• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Reason the Bible is invalid

Bishka

Veteran Member
joeboonda said:
I can't say, because, some of you say you believe God was once a man, some say you do not know for sure, Joseph Smith believed absolutely that God attained Godhood, was once a man, that he has not always been God, and just many things about God, that plain Bible-only folks do not believe. The second link in the above post tells from his own writings what he believed, if that is what you believe then thats fine.

Yep, I believe God was once a man, I believe that Lucifer was our Spirit brother, and the other things that were said, makes sense to me, and don't think I'm naive or haven't looked into other thingsw, I have, it just makes the most sense to me.
 

joeboonda

Well-Known Member
Oops, sorry!!! I did not realize we were on the LDS discussion forum. I am out, and I apologize. You all may continue discussing why the book I love, the TRUE WORD of GOD is invalid amongst yourselves. My apologies. Perhaps I will go to the Baptist/Protestant, whatever, Christian forum and discuss why your books are invalid just to be keep things balanced. Sooooorrrryyyyyyyyy.........B'bye

Hey, at least I didn't call him a charlatan, and I wouldbn't, you all gave warning points for that I hope. Or is it just me that thou wouldst protest? Anyway, sorry, PEACE!
 

BUDDY

User of Aspercreme
Katzpur said:
*** MOD POST ***



This is turning into a debate, folks. We're on the LDS discussion forum, remember? We're discussing how the Latter-day Saints view the Bible. We're not debating whether or not Joseph Smith was a false prophet.
Thank you for that Kat. Did you want to continue our discussion?
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
EEWRED said:
Thank you for that Kat. Did you want to continue our discussion?
You're welcome, and absolutely. It's just been a really rough couple of days. Give me another day or so. I definitely want to continue talking. Just not up to any heavy stuff right now. ;)
 

blueman

God's Warrior
Katzpur said:
You're right. It is just your personal opinion. Katzpur, even you would admit there are some major questions regarding his character and credibility.

Do you base your belief in the Bible on archealogical findings? What a poor reason to believe.
My belief in the Bible is not based on archealogical findings, but it certainly does add to the credibility of the authors and the authenticity of scripture, don't you think?:bounce
 

blueman

God's Warrior
Katzpur said:
*** MOD POST ***



This is turning into a debate, folks. We're on the LDS discussion forum, remember? We're discussing how the Latter-day Saints view the Bible. We're not debating whether or not Joseph Smith was a false prophet.
Apologies Katzpur
 

Aqualung

Tasty
joeboonda said:
I can't say, because, some of you say you believe God was once a man, some say you do not know for sure, Joseph Smith believed absolutely that God attained Godhood, was once a man, that he has not always been God, and just many things about God, that plain Bible-only folks do not believe. The second link in the above post tells from his own writings what he believed, if that is what you believe then thats fine.
Katzpur, notwithstanding your mod post, I feel I have to point something out.

Joe - A prophet is only a prophet (or a false prophet) when he is claiming to speak the words of God. Sometimes Joseph Smith spoke his own words.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Sorry it’s taken me so long to get back to you, Buddy. By the way, I like “Buddy” a lot better than EEWRED. (Easier for my brain to pronounce, to begin with.) I never did get around to asking you, though… What did those letters stand for anyway? I imagine they were probably an acronym for something or other. I’ve always been curious.

In this passage, the apostle Paul was making a direct reference to a comparison of the body before and after resurection. Apparently there were some in Corinth, who were asking a lot of questions concerning the nature of our mortal bodies in the afterlife, and thinking it foolish to believe in such because they couldn't understand how there coruptable bodies could be made incorruptable. I do not, when reading the passage in context, see a direct reference to any other form of salvation, but rather Paul's attempt to explain that they should not be foolish when contemplating the thing that God is capable of. Look at the whole passage, starting in verse 32 and reading on. What profit is it to Paul if he be threatened with beasts for preaching the gospel, whne there is no afterlife? In other words, he is saying, do you think that I would be putting my life at risk if I did not believe that God would reward me for my faithfulness?
I don’t suppose we’re going to be able to come to an agreement about this passage. You’d have an easier time convincing me, though, if it were not for two things. First off, if Paul had made a comparison between just two things (the sun and the moon, or the sun and the stars, for instance) you might be able to convince me that he was making a simple comparison to the mortal (or corruptible) body and the immortal (or incorruptible) body. The fact that he specifically mentions three celestial bodies (the sun, moon, and stars) and even mentions the difference in glory between various stars, I see as an analogy to the various degrees of glory we will have in the resurrection. It’s another way, in my opinion, of referring to the “many mansions” Jesus said there are in His Father’s house. I agree that Paul was saying that we would be rewarded for our faithfulness. Jesus said much the same thing when He said He would reward every man “according to his works.” The more faithful we are, the more obedient, the greater the reward. Hence, the greater glory. In addition to these references to a multi-tiered heaven, 1 Corinthians 12:2 speaks of a “third heaven.” It’s difficult for me to dismiss the existence of a first and second heaven if we know there’s a third one.

Well, if I can point you towards a passage in what you believe to be the inspired word, that condradict the rest of your inspired word, then maybe you can see that it is full of inaccuracies and not the inspired word of God.
Well, I’m not too awfully worried, but be my guest. As you undoubtedly know, it’s easy to find apparent contradictions within the Bible alone. But just as I don’t believe there are any such contradictions in the Bible, when all of the verses in question are interpreted correctly, I don’t think you’ll be able to point out anything in the Book of Mormon that contradicts anything else in that book or in the Bible. I may need to explain my understanding of both passages, but I’d be more than happy to do so.

The gates of hell are the most powerful thing that there is next to the power of God. God's power is number one and next to that is the power of Satan, but even the power of Satan will not be able to prevail against the establishment of the church. In other words, what God has established can not be undermind by the most powerful thing in the universe that may wish to undermind it, let alone the corruption of man.
I think you are way, way off base here. You are interpreting this passage according to what “the gates of hell” means to you. You’re seeing it as a hyperbole, used by Jesus to represent “the most powerful thing in the universe that may wish to undermine [the Church as an establishment].” As tempting as that may be to do, I can assure you that to Peter and the other Apostles, it meant nothing anywhere near as sinister. To a first-century Jew, “the gates of hell” would mean nothing more than “the entrance to the underworld, or the abode of departed spirits.” Jesus was simply saying that His gospel would go forth even into hell. He took it there Himself during the three days His body lay in the tomb, and it is still being preached there today. I’m not speaking of the “Hell” that will be the final destination of some of mankind. I’m talking about the Spirit Prison, where the spirits of the dead go to await their own resurrection. Those who lived wicked lives here on earth, but who never heard the gospel of Jesus Christ during their lives, will have the opportunity to hear and accept it prior to standing before God to be judged. In other words, not even death will stop the word of God from being taught. The gates of hell truly will not prevail against Jesus’ Church.

The word of God is all that we need and does give power… If [this] is all we need to be perfected of God, then why would we still need Apostles and Prophets? We don't. The Apostles and Prophets were given by God to man, to impart the knowledge of God's will to man, because it had not been written down yet. Now that we have God's Holy and Written Word, we don't need any additional instruction according to Paul.
The doctrine of the priesthood of all believers is, without a doubt, going to be a stumbling block in any discussion between a Protestant Christian and a Latter-day Saint Christian. Jesus established a very specific organization when He built His Church. We need far more than the scriptures to perfect us. We need the ordinances prescribed by the Savior, and only those authorized to do so may perform them.

In Matthew 16:19, Jesus said to Peter, “And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” This is meaningful. It’s not something that we can easily dismiss. Jesus was giving Peter the right to preside in His absence. He was giving Him the authority to perform ordinances that would have not merely earthly significance but eternal significance.

In Mark 3:14-15, “…he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils… Priesthood power requires ordination. Power is given only to someone by someone else who already has that power. And God-given authority is the means by which men can call upon the powers of Heaven to heal the sick, etc.

Luke 10:1 tells us that he “appointed seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.” He did not merely give a general instruction to anyone within earshot, He appointed seventy specific individuals.

And in John 15:16, He said, “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you and ordained you Not just chosen, but ordained. Given power and authority by one who already had it. I could provide still more examples, but I don’t think it would do much good. Protestants, I have found, are pretty firm in their belief that all one has to do is believe and he automatically has the necessary authority.

You seem to think that Paul didn’t see the need for Apostles and Prophets. I think Ephesians 4:11-14 implies the exact opposite. Here he says, “And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive…”

I don’t see how he could have been much clearer. He said that Christ gave us prophets and apostles. He said this organization was to remain intact “until we all come in the unity of the faith.” And he warned as to what the consequences would be if this organization ceased to exist. It did cease to exist, and the very thing Paul said would happen happened. Men were carried about with every wind of doctrine. They didn’t know which doctrines were true and which were not. It was only with the reestablishment of the foundation of prophets and apostles, appointed by the one who is “the chief cornerstone” of the Church that it could exist in its fullness again, complete with the keys Jesus gave Peter.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
jonny said:
Oh, the text was HUGE on my computer. It's fixed now.
You saw my post within seconds of when I posed it. I got it fixed so fast that I didn't think anyone would actually see it. :D
 

BUDDY

User of Aspercreme
Katzpur said:
I don’t see how he could have been much clearer. He said that Christ gave us prophets and apostles.
I think that we have pretty much covered all relevant angles of this discussion, and I don't see much movement on the issue. Thank you so much for discussing this with me Katzpur. If I find any additional and useful information to add to this discussion, I will be sure to pass it along. I would just like to end with one more thing though. I do believe that an underlying principle that would be helpful to you, as it has helped me in my study of scripture, can be found in hermanuetic. I would highly suggest that you look into it, as it clearly defines how scripture is to be studied, and how to identify passages that directly relative to our lives, and ones that don't, and how to recognize the difference. OTher than that, I wish you the best, and will ask more questions from time to time, if you don't mind that is.
E-Earl
E-Edward
W-last name
R
E
D-I have red hair.

Peace.

~Buddy (Knickname since I was born)
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
BUDDY said:
I think that we have pretty much covered all relevant angles of this discussion, and I don't see much movement on the issue. Thank you so much for discussing this with me Katzpur. If I find any additional and useful information to add to this discussion, I will be sure to pass it along. I would just like to end with one more thing though. I do believe that an underlying principle that would be helpful to you, as it has helped me in my study of scripture, can be found in hermanuetic. I would highly suggest that you look into it, as it clearly defines how scripture is to be studied, and how to identify passages that directly relative to our lives, and ones that don't, and how to recognize the difference. OTher than that, I wish you the best, and will ask more questions from time to time, if you don't mind that is.
E-Earl
E-Edward
W-last name
R
E
D-I have red hair.

Peace.

~Buddy (Knickname since I was born)
Thanks to you, too, Buddy. I've enjoyed our conversation. And we both proved that people with differing ideas can learn from one another and show one another respect. It's been a pleasure.
 
Top