE A REFERENCE

[/QUOTE] Nope, you did not understand, therefore did not paraphrase correctly. You made a change, that while it may have seemed small, is significant. I made this point and asked you to recognize it. I also did not call you a liar, just merely used the same understanding that you stated when you noted that people can misunderstand and then repeat their own misunderstandings even when they are not true.

As the Bible also denotes a difference when using a capital G versus a lower case g when it comes to the term "God" versus "gods", I am wondering if you will acknowledge your mistake on this point of understanding.

[John T]

The wonder of it all comes because you are blaming me for what is posted on the website, and which I cut-and-pasted accurately. Therefore, this is an accurate statement:

YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO CALL ME A LIAR WHEN I QUOTED A SOURCE, AND GAVE A REFERENCE

Nope, you did not understand, therefore did not paraphrase correctly. You made a change, that while it may have seemed small, is significant. I made this point and asked you to recognize it. I also did not call you a liar, just merely used the same understanding that you stated when you noted that people can misunderstand and then repeat their own misunderstandings even when they are not true.

The ORIGINAL QUOTE

LDS President Lorenzo Snow. In June of 1840, Snow declared, “As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.” Besides correctly illustrating the Latter-day Saint teaching that God was once a mere mortal man, this couplet also declares that man has the potential to become God. According to LDS theology, eternal life is synonymous with exaltation and godhood. In the words of LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie, “Thus those who gain eternal life receive exaltation. . . They are gods.” (Mormon Doctrine, pg. 237).

from http://www.mrm.org/lorenzo-snow-couplet

LOOK IT UP

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by John T

The wonder of it all comes because you are blaming me for what is posted on the website, and which I cut-and-pasted accurately. Therefore, this is an accurate statement:

YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO CALL ME A LIAR WHEN I QUOTED A SOURCE, AND GAVE A REFERENCE

I am not blaming you for anything, nor calling you a liar. I am merely pointing out that you made a claim that has a significant difference than the reference you posted. Surely, the gentleman doth protest too much.

The ORIGINAL QUOTE

LDS President Lorenzo Snow. In June of 1840, Snow declared, “As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.” Besides correctly illustrating the Latter-day Saint teaching that God was once a mere mortal man, this couplet also declares that man has the potential to become God. According to LDS theology, eternal life is synonymous with exaltation and godhood. In the words of LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie, “Thus those who gain eternal life receive exaltation. . . They are gods.” (Mormon Doctrine, pg. 237).

from http://www.mrm.org/lorenzo-snow-couplet

LOOK IT UP

Once again--just high-lighting in red the difference between the LDS original references and your non-LDS reference. I did look up your reference. mrm.org is not an LDS site. In research, this is called using a secondary (or in this case, third) resource. It is a quote of a quote of a quote. This author himself miss-uses the capital G and little g in his own references to the Bible. Bill McKeever does not seem to understand the difference.

In truth, you make your own case in point where people do not try to tell untruths, but merely repeat the untruths told to them.

[alanmolstad]

If a matter of great importance in your faith is determined by the ability and likelihood of a writer to push his little pinky finger down on the "SHIFT" key?...

Then your faith is a joke....