New Name Noah's Brother

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Markk
_Emeritus
Posts: 4745
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 4:04 am

Re: New Name Noah's Brother

Post by _Markk »

Lemmie wrote:That would be an interesting read. Re LDS 'talking points,' it wasn't until I left the LDS church that I realized just how conditioned the typical LDS really is, and how little religion is actually known and understood by the average LDS. That conditioning is pretty simplistic as far as theology goes, but LDS tend to be so isolated that I don't think it is even realized by most.


It really is..."just the way it is"....I will start my thread off touching on this.
Don't take life so seriously in that " sooner or later we are just old men in funny clothes" "Tom 'T-Bone' Wolk"
_Markk
_Emeritus
Posts: 4745
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 4:04 am

Re: New Name Noah's Brother

Post by _Markk »

mentalgymnast wrote:
Markk wrote:I know my heart, and I know what I and others are capable of. Look at our world. I know I could never be what the church said I had to be in order to be truly saved. No matter how hard I tried.

I honestly believe, right or wrong, sensible or far reaching, that there is absolutely nothing I can do to earn, merit, or purchase, in regards to my salvation, that Jesus did not do on the cross.


OK. Thanks for that. We would have a basic philosophical disconnect at the outset. My natural instinct is to think that human beings are capable of awesome things. God wants us to achieve beyond what we might think is our potential. Working and struggling to work towards a more perfect state...following the Master...helps us in moving towards a state of happinesss knowing that we are reaching or moving towards our goal. That is, to become more like God and His Son.

Markk wrote:Does that relieve me from following His commandments and ways? No...not at all, but again, I also don't have to struggle and pretend to be something else on Sundays, and yet be like everyone else Monday through Saturday.


I hear what you're saying, but I think that approaching it from this perspective is limiting. God wants...and encourages us...to be more than we naturally can be on our own. He will judge us on our own merits (the parable of the talents) as we follow in the footsteps of the Savior.

Markk wrote:I believe God looks at us like we look at our children. He knows our hearts and who we are just like a parent watching us growing up...our children can't fake us out on who they are, and like wise, I don't think we can fool God on who we are.


I totally agree. But I think that God also knows what we CAN be. To put it ALL on Jesus Christ is unreasonable in my opinion. I think that we, in order to progress, need to act and not just be acted upon by external factors (i.e. Jesus has done it all and we don't merit anything on our own).

Markk wrote:I can go on and on...but I hope you chose to engage with me on this subject. let me know, either way I will start a thread soon.


I am familiar with evangelical teachings in regards to grace and views on Christ's atonement. At least to the extent that I know, for me, that it doesn't seem to dovetail with my instinctive understanding that I'm here on earth to be pushed and prodded (sometimes) towards perfection even when I feel and believe that I'm not worthy or able.

Markk wrote:Remember I am not trying to convert you, I know I can't, but I would like to let you know what Christians actually believe, beyond the conditioned talking points that we were/are taught in the church.


You're most welcome to share your understanding of Christ's mission and atonement for mankind, but honestly, I believe that the LDS church's teachings in regards to eternal progression and Christ's teachings in regards to salvation fit the bill insofar as dovetailing Biblical teachings with those in the Book of Mormon and D&C.

But I wish you well, brother, as you strive to live according to the gospel of Jesus Christ and the understanding you have of what that entails.

Regards,
MG



I will start a thread and we can explore all these topics...I take this as you will accept an invitation to join in.
Don't take life so seriously in that " sooner or later we are just old men in funny clothes" "Tom 'T-Bone' Wolk"
_honorentheos
_Emeritus
Posts: 11104
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:17 am

Re: New Name Noah's Brother

Post by _honorentheos »

mentalgymnast wrote:
honorentheos wrote:I'm not sure I picked up on how this explains the relationship of the atonement to the LDS idea of exaltation.


Many mansions infers that there may be a house for you and a house for me. A house for everyone. Whether or not all of those houses are identical clones of each other is debatable. But the door is open at that point to discuss salvation based on faith and works and that there will be a judgement. Many Christians are on board with that. Christ's atonement is that which makes possible being saved in any condition.

It's not rocket science, honor.

As you'll recall, this originated out of a claim -

Lemmie wrote:...it wasn't until I left the LDS church that I realized just how conditioned the typical LDS really is, and how little religion is actually known and understood by the average LDS. That conditioning is pretty simplistic as far as theology goes, but LDS tend to be so isolated that I don't think it is even realized by most.


mentalgymnast wrote:Gospel training as a child. Seminary as a youth. Institute in young adulthood. Granted, not all people go through all three stages of church/gospel education, but those that do understand the rudiments of their religion. Deeper doctrines and past policies and all the 'juicy' stuff? Maybe not. But being conditioned/educated/encouraged to live the gospel, gain a testimony of Christ and His atonement, and develop a desire to obey God's commandments isn't such a bad thing.


You didn't really respond to Lemmie's comment in a way that suggested you realized what she was actually saying - which I agree with, by the way - but instead outlined what "theology" seems to consist of in LDS circles: follow a set of rules, understand the rules, learn to want to follow the rules, recognize who makes the rules, and if you advance in the church you'll get even more, special rules. Then, you'll get rewarded for following the rules. Even your own version of Pascal's wager for assuming God exists and that Mormonism is a godly path basically comes down to God's plan being a form of Pavlovian conditioning. And before you jump on that, read what you wrote above. You used "conditioned" in your own description rather than attempt to clarify why Lemmie's use of the term would be incorrect.

That's not gaining an understanding or forming a rich "study of things divine" as some have described what theology is about. Neal A. Maxwell was probably the most theologically oriented apostle of my lifetime, meaning someone concerned with the nature of God, the relationship of humankind to God, and the whys and aesthetics behind humankinds attempts to approach the divine while recognizing its unapproachability as a condition of mortality...or whatever. But it always seemed to just be on the verge of going somewhere rather than arriving. It formed a pleasant, poetic journey in thought and possibilities that earned praise among the faithful but never permanence.

The point of this was to see how you engage with one of the more unique aspects of Mormonism - exaltation - and how it related to something someone with knowledge of the Christian Bible would recognize. in my opinion, you probably don't know yourself and what you shared is the extent of it. In the end, exaltation to you is just Mormon heaven and it only differs from Christian heaven because in your view Christians all believe everyone ends up in one of two places - heaven or hell. So the idea there is more than a binary "in" or "out" of heaven seems all the explanation necessary. It isn't accurate in assumption nor in perspective but it does confirm the broader point. So, thanks.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
_Servant
_Emeritus
Posts: 819
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:48 am

Re: New Name Noah's Brother

Post by _Servant »

Shulem wrote:
Servant wrote:I guess you don't believe the Lord, right? If I was you, I'd read a few books on the proof of the Resurrection of Christ. If Christ did overcome death, "baby," then you might also believe he's coming back. I'm an Anglican, and we don't talk about "rapture," and that sort of thing, other than reciting that Christ will come again in the Apostles' and Nicene creeds. He will come again for you, either when you die, or when he physically returns. There's a DVD on Amazon about Jesus' resurrection - go ahead and order it, and start to weigh the evidence for it. As for me, I believe in Him, and know He will wind up earthly affairs one day. But I have no idea of when He will, or exactly how. Try to use your brain and not your emotions. It really helps to have critical thinking skills, something I know Mormons or former Mormons have real trouble with.


I don't need or want Jesus in my life. I don't like the Bible. I don't like the Bible god.

No thank you.


One day you will regret saying that. And it will be too late.
_Servant
_Emeritus
Posts: 819
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:48 am

Re: New Name Noah's Brother

Post by _Servant »

Craig Paxton wrote:
Servant wrote:This is a copy of a post I posted on a Mormon site:

I have no interest in this forum per se, however I'd like to share with Mormons some of the things that have been done by Mormons to those who oppose them (and I'm not talking about Mountain Meadows Massacre). Mormons are always screaming about persecution, blah, blah, blah. However, what about the things Mormons do on the internet. I posted on CARM for many years, addressing a number of cults, and also Anglicanism (I'm an Anglican). As an Anglican, I'm used to dealing intellectually with issues, and when it comes to Mormonism, my opinion has always been cut off the snake's head and the body will die. Joseph Smith is the allegorical "head" of the cult, and I have always strived to present Smith as he really was: a peodphile,


Sorry you lost me when you called Smith a peodiphile


https://cesletter.org/pedophilia/ Joseph Smith was a sexual predator!
_Servant
_Emeritus
Posts: 819
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:48 am

Re: New Name Noah's Brother

Post by _Servant »

Gadianton wrote:The Christians that I've known have their thing, whatever that is, and they believe every word of the Bible, but what every word of the Bible amounts to broadly supports whatever their thing is. It's an amazing coincidence.The Bible, essentially, is there to back up the myriad of loud and obnoxious opinions the person may have.

I wonder if Christian folks consider the possibility that Joseph Smith may have gotten saved? We know that Joseph Smith basically did all of his crazy things for his own libido and money and power, right? We also know that Joseph Smith had been witnessed to by Christians and so he knew the truth, he was just evil and selfish. If there was one thing he was good at, was coming up with whatever he needed to right on the spot to get out of a tight squeeze and save himself. And so what happens when he went to jail, knew he was at the end, and knew there was going to be no getting out of this one, and knew he was going down with a gun in his hand? His actual fate would have weighed heavy on his mind. And Joe Smith, like another Holy Joe in those last seconds may have been like the dirt back Sergent in this story, and quickly called upon the real Jesus for salvation.

As the story shows, salvation has nothing to do with being good or bad (and so it's odd Servant would go on and on about how Christians have better morals than Mormons -- it's utterly immaterial if people are good or not). And we would think a dirt bag like Joseph Smith always looking for a quick fix for himself, would be more open -- like the dirt back Sergent in the story -- than the good friend in the story who was a nice guy but just not interested in his comrade's religion, once his means of satisfying himself through other means had reached a dead end.

I'd say there at least a 50% chance, that if Joseph was a LIAR and didn't believe he was really a prophet, that he called on the Lord for salvation right at the end, and will be in heaven with Servant, Ed Decker, and all of those who despise him the most.


I'd say there is no chance that Smith was ever a Christian or ever wanted to be. He was a witch, an occultist who never believed in the Christian God, called the Trinity a Monster, preached sexual free for alls as doctrine, and shortly before he died said he had done a greater job than Jesus. He also preached a sermon on the "plurality of gods" right before he made his flying leap from the Carthage jail (actually flying over his enemies as he had predicted - but not in the way he intended!) "My enemies are no philosophers: they think that when they have my spoke under, they will keep me down; but for the fools, I will hold on and fly over them." Joseph Smith. But God will judge his salvation, I and all Christians called to do so, will judge his doctrine as we are commanded to do.
_Servant
_Emeritus
Posts: 819
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:48 am

Re: New Name Noah's Brother

Post by _Servant »

honorentheos wrote:- Cont -

Now, the second link shares arguments FOR the resurrection. Primarily, it begins with the argument, "If we begin with the evidence available to us and then infer what would, if true, provide the best explanation for the evidence." Let's run with that rather than debate it's accuracy for the sake of discussion.

The argument includes three facts that it places central to the apologetic:

1 - The tomb was discovered empty by some of Jesus' followers.
2 - History proves that a group of people sincerely believed they interacted with a resurrected Jesus.
3 - As a result of the teaching of these people, eventually a world-wide church or churches arose to share this story with the world.

Now, according to our methodology we've accepted, we should begin with the evidence available to us. I agree, but would add we ought to put ALL the evidence on the table and not just what appeals to us. And, without leaving the New Testament, I think the evidence available to us calls 1 and 2 into question as to it being an actual fact or just a story. And 3 is not evidence for the resurrection but rather evidence for the appeal of the romanticized Jesus-myth as created and spread by Paul.

To start with, here is an argument I've made on the board before that shows the Gospels shouldn't be taken as historically accurate documents. Rather they appear to be records of varied, and contradictory, tellings around Jesus. So here's evidence that is available that needs to be taken into account before we can infer what actually happened:

Many modern scholars agree those who built a church up around Jesus after his death believed he was the Jewish Messiah. This would mean they believed Jesus fulfilled the prophecies concerning the Messiah which were popular in Roman Palestine at the time. Examples included being a descendant of King David, being born in Bethlehem, and that he would come to the people riding a donkey or ass. And, he'll be raised from the dead.

To make a case for why the New Testament is a poor witness for Jesus' resurrection, let's first look at how the New Testament describes another event in Jesus' life that would require fulfilling Messianic prophecy - his birth.

Mark, the earliest and probably closest Gospel is silent. Why? We don't know. Some scholars have suggested that Mark does not describe a Jesus who sees himself as the Messiah, but rather one who is declaring the coming of the Son of Man in Daniel who would bring a literal Kingdom of God to the earth. Maybe that's true, maybe not. Either way, Mark does not try to show us parallels between Messianic prophecy and the life of Jesus.

John, the last of the gospels to be composed, is also silent on the physical birth of Jesus. Instead, we are given the poetic description of the Logos. I think it's likely that the author of John was not concerned with proving Jesus was the Jewish messiah (as the Gospel of John is also anti-Semitic in general), but instead focuses on showing the reader that Jesus is much more than that - Jesus is the Word of God and with God from the beginning. The John birth narrative isn't missing, in my opinion as is often stated. Instead, it tells the reader the question of what happened at Jesus' birth is the wrong question.

We are left with the two other synoptic gospels to find out about the birth story of Jesus. And they don't match up on almost every point. Why is that? Since they both used Mark and at least one other common source, this also suggests the earliest sources about Christ's life in circulation did not include a birth narrative. The scholarly suggestion is that there wasn't a codified version of the Nativity at the time of their writing. But the Messiah has to fulfill certain prophecies at his birth. What to do? Most likely, both authors took from legends being shared and fit them together as best they could. They may also have invented pieces of the story from whole cloth.

In Matthew, we see constant reference to prophecy being fulfilled. Jesus is born in Bethlehem. Matthew or his sources (from now on I'll just reference Matthew and Luke as short hand for the potential other source) tell a story about Herod killing all of the male children in Bethlehem age 2 or younger, has wise men from the east visit the infant, sends Jesus to Egypt to escape Herod's men, and of course tells us Mary was a virgin. And there is the genealogy that shows Jesus was a descendant of King David. All of the above are specifically included because there is a scripture somewhere that needed to be addressed associated with beliefs about the Messiah.

Yet none of this matches Luke’s telling other than the general idea that Mary was a virgin.

Luke invents the story of a census to get Jesus to Bethlehem, has shepherds visit Jesus, and tells us Jesus and John the Baptist are related. And there is a virgin birth narrative and a genealogy.

The core stories don't match where there is no original source material to provide background consistency.

The parsimonious answer for why, rather than the apologetic one, is simply that the authors invented a backstory for Jesus that met the requirements that showed Jesus was the Messiah. Because they did not/could not collaborate and there wasn't a common source available at the time, the stories differ.

This gives us a couple of general rules of thumb when examining the gospel authors and the Resurrection account.

First, it gives us a hint that if there is a commonly understood event in Jesus’ life and it has been recorded in one of the source gospels, it is likely to show up as common to Matthew and Luke. But absent such an account, they will fill in the gaps with an eye to ensuring the narrative fulfills Messianic prophecy.

Since the Messiah has to be raised from the dead, and Jesus was the Messiah, it is only natural that both accounts tell us this is so. Both Matthew and Luke had Mark as a source, so we should expect to see Mark’s narrative in the account of the passion leading to the resurrection.

We have Mark’s account in chapters 14-16. They tell us that the priests schemed to have Jesus arrested in Jerusalem but feared a riot by the people, there was a last supper of sorts, Jesus took his disciples and prayed before being betrayed by Judas, that before the Priests they ultimately convict him based on His claiming to be the Messiah, take him to Pilate and claim he called himself the King of the Jews which he does not deny. Pilate releases Barnabas when the Jews cry for Jesus to be crucified, and he is handed over to the Roman soldiers for execution. He is mocked as a would-be king, beaten, crucified, and dies at noon on the day before the Sabbath. His body is given to Joseph of Arimathia who places him in his tomb and has a stone rolled in front of it. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joseph see where he is buried. They wait until after the Sabbath (a night, a day, and a night) and go that next morning described as the first day of the week to wash the body. They wonder who will roll the stone away but find it is already moved. Instead they find a young man in a white robe who tells them that Jesus is not there but has risen. He charges them to go tell Peter and the disciples that Jesus has gone ahead to Galilee and will meet them there. But they don’t go to Peter and tell him as charged. Instead, they are afraid and run away. And Mark ends his story here as evidenced by early manuscript copies and the later inclusion of what is known as the Marcan Appendix. The last verse of Mark before the Marcan Appendix, 16:8, ends with the women who are told of Christ's resurrection leaving and not telling anyone. Why? I don't think anyone can say with certainty. What we do know is that the v. 8 ending is the oldest existent forms of Mark that we have. Not that there was variety in these oldest texts but that they end at v. 8 and others speaking of the Gospel affirm this was the case in the manuscript copies available. Early variants that then follow v. 8 seem to lack cohesive language to suggest the replacement of lost language. Rather, they seem to be there to fill in a gap based on various author's understanding of what followed. It could be that there were oral traditions being passed around and the written variants reflect this. But we don't know.

How the authors of Matthew and Luke deal with this further supports that the text they had ended at what we know as v. 8. So what do Matthew and Luke do with this story when they again lack guiding information in their sources?

Luke, at the end of chapter 23, tells us about the women seeing the body laid to rest and going on the day after the Sabbath to find the stone rolled away. But instead of a young man in a white robe, they are met by two men in heavenly glowing robes who tell them Christ is risen and to go to the apostles. They remember that Jesus said he would rise and do as they were told. Luke tells us of Peter visiting the tomb and wondering. He tells us of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. He tells us of a direct appearance to the 11 who were still in Jerusalem. He tells them all this was in the fulfillment of scripture and Christ ascends into heaven. The 11 rejoice and remain in Jerusalem going often to the temple until Acts tells us about the Day of Pentecost.

Matthew inserts a little piece between the women seeing the stone placed before the tomb and finding it moved away the day after the Sabbath. He has the priest going to Pilate on the Sabbath (but saying the day after preparation day instead of the Sabbath. Kind of like saying the day after Christmas Eve) and claiming that they heard that Jesus proclaim he would rise on the third day after his death. Matthew tells us they feared a deception and ask for a guard and for the tomb to be sealed. Pilate grants this. So when the women go and find the tomb open Matthew has a little story about an earthquake and angels that scare the guards so they leave and we learn they are paid off to tell no one what they saw. Instead, they are to tell everyone they found the small plates of Nephi because God knew the 116 would be stolen…wait, wrong story. They seem similar to me so I mix those up sometimes… ;) Anyway, they are told to tell everyone that Jesus’ disciples stole the body and spread the lie about being resurrected on the 3rd day. Matthew tells us this lie is prevalent among the Jews even in his day. Matthew tells us the women go to the disciples being afraid (as Mark told us) BUT ALSO FULL OF JOY so they are doing as told. Then Jesus appears to them on the way to the disciples and tells them to have the disciples meet him in Galilee. They do so, and the 11 go to Galilee to meet Jesus who tells them they are to be filled with power and go to all nations. The end.

John has his own version of events and, as we’ve noticed with the birth narrative, he isn’t too concerned with what Mark or anyone else that we know of had to say. John includes many different stories of what happened during the passion, has Jesus executed on a different day to make sure it is clear he is the Lamb of God being sacrificed as the other lambs on the day before Passover. We have an entirely different account of who came to the tomb, who saw what, what was said, who saw Jesus where and when, and ultimately an extra chapter that the original author may not have written as the final word.

Like with the birth narrative, when Matthew and Luke are without a common source, their stories diverge wildly. One has the disciples remaining in Jerusalem, while the other has them go to Galilee. One has Jesus appear to many people, the other has Jesus appear to a few. Neither account matches up once we lose Mark as the common touchstone.

What we know: Mark was the first of the Gospels to be written and the other Gospel writers used Mark while not being eyewitnesses to any of the events described. This includes the resurrection of Christ. The closest we come, as modern readers, to the resurrection is in the word of Paul in 1 Cor. 15 who shares what he was taught from James and Peter. It's here he tells the reader that to have hope in Christ in this life only would be miserable. Thus, Christ had to have been raised from the dead.

And, in the 2nd chapter of Acts, Peter is reported to share this with the people in the temple as evidence that Jesus was the Messiah, placing emphasis on the fact he was raised from the dead to make this case:

14 Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: “Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say.
...

22 “Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.
23 This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men,[d] put him to death by nailing him to the cross.
24 But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.
25 David said about him:

“‘I saw the Lord always before me.
Because he is at my right hand,
I will not be shaken.

26 Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices;
my body also will rest in hope,

27 because you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead,
you will not let your holy one see decay.

28 You have made known to me the paths of life;
you will fill me with joy in your presence.’[e]

29 “Fellow Israelites, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day.
30 But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne.
31 Seeing what was to come, he spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, that he was not abandoned to the realm of the dead, nor did his body see decay.
32 God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it.
33 Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear.
34 For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said,

“‘The Lord said to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand
35 until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet.”’[f]
36 “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.”


Servant, the point here is that the evidence ought to be considered in full rather than just that which supports your view. If the scriptures call into question their own reliability for telling us what actually happened when it came to the claims Jesus was resurrected, are we then left with more to be skeptical of than sure of in that regard? It seems that way to me.


Mormons always badmouth the Bible - that's the only way they can get by after all. How about proving that Joseph Smith's "translation" is supported by manuscript evidence? How about telling us where all the Nephites went, and why today's lamanites have lost all Hebrew DNA? I won't be lectured, thank you very much, by Mormons regarding the Word of God, for they deny it outright.https://www.josh.org/can-really-know-bi ... JMQAvD_BwE
Last edited by Guest on Sat Jun 29, 2019 4:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_Servant
_Emeritus
Posts: 819
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:48 am

Re: New Name Noah's Brother

Post by _Servant »

:wink:[/quote]
Perhaps. But if Servant is interested in sharing, I'd be interested in that thread happening.[/quote]

What has always puzzled me about this particular forum is the fact that most of the posters are Mormons or were Mormons, and now seem to hate Mormonism, although some embrace the culture, afraid to leave because of family concerns. For instance, would anything change if I proved to you that Christ was raised from the dead in a physical body. No, Mormons would say, "oh, we believe that too." Moreover, it is the INCARNATION THAT Mormons DENY, AND THAT IS WHAT SEPARATES THEM FROM CHRISTIANS. I recently purchased a LDS KJV Bible with a topical guide. There is nothing listed for Incarnation, although this is the central theme of Christianity. I had one really slow Mormon post on another site that Christians believe in REINCARNATION AND NOT INCARNATION. No matter how I tried to explain to him the difference, this guy just couldn't get it. So the issue is not whether you or I believe that Jesus was resurrected (and of course I do), but Who you and I believe Him to be. Is he just a first born spirit son of polygamous gods as Joe Smith taught = or is He really The Word of God, God Himself, the One True God, made Flesh? If He is, then one has no problem believing in the Resurrection. See: https://theconversation.com/the-case-fo ... tion-75530
_Servant
_Emeritus
Posts: 819
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:48 am

Re: New Name Noah's Brother

Post by _Servant »

Man, if members of the CofJCofLDS are anything like what Servant is describing I'm super embarrassed. I guess I've been in Utah too long. We're actually a pretty nice bunch here. Not perfect. But trying to be good Christians.

When I travel outside of Utah members seem to be nice too. Yes, they do missionary work but I really don't think I can get on board with the accusation that they are being idiots about it. That's not the way to bring people to Christ...and members aren't so dumb that they don't realize that.

I do believe that we ought not to fight against our Christian brothers and sisters. If that has been your experience with members of the church, Servant, I feel bad that this is so. Folks like us who consider Joseph Smith to be a prophet also worship Jesus as Lord and Savior...just like you do. We ought to be friends, not enemies.

Regards,
MG[/quote]

It is not how Mormons act (although some on this forum are especially rude and mean), but what they believe. I have no problem with them believing whatever they want. If they want to believe in a polygamous god who impregnates a bunch of exalted women to produce spirit babies, that's their right as incredibly dumb as that might be. If they want to honor someone like Joseph Smith who said he did a greater work than Christ, go right ahead. I have no problem if Mormons want to worship trees and sacrifice all they have or will have for the Mormon kingdom. Stupidity is something one cannot really conquer unless a person wants to become informed. My main problem is this; Mormonism IS NOT CHRISTIAN AND Mormons ARE PARASITES ON CHRISTIANITY, DRAWING THEIR MEMBERS FROM CHRISTIAN CHURCHES WITH LIES AND FALSE TEACHINGS. Mormons DON'T TELL THEIR TARGETED VICTIMS THE TRUTH ABOUT THEIR DOCTRINES OR SMITH'S SORDID LIFESTYLE UNTIL AFTER THEY'VE DUNKED THEM IN THE NAME OF THEIR FALSE GODS. IN OTHER WORDS, WHEN Mormonism ADMITS IT'S NOT CHRISTIAN I WILL NEVER BOTHER WITH THEM AGAIN.
_Servant
_Emeritus
Posts: 819
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:48 am

Re: New Name Noah's Brother

Post by _Servant »

cwald wrote:Wait? There is evidence of Christ's resurrection? I've heard people claim there is evidence that proves a historical Jesus, but now we have "evidence" of not only that, but of his resurrection as well? Wow. That is awesome.


So, do you get off trampling pearls?
Post Reply