1. 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!

Abrahamic - Mormons

Discussion in 'Same Faith Debates' started by Aqualung, Oct 24, 2005.

  1. joeboonda

    joeboonda Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,780
    Ratings:
    +200
    One must interperet scripture from most to least. How many times does it say THE LORD in the Bible? When God says He is the Lord God of gods, (note the non capitalization), he is reffering to man-made gods, all the false gods of all the false religions, many of which ARE actual demons, like some of the Indian gods of death and destruction, etc., and possibly one like lucifer, who said he would ascend above God. God created the angel (fallen), lucifer, but not Jesus, Jesus was begotten and one with the Father from the beginning. When God says there is one God and he knows no other, there are no others.
     
  2. curiouslyminty

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Messages:
    63
    Ratings:
    +3
    That's merely interpretation. Its an extent. God of Gods, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Master of Masters, The beginning and the End. refers nothing to there being more kings.. and other lords.. Thats sort of out of context. Try this translation-
    The Mighty One,God Jehovah, the Mighty One,God Jehovah, he knoweth;
     
  3. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    29,693
    Ratings:
    +5,554
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    Would you care to debate me on salvation by grace through faith alone versus salvation by grace through faith and works under your rule of thumb -- one must interpret scripture from most to least? It should prove to be an interesting debate.

    Thousands. And I believe every last one of them.

    Okay, well I guess He's a God of false gods then. Have it your way.

    And I guess this is supposed to have something to do with the topic we're discussing?

    Okay. I guess I'll just go cross out some of the verses in my Bible. Thanks for the tip.
     
  4. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    29,693
    Ratings:
    +5,554
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    What do you mean, try it? I totally believe it.
     
  5. jonny

    jonny Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    6,260
    Ratings:
    +639
    I'm sorry. I don't mean to stick on the black Mormon issue, but I mentioned earlier that if those who had said some of the quotes you mentioned were still alive, that they might apologize for their comments and admit that they were wrong.

    Here is a comment from Elder Bruce R. McConkie (who you quoted earlier):

    He doesn't exactly apologize, but I believe he is admitting that he did not understand what he was talking about at the time.
     
  6. curiouslyminty

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Messages:
    63
    Ratings:
    +3
    How can all the past prophets who believed views like the modern time just have been wrong on such a huge issue though? Don't you find it convienent when the mormon church began turning around their thoughts in the 70's? they HAD to and I think everyone here knows it.

    That sheds much doubt on which other views they hold to now would merely be abandoned in different circumstances. When do you know they are telling the truth.. I don't trust a God follows the social setting.

    I would find it MORE reasonable to have just stuck by their views. As least you dont back down when the pressure gets tough. I would never disavow a SINGLE christian precept no matter the social climate. The bible is infallible, and the prophets who wrote in it were speaking the truth always.
     
  7. jewscout

    jewscout Religious Zionist

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2004
    Messages:
    9,497
    Ratings:
    +927
    i read somewhere that the sages taught that each nation of man has an angelic representative in the court of heaven except for one, the Nation of Israel, who is represented by G-d.
    i also read somewhere, tho i can't remember now where, that who the nations may have thought were "g-ds" were, in fact, their respective angel.

    there are probably a million and one ways of looking at this...
    again i stress the belief that Mormons are no different in my eyes than any other form of christianity and i don't see any reason why your additional text is any less valid w/in the context of Mormonism or christianity. I mean, lets be honest, the Gospels were just tacked on to jewish text and considered the new and improved book:rolleyes:
     
  8. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    29,693
    Ratings:
    +5,554
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    Sorry you feel this way, CM. I don't believe any of the LDS on this forum have condoned any racist comments any of our leaders made in the past. My personal belief is that they were wrong in feeling as they did, but as I said, they were fallible men... no different from you in that regard. Maybe you think it would have been better for them not to change. I disagree. I think that any change that produces good results is for the best, and the 1978 decision was no exception.

    I had planned on trying to give you some more of my thoughts on this subject, but I suspect my time could be put to better use. I always like to give people the benefit of the doubt when they first start presenting their perceptions of my Church, but since we very strongly believe that the spirit of contention is of the devil, it doesn't make a lot of sense to get into arguments over issues when minds are already made up. Maybe we will find something we can agree on down the road somewhere. But I'm just not interested in fighting.
     
  9. jonny

    jonny Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    6,260
    Ratings:
    +639
    Do you believe that the second that Jonah, Noah, and Abraham became prophets that he suddenly had complete knowledge of everything related to God? :sarcastic

    I guess there are some times where you just can't win. If you don't change you're a racist. If you change, you're weak in you're beliefs. If your church's policies change and you admit that you didn't completely understand what you were talking about when you made some statements and encourage members of the church to accept the changes being made, you're unreasonable.
     
  10. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    29,693
    Ratings:
    +5,554
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    That's an interesting perspective. I've never attempted to define the word "god" (with a lower-case 'g'), and I don't know that my Church's leaders have either. Whatever a 'god' might be, I suspect that such a being would have qualities we think of as divine. Anything beyond that is pretty much speculation.

    Well, it's nice to hear something like that coming from a non-Christian. It's always struck me as strange that most non-Christians are more tolerant of the Latter-day Saints than many Christians are. Go figure. :confused:
     
  11. jewscout

    jewscout Religious Zionist

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2004
    Messages:
    9,497
    Ratings:
    +927
    hey to me it's all apples and oranges
    the only time i'll get in a tissy is if you try to tell me that they are the same.
    They are different and as long as we can respect that then we're cool:cool:
     
  12. curiouslyminty

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Messages:
    63
    Ratings:
    +3
    No i believe prophets are the vessels by which the perfect word of God comes through. If they were talking in conversation I would expect nothing. But if he says that this is from the Lord, that then it is later refuted I find it inexcusable.

    And your right Kat...
    Mormonism is the only other religion that really interests me so I become too engaged. :rolleyes: I really do hope that I present myself respectfully, but my opinions have become stronger lately.
     
  13. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    29,693
    Ratings:
    +5,554
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    Well, you did start out on the right foot. If your opinions have become stronger lately, maybe it because they appear to be based on a slightly skewed interpretation of what we actually believe. Case in point: I'm 57 years old and a life-long Mormon. In 57 years, do you know how many times I've gone to church and heard a talk (i.e. sermon) or lesson on God once being a man? Exactly zero. Does that tell you anything at all? If this was a core doctrine -- or even a minor, but official doctrine -- don't you think we would occasionally hear it taught in Church? We're there for three hours every Sunday, for crying out loud!
     
  14. curiouslyminty

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Messages:
    63
    Ratings:
    +3
    Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith- Page 346
    [font=Arial, Helvetica, Verdana][size=-1]
    Same Book One page previous
    [/size][/font]
    edit- If this is unaccepted by the church as Katz was saying then I am just in the wrong here. I apologize, and back down not intending to harm relations here. :shout
     
  15. curiouslyminty

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Messages:
    63
    Ratings:
    +3
    Sorry, I just read your post saying that Joseph Smith's teachings are not all accepted so you dont have to restate it :) I understand.
     
  16. jonny

    jonny Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    6,260
    Ratings:
    +639
    You seem very adamant about this sticking and not changing thing so I hope that what I'm about to reveal to you doesn't shake your faith too bad...

    When Jesus Christ first came to earth, he sent out his Apostles to preach the gospel, but they were not to preach his gospel to everyone. In Matthew 10, Christ sends the apostles out to preach the Gospel, but in verse 5 tells them to "go not into the way of the Gentiles." In Matthew 15:24 Christ says that he is "not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

    But, guess what. Something changed. At first the Apostles were commanded only to preach the Gospel to the house of Israel. Later, after the resurrection of Christ, he commanded them to preach the Gospel to "all nations" (Matt. 28:19). Finally, Paul, in a vision was commanded by the Lord to "bear [his] name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel."

    Do you hold Christ to the same standards that you hold the Mormon church? If so, do you no longer trust Christ because he stated one thing at one time and later stated another. Do you find it convenient that Paul began preaching to the gentiles after he was rejected by the Jews? Perhaps it was because they were just looking for converts to build up the numbers.

    Do you find it discriminatory that Christ wouldn't want his Apostles to share his gospel with those who were not decendants of Israel?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. jiin_caltro

    jiin_caltro Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2006
    Messages:
    28
    Ratings:
    +2
    Hey, all!

    People seem to have this strange idea that everything should be set into place, that everything we need is in the scriptures and that's that. People are actually mortified that the church has actually changed, not to mention that with the aid of revelation, we're being given the building blocks to eternal salvation.

    I find the stoicism of most other religions (Mostly in Christianity) to be a bit funny. As has been pointed out several times throughout this thread, things were constantly changing: who would be taught, how many wives you can have, who you can and can't marry, etc. And then it struck me that we're the ONLY CHURCH THAT STILL WORKS ON REVELATION (To my knowledge). Doesn't that seem odd? That everything set down in scripture was done while having prophets (and apostles in some cases) leading the church? I dunno...It just seems kind of funny to me...

    Anyway! Sorry for not presenting anything horribly objective...but maybe that'll get people posting again ;)
     
  18. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    33,114
    Ratings:
    +4,099
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    Hi. I'm an orthodox (not Orthodox) Christian. I'm not here to "Mormon-bash," but someone had laid down the gauntlet for a non-Mormon to enter the debate, so here I am.

    I think the problem most non-Mormon scholars have with the Book of Mormon, is that it isn't historically or anthropologically defendable. There are no extant ancient texts. Many sites mentioned (including the hill where the plates were found -- there is no hill where Joseph Smith said there was) cannot be geographically placed. Also, a critical reading of the BoM yields no compelling evidence of any literary style corresponding to the time the Book was written.

    On the other hand, the Bible is steeped in history and anthropology. While there are some geographical problems, these can be attributed to the metaphorical nature of many Bible stories. There are several recognizable literary devices used, which fall into line with other writings of the same time periods.

    The problem, as I see it, is that, by the time the Bible was subjected to critical analysis, it had already been long established as revelatory. When the BoM was apparently translated, that work happened in an age where skepticism, analysis and reason had aready overshadowed simple acceptance of a writing as being revelatory.

    Another problem that I, myself, encounter is that the Bible is highly allegorical and metaphorical. The Bible is not to be read literalistically. As I understand Mormonism, the reading of both the Bible and the BoM is more literalistic. That creates a problem at the outset, for me, and for most Biblical scholars.

    Then there's the apostacy issue:
    Reasonable scholarship of the Bible shows that the canonical gospels were not written by people who actually knew or were disciples of Jesus. The earliest gospel was not written until after the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 c.e. The Biblical canon (the Bible as we now have it) was not set until the third century. If, as Joseph Smith maintained, authority was "taken away" from the Church by God following the death of the last original apostle, then the whole of today's Bible was compiled and edited by apostate Christians and, therefore, not authoritative. By definition, that point alone either 1) makes the basis of the Mormon gospel (as presented in the Bible, which Mormons view as authoritative,) as apostate and as unauthoritative as the rest of Christendom, or 2) The "restored" gospel of the Mormon Church must be different from the gospel of the Bible.
     
  19. jonny

    jonny Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    6,260
    Ratings:
    +639
    Read around on here and you'll find that many have the same problem with the Bible. People find plenty to critisize.
     
  20. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    33,114
    Ratings:
    +4,099
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    You wanted to know why Christians feel that the orthodox gospel and the Mormon gospel are different. That's why. It's not meant to put down your holy Book. But, the only way we can arrive at the truth is to subject our writings and our beliefs to the acid test of criticism (in the analytical sense, not the disparaging sense).

    I'm not one to tell you that you're wrong. but I am saying that there is definitely a difference between Mormon belief and doctrine, and orthodox belief and doctrine, especially where the gospel message is concerned. That was the original question, was it not? I'm not attempting to put a value on any one over the other here -- merely to point out that there's a difference.
     
Loading...