Salvation in the scriptures, the born again movement

[Katzpur]

Omega, why do you always seem so angry? I just don't understand the level of contempt I feel from you. This is a serious question. I don't understand this seething disgust for anyone who sees things differently from you. Could you maybe explain why this is?

That is your excuse for trying to give the BOM more authority than the Bible.

I've never given the Book of Mormon more authority than the Bible, so I have absolutely no reason for making any excuses for doing so. If God has spoken, the title of the book/s containing His truths shouldn't make any difference.

Which came way before the BOM, which makes the BOM added scripture in disobedience to God's word.

If you are referring to the admonition given to John in Revelation, as I assume you are, you need to consider the fact that "this book" was the book of Revelation and not the Bible as a whole. Furthermore, God commanded that no one should either add or subtract from it (Revelation). He did not say that He was through talking to mankind or that He would not talk to any people other than those in the Holy Land.

You have absolutely no evidence that His disciples changed anything.

Actually, I have quite a bit of evidence. This should do for starters: In 1740, a list of the canonical books compiled in Rome just prior to 200 A.D. was discovered in the Ambrosian Libary in Milan, Italy. Missing from the accepted canon in 200 A.D. were Hebrews, James, 1 Peter and 2 Peter. Only two of John's letters were considered canonical, not three, but we don't know for sure which two. The Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon, however, were included. Eusebius of Caesara, one of the most notable Church historians to have ever lived, described (in about 300 A.D.) a canon which included only twenty-seven of the books in today's New Testament. Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter were described as "questionable," as were Jude and Revelation. In the fourth century, St. Gregory of Nazianzus continued to reject Revelation and states, "You have all. If there is any any besides these, it is not among the genuine [books]." The canon he set forth was ratified some three centuries later. The Greek Codex Claromontanus, one of the most significant New Testament manuscripts, contains a list of the canonical books of the fourth century. (The manuscript itself originates in the sixth century, however most scholars believe that the actual list dates back to the Alexandrian Church from two centuries earlier.) That list did not exclude Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians or Hebrews. But guess what? It does include the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. And what about Paul's epistle to the Laodiceans? Why was it less authoritative than his other epistles? It's mentioned in Colossians 4:16. Obviously, it was considered authoritative at the time it was written. Paul also wrote an additional epistle to the Ephesians and another to the Corinthians. When did his "apostolic authorship" come into question? Jude, too, wrote another epistle. Why was it omitted from the today's canon? Catholics love to point out that it was Roman Catholicism that preserved and compiled the biblical canon. I have no problem with that claim. What I have a problem with is the number of changes that took place in it over time. How does a document go from being "God-breathed" from being "not God-breathed" to once again being "God-breathed"? Had God been involved in the process of establishing the Christian canon, why did it take so long for "the Church" to come to a decision as to what was supposed to be considered doctrinally binding and what was not? If "the Word has been fully revealed" why did it change so drastically, just within the space of two centuries?

They certainly had more integrity than the founder of your religion.

So why aren't you a Catholic? Evidently the Protestant Reformers believe the Catholic Church changed quite a few things over the years, when it was, for all intents and purposes, the only Christian Church around. If you think nothing changed over the years, it seems to me that you'd want to consider becoming a Catholic.

You should be ashamed of your self for suggesting such a thing.

What's the horrible thing again that I should be ashamed of? Understanding how the Bible we have now has evolved over the years, or recognizing what the Protestant Reformers also recognized?

AT least we have the mss for the NT, over 23,000.

And yet no originals.

No one has eve seen the plates J Smith claims to have gotten from God.

You're wrong about that. Twelve other individuals who were all respected and well-regarded members of the community also saw them.

How convenient.

There's nothing convenient about it, at least not from the LDS standpoint. From the standpoint of someone who is convinced that Mormonism is a corrupt form of Christianity, it's actually very convenient. (That means you should be very happy.)

 

[whirlingmerc]

I think it will depend on what is meant by 'born again' I actually agree that salvation comes in one step from death to life though faith but where I have issue is that there is necessary fruit of salvation that follows. In Colossians, Paul said their faith and love went back to the day they understood the grace of God in truth... they were saved by grace and it bore fruit being faith working in love.

Born again is only used once or twice in the new testament and many other illustrations of salvation are given... using all of them would be wisest

 

[omega2xx]

Omega, why do you always seem so angry? I just don't understand the level of contempt I feel from you. This is a serious question. I don't understand this seething disgust for anyone who sees things differently from you. Could you maybe explain why this is?

I do not have disgust for you personally. You are not my enemy. I have disgust for Mormonism because I consider it a false religion, because much of its teachings are contrary to what the Bible teaches. Keep in mind that Jesus had contempt for the false teahing os teh Pharisees and the Saducees.

I've never given the Book of Mormon more authority than the Bible, so I have absolutely no reason for making any excuses for doing so. If God has spoken, the title of the book/s containing His truths shouldn't make any difference.

As you know I had 2 Mormons in my house to discuss religion. I ask hem if they had to give up the BOM or the Bible, they said the would give up the Bible. I don't know if that is LSD thinking but that is what they said. Also in the forward to the BOM it says it should be studied but in says nothing about the studying the Bible. If they are equal, why mention only one? Also there are obvious contradictions between the BOM and the Bible. It is illogical to use both of them.

If you are referring to the admonition given to John in Revelation, as I assume you are, you need to consider the fact that "this book" was the book of Revelation and not the Bible as a whole. Furthermore, God commanded that no one should either add or subtract from it (Revelation). He did not say that He was through talking to mankind or that He would not talk to any people other than those in the Holy Land.

I am not using Revelation, I am using Deut 4:2

Actually, I have quite a bit of evidence. This should do for starters: In 1740, a list of the canonical books compiled in Rome just prior to 200 A.D. was discovered in the Ambrosian Libary in Milan, Italy. Missing from the accepted canon in 200 A.D. were Hebrews, James, 1 Peter and 2 Peter. Only two of John's letters were considered canonical, not three, but we don't know for sure which two. The Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon, however, were included. Eusebius of Caesara, one of the most notable Church historians to have ever lived, described (in about 300 A.D.) a canon which included only twenty-seven of the books in today's New Testament. Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter were described as "questionable," as were Jude and Revelation. In the fourth century, St. Gregory of Nazianzus continued to reject Revelation and states, "You have all. If there is any any besides these, it is not among the genuine [books]." The canon he set forth was ratified some three centuries later. The Greek Codex Claromontanus, one of the most significant New Testament manuscripts, contains a list of the canonical books of the fourth century. (The manuscript itself originates in the sixth century, however most scholars believe that the actual list dates back to the Alexandrian Church from two centuries earlier.) That list did not exclude Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians or Hebrews. But guess what? It does include the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. And what about Paul's epistle to the Laodiceans? Why was it less authoritative than his other epistles? It's mentioned in Colossians 4:16. Obviously, it was considered authoritative at the time it was written. Paul also wrote an additional epistle to the Ephesians and another to the Corinthians. When did his "apostolic authorship" come into question? Jude, too, wrote another epistle. Why was it omitted from the today's canon? Catholics love to point out that it was Roman Catholicism that preserved and compiled the biblical canon. I have no problem with that claim. What I have a problem with is the number of changes that took place in it over time. How does a document go from being "God-breathed" from being "not God-breathed" to once again being "God-breathed"? Had God been involved in the process of establishing the Christian canon, why did it take so long for "the Church" to come to a decision as to what was supposed to be considered doctrinally binding and what was not? If "the Word has been fully revealed" why did it change so drastically, just within the space of two centuries?

All of that is irrelevant unless you reject the canon that has been accepted by Christianity for 100's of years. We do know which books John wrote. They are all in the canon.

So why aren't you a Catholic? Evidently the Protestant Reformers believe the Catholic Church changed quite a few things over the years, when it was, for all intents and purposes, the only Christian Church around. If you think nothing changed over the years, it seems to me that you'd want to consider becoming a Catholic.

I am not a Catholic because they did change some things and the changed were not Biblical. Much of their teaching are also not Biblical. They also include some books that Protestants do not consider to be in the canon.

What's the horrible thing again that I should be ashamed of? Understanding how the Bible we have now has evolved over the years, or recognizing what the Protestant Reformers also recognized?

I don't remember specifically about what that refers to. Did you say the apostles altered wha they wrote? If you did, that is why. Especially since you have no evidence that did. If you did, you are accusing them of lying.

And yet no originals.

You're wrong about that. Twelve other individuals who were all respected and well-regarded members of the community also saw them.

How about a source.

There's nothing convenient about it, at least not from the LDS standpoint. From the standpoint of someone who is convinced that Mormonism is a corrupt form of Christianity, it's actually very convenient. (That means you should be very happy.)

It is convenient when you can tell others what God said, but not have anything to support it. At least we have the Bible. It never makes me happy when people are taught what is contradicted in what we know came from God. It makes me very sad.

 

[Katzpur]

I do not have disgust for you personally. You are not my enemy. I have disgust for Mormonism because I consider it a false religion, because much of its teachings are contrary to what the Bible teaches. Keep in mind that Jesus had contempt for the false teahing os teh Pharisees and the Saducees.

Okay, so we have a difference of opinion then. You believe Mormonism to be false. I believe some of the things your religion teaches to be false. But I don't feel like I have to attack your beliefs at every opportunity. They are, after all, only beliefs, as are mine. It just seems to make you actually angry when people believe differently than you think they should. That's mystifying to me.

As you know I had 2 Mormons in my house to discuss religion. I ask hem if they had to give up the BOM or the Bible, they said the would give up the Bible. I don't know if that is LSD thinking but that is what they said.

Okay, but what if they had asked you this: "If you could keep only one of the four gospel accounts of Jesus' life, which one would it be?" If you picked John, would that mean that you find Matthew, Mark and Luke to be second-rate? I personally prefer reading the four gospels to most of the Book of Mormon. On the other hand, I would much rather read Mosiah (in the book of Mormon) than Nahum (in the Bible). That does not mean that I find Nahum worthless or false.

Also in the forward to the BOM it says it should be studied but in says nothing about the studying the Bible. If they are equal, why mention only one?

Now, you're just being silly. It is only logical that in the forward to the Book of Mormon, the Book of Mormon is the book that is mentioned. As you know, we also believe in the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. But the forward to the Book of Mormon doesn't mention them either. The forward of any book is not intended as a suggested reading list of other books.

Also there are obvious contradictions between the BOM and the Bible.

We've already talked about this over on City-Data and we got nowhere. I don't see them as being contradictory and I explained why. You simply disregarded everything I said.

It is illogical to use both of them.

That's a very subjective statement. Fifteen million people would beg to differ with you on that.

I am not using Revelation, I am using Deut 4:2

Okay. So that validates my point even more. Why do you believe that anything that was written after Deuteronomy is inspired? All of the books of the Bible were written independently of one another. They were written in different time periods by different authors. And yet you accept them all as true, simply because they are bound in a single volume. I'll say again what I said before: God did not place a gag order on himself.

All of that is irrelevant unless you reject the canon that has been accepted by Christianity for 100's of years.

It's completely relevant! What makes the canon you use today any more authoritative than the one used by Christians who lived within 150 years after Jesus' death? Seriously, you're being obtuse. I can't believe you just said what you just said.

We do know which books John wrote. They are all in the canon.

I'm not saying they're not, but how do we really know? And what about the books written by the others I mentioned? The Bible did not just appear in its present form as the result of a miracle. Human hands were involved in getting it to where it is today, and you're insisting that it was the most recent group of human hands that got it right, while those before them either included books which should not have been included or failed to include some that have since been included. I'm thinking that you really haven't thought this through very carefully.

I am not a Catholic because they did change some things and the changed were not Biblical. Much of their teaching are also not Biblical. They also include some books that Protestants do not consider to be in the canon.

Okay, then you are admitting that "the Church" as it existed when Martin Luther (and the other Reformers) came along was different than the Church Jesus Christ established. You believe that the Reformers took care of what had been altered throughout the years.

I don't remember specifically about what that refers to. Did you say the apostles altered wha they wrote? If you did, that is why. Especially since you have no evidence that did. If you did, you are accusing them of lying.

If you're going to insult someone (by telling them they should be ashamed of themselves), I would think you could at least recall why you did so.

I'm not accusing anybody of lying, least of all the apostles. I specifically stated that it was after the deaths of the apostles that these changes crept in. This didn't happen overnight, but over several hundred years. Stop and think about how different many Protestant doctrines are from Catholic doctrines. That' s proof that things changed. I'm not pointing fingers at any one person or group of people. I'm just looking at history.

How about a source.

Their sworn statements are found in the front of the Book of Mormon. None of them ever denied having seen the plates, even though several had a subsequent falling out with Joseph Smith himself. It would have been so easy for them to deny what they'd said or claim they signed the statement under duress. But none of them ever did.

It is convenient when you can tell others what God said, but not have anything to support it.

If something is convenient, it works to the benefit of the person it's convenient for. How is the fact that we don't have the golden plates today of any benefit to the Mormons today? You have the Bible and I have that plus three other volumes of sacred scripture.

At least we have the Bible.

Yes, you can be grateful for that. It's a wonderful book, containing well over a thousand pages of great truths. I have the Bible and three other volumes of sacred scripture. But that makes you angry.

It never makes me happy when people are taught what is contradicted in what we know came from God. It makes me very sad.

I can tell. You never really do seem very happy. I'm sorry that my beliefs cause you such tremendous sorrow. Just be grateful for what you have and try not to worry about me. I feel so blessed to have what I do, and I know that there isn't one single solitary blessing in my life that is not from God -- including my religious beliefs.

 

[knh777]

Omega, why do you always seem so angry? I just don't understand the level of contempt I feel from you. This is a serious question. I don't understand this seething disgust for anyone who sees things differently from you. Could you maybe explain why this is?

I've never given the Book of Mormon more authority than the Bible, so I have absolutely no reason for making any excuses for doing so. If God has spoken, the title of the book/s containing His truths shouldn't make any difference.

If you are referring to the admonition given to John in Revelation, as I assume you are, you need to consider the fact that "this book" was the book of Revelation and not the Bible as a whole. Furthermore, God commanded that no one should either add or subtract from it (Revelation). He did not say that He was through talking to mankind or that He would not talk to any people other than those in the Holy Land.

Actually, I have quite a bit of evidence. This should do for starters: In 1740, a list of the canonical books compiled in Rome just prior to 200 A.D. was discovered in the Ambrosian Libary in Milan, Italy. Missing from the accepted canon in 200 A.D. were Hebrews, James, 1 Peter and 2 Peter. Only two of John's letters were considered canonical, not three, but we don't know for sure which two. The Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon, however, were included. Eusebius of Caesara, one of the most notable Church historians to have ever lived, described (in about 300 A.D.) a canon which included only twenty-seven of the books in today's New Testament. Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter were described as "questionable," as were Jude and Revelation. In the fourth century, St. Gregory of Nazianzus continued to reject Revelation and states, "You have all. If there is any any besides these, it is not among the genuine [books]." The canon he set forth was ratified some three centuries later. The Greek Codex Claromontanus, one of the most significant New Testament manuscripts, contains a list of the canonical books of the fourth century. (The manuscript itself originates in the sixth century, however most scholars believe that the actual list dates back to the Alexandrian Church from two centuries earlier.) That list did not exclude Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians or Hebrews. But guess what? It does include the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. And what about Paul's epistle to the Laodiceans? Why was it less authoritative than his other epistles? It's mentioned in Colossians 4:16. Obviously, it was considered authoritative at the time it was written. Paul also wrote an additional epistle to the Ephesians and another to the Corinthians. When did his "apostolic authorship" come into question? Jude, too, wrote another epistle. Why was it omitted from the today's canon? Catholics love to point out that it was Roman Catholicism that preserved and compiled the biblical canon. I have no problem with that claim. What I have a problem with is the number of changes that took place in it over time. How does a document go from being "God-breathed" from being "not God-breathed" to once again being "God-breathed"? Had God been involved in the process of establishing the Christian canon, why did it take so long for "the Church" to come to a decision as to what was supposed to be considered doctrinally binding and what was not? If "the Word has been fully revealed" why did it change so drastically, just within the space of two centuries?

So why aren't you a Catholic? Evidently the Protestant Reformers believe the Catholic Church changed quite a few things over the years, when it was, for all intents and purposes, the only Christian Church around. If you think nothing changed over the years, it seems to me that you'd want to consider becoming a Catholic.

What's the horrible thing again that I should be ashamed of? Understanding how the Bible we have now has evolved over the years, or recognizing what the Protestant Reformers also recognized?

And yet no originals.

You're wrong about that. Twelve other individuals who were all respected and well-regarded members of the community also saw them.

There's nothing convenient about it, at least not from the LDS standpoint. From the standpoint of someone who is convinced that Mormonism is a corrupt form of Christianity, it's actually very convenient. (That means you should be very happy.)

The book of Mormon came by a similar enlightenment as Islam and the Qran.
Both came by a claim of a visit by an angel of light and both contract the Bible in its total context.

2 Corinthians 11:14
No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.

As for Catholicism, that was a politicizing of faith, as well as corruption of faith accompanied by the murder of millions that continued to be martyrs as the early church.

I do not have disgust for you personally. You are not my enemy. I have disgust for Mormonism because I consider it a false religion, because much of its teachings are contrary to what the Bible teaches. Keep in mind that Jesus had contempt for the false teahing os teh Pharisees and the Saducees.



As you know I had 2 Mormons in my house to discuss religion. I ask hem if they had to give up the BOM or the Bible, they said the would give up the Bible. I don't know if that is LSD thinking but that is what they said. Also in the forward to the BOM it says it should be studied but in says nothing about the studying the Bible. If they are equal, why mention only one? Also there are obvious contradictions between the BOM and the Bible. It is illogical to use both of them.



I am not using Revelation, I am using Deut 4:2



All of that is irrelevant unless you reject the canon that has been accepted by Christianity for 100's of years. We do know which books John wrote. They are all in the canon.



I am not a Catholic because they did change some things and the changed were not Biblical. Much of their teaching are also not Biblical. They also include some books that Protestants do not consider to be in the canon.



I don't remember specifically about what that refers to. Did you say the apostles altered wha they wrote? If you did, that is why. Especially since you have no evidence that did. If you did, you are accusing them of lying.



How about a source.



It is convenient when you can tell others what God said, but not have anything to support it. At least we have the Bible. It never makes me happy when people are taught what is contradicted in what we know came from God. It makes me very sad.

 

[knh777]

I think it will depend on what is meant by 'born again' I actually agree that salvation comes in one step from death to life though faith but where I have issue is that there is necessary fruit of salvation that follows. In Colossians, Paul said their faith and love went back to the day they understood the grace of God in truth... they were saved by grace and it bore fruit being faith working in love.

Born again is only used once or twice in the new testament and many other illustrations of salvation are given... using all of them would be wisest

Born again is a process led by the Spirit. As with natural birth, it occurs with some travail. Born again is an actual encounter with the Holy Spirit at which time He reveals the weight of sin to repentance, counting the cost to follow, the revelation of Jesus, the work of the Cross and Resurrection, and then the new heart and continual renewing of our minds.

John 3:5
Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

John 3:3
Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

1 Peter 1:3
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

1 Peter 1:23
for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God

 

[Prestor John]

Not much of it, but I have discussed it with several very passionate Mormon "elders" and one in particular believed that proven facts are immaterial because "truth is stronger than facts" that contradict mormonism and "God tells him truth." I heard another one who claimed there is zero archeological evidence for the lammonites travel through the U.S. because God "hid" it all so we can go completely on faith and I've read quite a bit on the seer stone Mr. Smith to not believe in him
If God was "restoring" the first century church through him, why would God have to add several new books; the book of mormom, doctrine and covenants, and pearl of great price? Why not just point out to Joseph Smith what parts of the Bible the churches of his day had forsaken and what he should call people to obey? Those books weren't part of the original church, that wasn't "restoring", that was adding.

Thank you for sharing your anecdotal evidence, but that does not prove anything.

Truth is truth no matter where it is found. There is no evidence or facts that disprove the claims made in the Book of Mormon.

You should not judge the Book of Mormon without reading it.

Should I judge the Bible based on the claims made by a "Christian" without actually reading the Bible?

Read the Book of Mormon. Come to know what it actually claims.

 

[omega2xx]

Okay, so we have a difference of opinion then. You believe Mormonism to be false. I believe some of the things your religion teaches to be false. But I don't feel like I have to attack your beliefs at every opportunity. They are, after all, only beliefs, as are mine. It just seems to make you actually angry when people believe differently than you think they should. That's mystifying to me.

I do not get angry when someone's interpretation is different than mine. I get angry when something is presented as true about Christianity, that the Bible says is not true, then use the Bible as part of their religion. That is illogical. IMO false religions should be attacked, especially if they are said to represent Christianity. Also pointing out difference in the BOM and the Bible is not attacking it.

Okay, but what if they had asked you this: "If you could keep only one of the four gospel accounts of Jesus' life, which one would it be?" If you picked John, would that mean that you find Matthew, Mark and Luke to be second-rate? I personally prefer reading the four gospels to most of the Book of Mormon. On the other hand, I would much rather read Mosiah (in the book of Mormon) than Nahum (in the Bible). That does not mean that I find Nahum worthless or false.

First of all there are no contradiction in the 4 gospels, so there is not reason to reject any of them. That depends on if Mosiah contradicts anything in the Bible. However that is irrelevant. Even if Mosiah doesn't contradict the Bible, it is part of a religion that does.

Now, you're just being silly. It is only logical that in the forward to the Book of Mormon, the Book of Mormon is the book that is mentioned. As you know, we also believe in the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. But the forward to the Book of Mormon doesn't mention them either. The forward of any book is not intended as a suggested reading list of other books.

You may think it is silly but IMO it points to what you consider the most important. It could easily have said, also read the Bible.

We've already talked about this over on City-Data and we got nowhere. I don't see them as being contradictory and I explained why. You simply disregarded everything I said.

I don't remember the details, but I know if you presented you claimed was not contradictory, I would use the Bible to show that it was. For example: II Nephi 2:25 says, "Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy."

The fall brought sin into the world and into me(Rom 5:12)---If anyone finds joy in their sins, thy don't understand sin.

1. In the Old Testament the only ones who could be priests were the descendants of Levi, one of the twelve sons of Israel.
   However, the Book of Mormon story claims that descendants of the tribe of Manasseh (Alma 10:3) were made priests.
   
   2 Nephi 5:26 "And it came to pass that I, Nephi, did consecrate Jacob and Joseph, that they should be priests and teachers over the land of my people.There are many more but one is enough to show there are contradiction.

However it more than just the BOM. Many of your doctrines contradict the Bible: God is not omnipresent; Mcconky says J. Smith and others aided God ind the creation. That is absurd. God SPOKE the universe into creation---He did not have Choir backing Him up.

That's a very subjective statement. Fifteen million people would beg to differ with you on that.

Irrelevant. It does not matter how many disagree with a fact.

]Okay. So that validates my point even more. Why do you believe that anything that was written after Deuteronomy is inspired? All of the books of the Bible were written independently of one another. They were written in different time periods by different authors. And yet you accept them all as true, simply because they are bound in a single volume. I'll say again what I said before: God did not place a gag order on himself.

Some of God's most important teachings comes after Deuteronomy, plus God says ALL SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED BY GOD. The question is why do you not consider everything after Deuteronomy not inspired? That is just another way to try and discredit most of the Bible, including the NT. Which books of the BOM were written before Deut?

It's completely relevant! What makes the canon you use today any more authoritative than the one used by Christians who lived within 150 years after Jesus' death? Seriously, you're being obtuse. I can't believe you just said what you just said.

I'm not saying they're not, but how do we really know? And what about the books written by the others I mentioned? The Bible did not just appear in its present form as the result of a miracle. Human hands were involved in getting it to where it is today, and you're insisting that it was the most recent group of human hands that got it right, while those before them either included books which should not have been included or failed to include some that have since been included. I'm thinking that you really haven't thought this through very carefully.

So if I don't believe what you believe, it is because I have not thought it through carefully? How self serving that is. So think again. I take all of God''s word by faith. Now it is time for you to very carefully think about Heb 11:6.

Okay, then you are admitting that "the Church" as it existed when Martin Luther (and the other Reformers) came along was different than the Church Jesus Christ established. You believe that the Reformers took care of what had been altered throughout the years.

Of course it was different. The church at that time was almost exclusively RCC and it had become corrupt, especially in its doctrines. The main purpose of the reformation was to get Christianity back to sola scripture.

If you're going to insult someone (by telling them they should be ashamed of themselves), I would think you could at least recall why you did so.

If you were the only one I was discussing topics with, I might. It it was yesterday, I might, but these days, at lunch, I don't remember what I had for breakfast. One day, you will understand that if you lived long enough.

I'm not accusing anybody of lying, least of all the apostles. I specifically stated that it was after the deaths of the apostles that these changes crept in. This didn't happen overnight, but over several hundred years. Stop and think about how different many Protestant doctrines are from Catholic doctrines. That' s proof that things changed. I'm not pointing fingers at any one person or group of people. I'm just looking at history.

If you question what they wrote was not inspired, you certainly are accusing them of lying. The Bible did not change. Men looking for powor changed Christianity into something it never was nor was ever meant to be.

Their sworn statements are found in the front of the Book of Mormon. None of them ever denied having seen the plates, even though several had a subsequent falling out with Joseph Smith himself. It would have been so easy for them to deny what they'd said or claim they signed the statement under duress. But none of them ever did.

I will have to look into that.

If something is convenient, it works to the benefit of the person it's convenient for. How is the fact that we don't have the golden plates today of any benefit to the Mormons today? You have the Bible and I have that plus three other volumes of sacred scripture.

That is the point. I have something I can look at and make my own determination as its worth. You can't do that. Again we can go back to the BOM contradicting the Bible. Would God give a book to someone that contradicted what He inspired first.

Yes, you can be grateful for that. It's a wonderful book, containing well over a thousand pages of great truths. I have the Bible and three other volumes of sacred scripture. But that makes you angry.

Since much of what you have contradicts the Bible, they do not contain wonderful truths.

I can tell. You never really do seem very happy. I'm sorry that my beliefs cause you such tremendous sorrow. Just be grateful for what you have and try not to worry about me. I feel so blessed to have what I do, and I know that there isn't one single solitary blessing in my life that is not from God -- including my religious beliefs.

Again you need to rethink what you've said. I am happy that I know I am going to heaven, you don't. Wrong again, your beliefs do not cause me tremendous sorrow. I am sorrowful that some believe non-Biblical theology.

I have been bless by Gods with EVERY SPIRITUAL blessing(Eph 1:3). How can I be sorrowful? I have God's inspired word that I have all of these blessings, How do you know you have God's blessing, since Ephesians was written after Deut?

 

[moorea944]

I do not get angry when someone's interpretation is different than mine. I get angry when something is presented as true about Christianity, that the Bible says is not true, then use the Bible as part of their religion. That is illogical. IMO false religions should be attacked, especially if they are said to represent Christianity. Also pointing out difference in the BOM and the Bible is not attacking it.



First of all there are no contradiction in the 4 gospels, so there is not reason to reject any of them. That depends on if Mosiah contradicts anything in the Bible. However that is irrelevant. Even if Mosiah doesn't contradict the Bible, it is part of a religion that does.



You may think it is silly but IMO it points to what you consider the most important. It could easily have said, also read the Bible.



I don't remember the details, but I know if you presented you claimed was not contradictory, I would use the Bible to show that it was. For example: II Nephi 2:25 says, "Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy."

The fall brought sin into the world and into me(Rom 5:12)---If anyone finds joy in their sins, thy don't understand sin.

1. In the Old Testament the only ones who could be priests were the descendants of Levi, one of the twelve sons of Israel.
   However, the Book of Mormon story claims that descendants of the tribe of Manasseh (Alma 10:3) were made priests.
   
   2 Nephi 5:26 "And it came to pass that I, Nephi, did consecrate Jacob and Joseph, that they should be priests and teachers over the land of my people.There are many more but one is enough to show there are contradiction.

However it more than just the BOM. Many of your doctrines contradict the Bible: God is not omnipresent; Mcconky says J. Smith and others aided God ind the creation. That is absurd. God SPOKE the universe into creation---He did not have Choir backing Him up.




Irrelevant. It does not matter how many disagree with a fact.



Some of God's most important teachings comes after Deuteronomy, plus God says ALL SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED BY GOD. The question is why do you not consider everything after Deuteronomy not inspired? That is just another way to try and discredit most of the Bible, including the NT. Which books of the BOM were written before Deut?

It's completely relevant! What makes the canon you use today any more authoritative than the one used by Christians who lived within 150 years after Jesus' death? Seriously, you're being obtuse. I can't believe you just said what you just said.



So if I don't believe what you believe, it is because I have not thought it through carefully? How self serving that is. So think again. I take all of God''s word by faith. Now it is time for you to very carefully think about Heb 11:6.


Of course it was different. The church at that time was almost exclusively RCC and it had become corrupt, especially in its doctrines. The main purpose of the reformation was to get Christianity back to sola scripture.



If you were the only one I was discussing topics with, I might. It it was yesterday, I might, but these days, at lunch, I don't remember what I had for breakfast. One day, you will understand that if you lived long enough.



If you question what they wrote was not inspired, you certainly are accusing them of lying. The Bible did not change. Men looking for powor changed Christianity into something it never was nor was ever meant to be.



I will have to look into that.



That is the point. I have something I can look at and make my own determination as its worth. You can't do that. Again we can go back to the BOM contradicting the Bible. Would God give a book to someone that contradicted what He inspired first.



Since much of what you have contradicts the Bible, they do not contain wonderful truths.



Again you need to rethink what you've said. I am happy that I know I am going to heaven, you don't. Wrong again, your beliefs do not cause me tremendous sorrow. I am sorrowful that some believe non-Biblical theology.

I have been bless by Gods with EVERY SPIRITUAL blessing(Eph 1:3). How can I be sorrowful? I have God's inspired word that I have all of these blessings, How do you know you have God's blessing, since Ephesians was written after Deut?

Good points! The other thing that I find interesting with the Book of Moron is that they say it was really written thousands of years ago, yet.... it has the translation errors of the 1611 KJV. Hmmm interesting...

 

[omega2xx]

The book of Mormon came by a similar enlightenment as Islam and the Qran.
Both came by a claim of a visit by an angel of light and both contract the Bible in its total context.
Good point.

2 Corinthians 11:14
No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.

As for Catholicism, that was a politicizing of faith, as well as corruption of faith accompanied by the murder of millions that continued to be martyrs as the early church.

IMO the Catholic church started out right, but when it was made the only religion, men seeing the power its leaders had, joined the church for personal gain. In religion the cream does not always rise to the top.

 

[omega2xx]

Good points! The other thing that I find interesting with the Book of Moron is that they say it was really written thousands of years ago, yet.... it has the translation errors of the 1611 KJV. Hmmm interesting...

Today has not been a total loss. I did realize know it has the errors of the 1611 KJ, but I should have. When they come around to discuss it I always tell them the kj is not the best Bilbe to find God's truth and point out the errors I know in it. l Thanks for reminding me.

 

[Katzpur]

I do not get angry when someone's interpretation is different than mine. I get angry when something is presented as true about Christianity, that the Bible says is not true, then use the Bible as part of their religion. That is illogical. IMO false religions should be attacked, especially if they are said to represent Christianity. Also pointing out difference in the BOM and the Bible is not attacking it.

First of all there are no contradiction in the 4 gospels, so there is not reason to reject any of them. That depends on if Mosiah contradicts anything in the Bible. However that is irrelevant. Even if Mosiah doesn't contradict the Bible, it is part of a religion that does.

You may think it is silly but IMO it points to what you consider the most important. It could easily have said, also read the Bible.

I don't remember the details, but I know if you presented you claimed was not contradictory, I would use the Bible to show that it was. For example: II Nephi 2:25 says, "Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy."

The fall brought sin into the world and into me(Rom 5:12)---If anyone finds joy in their sins, thy don't understand sin.

1. In the Old Testament the only ones who could be priests were the descendants of Levi, one of the twelve sons of Israel.
   However, the Book of Mormon story claims that descendants of the tribe of Manasseh (Alma 10:3) were made priests.
   
   2 Nephi 5:26 "And it came to pass that I, Nephi, did consecrate Jacob and Joseph, that they should be priests and teachers over the land of my people.There are many more but one is enough to show there are contradiction.

However it more than just the BOM. Many of your doctrines contradict the Bible: God is not omnipresent; Mcconky says J. Smith and others aided God ind the creation. That is absurd. God SPOKE the universe into creation---He did not have Choir backing Him up.

Irrelevant. It does not matter how many disagree with a fact.

Some of God's most important teachings comes after Deuteronomy, plus God says ALL SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED BY GOD. The question is why do you not consider everything after Deuteronomy not inspired? That is just another way to try and discredit most of the Bible, including the NT. Which books of the BOM were written before Deut?

It's completely relevant! What makes the canon you use today any more authoritative than the one used by Christians who lived within 150 years after Jesus' death? Seriously, you're being obtuse. I can't believe you just said what you just said.

So if I don't believe what you believe, it is because I have not thought it through carefully? How self serving that is. So think again. I take all of God''s word by faith. Now it is time for you to very carefully think about Heb 11:6.

Of course it was different. The church at that time was almost exclusively RCC and it had become corrupt, especially in its doctrines. The main purpose of the reformation was to get Christianity back to sola scripture.

If you were the only one I was discussing topics with, I might. It it was yesterday, I might, but these days, at lunch, I don't remember what I had for breakfast. One day, you will understand that if you lived long enough.

If you question what they wrote was not inspired, you certainly are accusing them of lying. The Bible did not change. Men looking for powor changed Christianity into something it never was nor was ever meant to be.

I will have to look into that.

That is the point. I have something I can look at and make my own determination as its worth. You can't do that. Again we can go back to the BOM contradicting the Bible. Would God give a book to someone that contradicted what He inspired first.

Since much of what you have contradicts the Bible, they do not contain wonderful truths.

Again you need to rethink what you've said. I am happy that I know I am going to heaven, you don't. Wrong again, your beliefs do not cause me tremendous sorrow. I am sorrowful that some believe non-Biblical theology.

I have been bless by Gods with EVERY SPIRITUAL blessing(Eph 1:3). How can I be sorrowful? I have God's inspired word that I have all of these blessings, How do you know you have God's blessing, since Ephesians was written after Deut?

Omega, I have decided that it is really a complete waste of my time to talk to you. I would address each (or at least most) of these points, but I know that nothing I could possible say could make you feel any differently than you do right now. We are simply going around in circles. Everything you say to me is a put-down, and I have better things to do with my time than try to carry on a respectful dialogue with someone who has an entirely different agenda.

Unlike the missionaries you visited with a few times, I'm not here to convert you. I wish you could understand that and just engage in a respectful, civil discussion. But, at the end of the day, you don't want to understand why Mormons believe as they do, and you don't want to understand why we don't seethe contradictions you see.

I know in advance what your response will be to this post. You will tell me that I'm backing out of this (and further) discussions with you because I can't support my position. I know better, and other people on this forum know that I do. If it makes you feel good to think that, though, by all means go right ahead. Just be aware that as of now, you are on ignore.

 

[allfoak]

Omega, I have decided that it is really a complete waste of my time to talk to you. I would address each (or at least most) of these points, but I know that nothing I could possible say could make you feel any differently than you do right now. We are simply going around in circles. Everything you say to me is a put-down, and I have better things to do with my time than try to carry on a respectful dialogue with someone who has an entirely different agenda. Unlike the missionaries you visited with a few times, I'm not here to convert you. I wish you could understand that and just engage in a respectful, civil discussion. I know in advance what your response will be to this post. You will tell me that I'm backing out of this (and further) discussions with you because I can't support my position. If it makes you feel good to think that, by all means go right ahead.

This is a common experience with biblical literalists.
They can't support their position because it is all make believe, so they act like children.

 

[Katzpur]

This is a common experience with biblical literalists.
They can't support their position because it is all make believe, so they act like children.

I know. It's so frustrating! I'm here because I really want to understand other people's beliefs (particularly other Christians' beliefs, since they differ in so many ways from each other). Every time I start talking with one of these folks, I think, "This time it's going to be different. Maybe nobody is going to convince anybody that they're right, but we can at least learn to respect our differences where they exist, and find common ground where it exists. We'll both come out of the conversation better informed and more tolerant." As it turns out, I am wrong -- 100% of the time. I guess I'm just a slow learner.

 

[allfoak]

I guess I'm just a slow learner.

You, me and many others.
We are expected to comply with their beliefs or we are the enemy.
They use their messiah as an example to treat people this way.
We hear it all the time.
The claim is that they hate the sin and not the sinner.
I don't think that is true based upon their actions.
We are to be ostracized if we don't comply.
I have been asked to leave Christian churches because of what i believe.
They can use the Bible to justify their actions because the Bible is written in such a way that you can make it mean anything you want it to mean.

When i expressed to someone once that i had a different understanding of a particular verse than they did, i was told that i needed to be "straightened out".

 

[omega2xx]

Omega, I have decided that it is really a complete waste of my time to talk to you. I would address each (or at least most) of these points, but I know that nothing I could possible say could make you feel any differently than you do right now. We are simply going around in circles. Everything you say to me is a put-down, and I have better things to do with my time than try to carry on a respectful dialogue with someone who has an entirely different agenda.

Unlike the missionaries you visited with a few times, I'm not here to convert you. I wish you could understand that and just engage in a respectful, civil discussion. But, at the end of the day, you don't want to understand why Mormons believe as they do, and you don't want to understand why we don't seethe contradictions you see.

I know in advance what your response will be to this post. You will tell me that I'm backing out of this (and further) discussions with you because I can't support my position. I know better, and other people on this forum know that I do. If it makes you feel good to think that, though, by all means go right ahead. Just be aware that as of now, you are on ignore.

 

[omega2xx]

That's fine, i expected that.

The one thing you can't run away from personally is the the Bible contradicts some of the BOM and many LDS doctrines, and that makes using the Bible as PART of your belief system illogical, A good tree can't produce bad fruit and a bad tree can't produce good fruit.

Anyone who is truly seeking the truth, should question why books that contradict are used to support their religion.

I bet you were raised in Mormon church and are not a convert to it. It is hard to reject what one is taught as a child.

I hope you realize I have not attacked you personally.

 

[allfoak]

@Katzpur

There are many of us here that you can ask questions about different religions.
I have a background in Christainity as do others here.
I studied Bible in college and even did some preaching for a while. lol

 

[Katzpur]

@Katzpur

There are many of us here that you can ask questions about different religions.
I have a background in Christainity as do others here.
I studied Bible in college and even did some preaching for a while. lol

Do you have a religion now?

 

[allfoak]

Do you have a religion now?

I like to say that life is my practice.