Hi, No*s. When I saw Mormonman's post and your response, I just couldn't bring myself to jump into the debate -- as much as I wanted to. I find that these posts in which ten or fifteen points of doctrine are all presented at once are just too overwhelming for either side to do be able to to justice to their point of view. Would you consider a one-on-one debate with me on two or three of these issues, maybe some that tie very closely together, where we could actually get into them in some depth instead of just superficially? I'll be watching for your answer. If you aren't interested, I guess I'll just sit here on the sidelines and watch the :slap: between you and Mormonman.No*s said:Ask and ye shall receive.
As a closing statement, I don't think you understand the concept of the Trinity (its wording; nobody truly grasps God's nature). Some of your objections...simply don't address the Trinity (Substance being equated with Body being one of them). Reread the creed (or better, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed) with the definitions I gave.
-
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!
Christians:LDS Members are Christian!
- Thread starter mormonman
- Start date
mormonman said:Ohhh...Are you LDS???
Yup. It just says "Christian" for a reason. I thought it would be interesting to be able to state my beliefs and present arguments for them without having people think, "Oh, well she's LDS, so obviously her point of view is not worth considering." I posted a "coming out" thread last week, though, because I got tired of pretending I was somebody different than who I really am. You must have missed it. So celebrate -- :clap -- you've got another member of your team!
1. Some people are Catholic Christians. Some people are Lutheran or Methodist or Baptist Christians. I'm a Latter-day Saint Christian. Some people just call themselves Christian, but don't act like it.Endless said:
2. A Biblical Christian is nothing more than someone who ascribes to the doctrine of sola scriptura, which, interestingly enough, is not "Biblical."
3. I don't really care whether you think I'm a Christian or not. When I stand before God to be judged, He's not going to ask you opinion.
I never expected you to care - and you are correct God will not ask my opinion. The question is which God are you going to stand before to be judged, the second question actually is - does it matter what God judges since you apparently will also have to get by Joseph Smith:
So i take it it's actually the judgement of Joseph Smith that will really count?
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
The entire text of Endless's quote from Brigham Young is available online from a source not hostile to LDS at http://journalofdiscourses.org/Vol_07/refJDvol7-44.html.Endless said:
The website host is http://journalofdiscourses.org/.
Well, you take it wrong then. What is your problem anyway? Are your own beliefs really so flimsy that you have to spend your time twisting and mispresenting mine? How about sticking to a subject you actually know something about? I would think you'd be embarrassed to be posting nonsense like this.Endless said:
This site may not be hostile to the Church, but much of what Brigham Young said in these many, many discourses is not representative of what we teach and believe. In 35 years, I have never, ever attended an LDS worship service or class in which I was taught that I was going to judged by Joseph Smith as opposed to by God, my Father in Heaven.angellous_evangellous said:
What does this tell you?
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
It confirms my knowledge of LDS. Everything is subject to change by later revelation. Brigham spoke by revelation, and the modern prophets speak by revelation.Squirt said:
Well... yes. You're just figuring that out now? God speaks to us through living prophets, teaching us, "line upon line, precept upon precept." The whole point of continued revelation is that God gives us what we need to know here and now. There would be no need for living prophets if God were through talking to us.angellous_evangellous said:
On the other hand, we have never claimed that any of our prophets were infallible. Brigham Young spoke by revelation; he also voiced his own opinions on a variety of topics, some of them of a religious nature, others of a secular nature. Not everything he ever said was revealed from God. The Latter-day Saints know what was and what wasn't. It's those outside of our faith who can't seem to get it straight. And they're the ones who insist on telling us what we believe.
Well, maybe you aren't being taught the 'whole truth' maybe they keep away the doctrinal teachings which are more 'disagreeable'. If you will let us do a little experiment - why not ask an elder or the leader of your LDS church, if he believes what Brigham wrote when he said that everyone would have to get consent off Joseph Smith before entering. Quote to him the quote i wrote up and see what he says. I would be very interested in his opinion of this.
Now i'll bring the bible into this:
God's prophets don't make mistakes when they proclaim things they state are truth. The sign that a prophet is a false prophet is mistakes or things which are not true. The Bible says that by their fruit we will recognise them. No prophet of God in the Bible ever proclaimed as truth something that was a lie. The verse above also gives the criteria for determining whether the prophet is speaking the word of God.
What a false prophet does is so serious that the penalty was death.
Oh, give me a break. Maybe we're not being taught the whole truth? Do you have any idea whatsoever how totally ridiculous it is for your to say that? We Latter-day Saints, who go to church for three hours every Sunday throughout our entire lives (for me that would be 35 years) are somehow shielded from the "whole truth," but those like you who have probably never set foot in an LDS church in your life, and get your information off an anti-Mormon website or out of books in the "cult" section of your so-called "Christian" bookstores, have an accurate and comprehensive understanding of what LDS doctrine really is. :biglaugh: I have a hunch you also think that, in posting this nice little bit of 19th century trivia, you were exposing the deep, dark truth to us for the first time. I'll let you in on a little secret, Endless (don't tell any of your anti-Mormon friends as I'm sure it would be terribly deflating to them): There isn't an LDS poster on this forum who hasn't heard this quote from Brigham Young a hundred times.Endless said:
Did it ever occur to you that we aren't taught that Brigham Young said Joseph Smith would grant us access into heaven because it's NOT LDS DOCTRINE!
That's not rocket science, Endless. What part of this do you not understand?
You want me to "ask an elder or the leader of the LDS church" this question. That statement, in and of itself, is proof that you don't even have a clue how the Church heirarchy works. The leader of the Church, President Gordon B. Hinckley, doesn't exactly have time on his hands to fields questions from 12 million members of the Church. I hope you can understand that. But, since you suggested I might "ask an elder," I went one better. I asked a "high priest" -- my husband. Guess what he said? "Yes, Brigham Young said that, but it's not doctrine. I'm surprised that you'd even ask me that, honey."
You not only don't know the Book of Mormon, you don't even know the Bible!:biglaugh: Just off the top of my head, I can think of two examples from the Old Testament in which prophets of God "made a mistake."
Jonah was told by God to prophecy to the people of Nineveh, and to announce that the people would be destroyed in 40 days (Jonah 3:4). This was not a "conditional" prophesy. It wasn't a case of "unless they repent." It was just a straightforward statement of what was to happen. However, when the people repented, God chose to spare them. Jonah's reaction to God's changing His mind was to be "displeased ... exceedingly" and "very angry" (Jonah 4:1), presumably because it made him look bad in people's eyes. I don't think this means he was a false prophet. The book of Jonah is still part of God's word.
In Ezekiel, we find yet another example. In chapters 26 through 28, we read that Tyre was to be conquered, destroyed, and plundered by King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. Tyre's wealth would go to Babylon (Ezek. 26:12). While Nebuchadnezzar's army did seize Tyre, the seige was not as severe as had been prophesied, since it resulted in a compromise or treaty rather than total destruction and plunder. Tyre was eventually destroyed, but not during the Babylonian siege. The Babylonian army definitely did not get the riches of Tyre as had been prophesied.
Go back and re-read your Bible. Then read the Book of Mormon. Then come back and see if you have something meaningful to contribute.
You see my problem with the LDS church is - who decides whether Joseph Smith was right or wrong in what he said, who decides if Brigham was right or wrong in what he said. Who makes these decisions - because if you look at that quote from Brigham it was from a church sermon - so are you saying to me that the church didn't buy into what he said, or were those churches in which he preached this deceived?
At what point do you draw the line at revelation and at what point falsehood? Brigham had a huge responsiblity in the LDS church - how much nonsense did he teach in the churches? How many ideas and teachings are floating around the LDS church which are incorrect - how many church leaders now are talking similar things to what Brigham taught. If you have that sort of freedom in the church to be able to teach things which are incorrect - Brigham with that sort of influence and incorrect teachings - how much damage did he do? That is what i would call a 'false prophet'.
As far as me not knowing the bible - your examples are laughable. Perhaps you should have read the Bible rather than picking them off the top of your head.
Jonah - it was not a prophesy it was a warning. He warned them that in 40 days the city would be overthrown. Why do you think God sent Jonah there in the first place if not to warn the inhabitants of the city. God acheived the purpose for which he sent Jonah - the repentance of the people, and so God could have mercy upon them.
As for the prophecy in Ezekial, had you studied it you would have found the following right at the very start:
King Neb laid seige to the mainland metropolis for around 13-15 years. When King Neb finally captured and marched into the mainland city he found it empty as they had fled to the Island and fortified it. That old mainland city was demolished by King Neb - the plunder carried off. However the Island became a mighty power.
The Island was then destroyed by Alexander during his war on the Persians - he raized the mainland city to the ground and used everything he could get to build a causeway across to the Island, and finally overthrew it.
But Tyre eventually recovered again, but never to her primary glory. It was finally left in ruins during the Crusades when i believe the Muslims destroyed everything there. Now there is only a small fishing village called Sur and yes, they dry their fishing nets across the rock where the city of tyre used to be.
After Neb the old mainland city of Tyre was never rebuilt and Alexander used everything to make the causeway.
All the prophecies came true. None of these were warnings - just statements to the Israelites of what was going to take place.
I stand by what i said when i wrote that no prophet in the Bible ever lied while prophecying.
At what point do you draw the line at revelation and at what point falsehood? Brigham had a huge responsiblity in the LDS church - how much nonsense did he teach in the churches? How many ideas and teachings are floating around the LDS church which are incorrect - how many church leaders now are talking similar things to what Brigham taught. If you have that sort of freedom in the church to be able to teach things which are incorrect - Brigham with that sort of influence and incorrect teachings - how much damage did he do? That is what i would call a 'false prophet'.
As far as me not knowing the bible - your examples are laughable. Perhaps you should have read the Bible rather than picking them off the top of your head.
Jonah - it was not a prophesy it was a warning. He warned them that in 40 days the city would be overthrown. Why do you think God sent Jonah there in the first place if not to warn the inhabitants of the city. God acheived the purpose for which he sent Jonah - the repentance of the people, and so God could have mercy upon them.
As for the prophecy in Ezekial, had you studied it you would have found the following right at the very start:
It was not to be one attack by one nation that would finish Tyre but waves of attacks by many nations. Tyre consisted of a mainland metropolis and then the small Island that stood about half a mile offshore.
King Neb laid seige to the mainland metropolis for around 13-15 years. When King Neb finally captured and marched into the mainland city he found it empty as they had fled to the Island and fortified it. That old mainland city was demolished by King Neb - the plunder carried off. However the Island became a mighty power.
The Island was then destroyed by Alexander during his war on the Persians - he raized the mainland city to the ground and used everything he could get to build a causeway across to the Island, and finally overthrew it.
But Tyre eventually recovered again, but never to her primary glory. It was finally left in ruins during the Crusades when i believe the Muslims destroyed everything there. Now there is only a small fishing village called Sur and yes, they dry their fishing nets across the rock where the city of tyre used to be.
After Neb the old mainland city of Tyre was never rebuilt and Alexander used everything to make the causeway.
All the prophecies came true. None of these were warnings - just statements to the Israelites of what was going to take place.
I stand by what i said when i wrote that no prophet in the Bible ever lied while prophecying.
Your problem with the LDS Church is that you don't know squat about what we believe. We have four volumes of scripture -- The Bible (KJV), the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. They are called the "Standard Works." They are doctrinally binding upon the members of the Church; they are the "standard" against which every teaching is measured. If something can be found in one of these four books, it's doctine. No ifs, ands or buts. Find something in the Book of Mormon you don't like and ask me if it's LDS doctrine. I'll say, "Absolutely!" On the other hand, if something can't be found in one of our "Standard Works," it's not doctrine. It may have validity, but if it can't be verified through the Standard Works, it's one man's opinion, right or wrong. This shouldn't be at all difficult for anybody with any intelligence at all to understand. We teach from the Standard Works; we don't teach from the Journal of Discourses or any other of the multitude of writings available to us. If you had one ounce of common courtesy, you'd stick to arguing against what we actually believe instead of what you perceive us to believe. I don't care whether you think Brigham Young was a false prophet or not. You're entitled to believe as you wish. But as for your arguments thus far, they are flawed from the get go. Furthermore, you obviously have no desire to get it right!Endless said:
Laughable? A warning given by God to one of His prophets is prophesy, Endless. Call it whatever you want. It doesn't change a thing. I'll bet, had Joseph Smith or Brigham Young said the same thing, you'd be falling it prophesy!
Oh, brother. You have just restated in wordier fashion, what I already said.
What's your point?
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
What is the role of modern prophesy, if not to clarify old doctrines and create new ones?Squirt said:
Does the President and the Quorum only interpret old doctrines and not create new ones?