Mormon President Dead at 90, Church Goes Older for Replacement

[Fjw]

1) Moses and David were sinners....
Exactly what I meant by seeing the obvious and jumping to the wrong conclusion. Moses received the law from God and somehow it was never mentioned to him by the Lord not to have more than one wife? David was in close contact with the Prophets Samuel and Nathan and yet neither mentioned to him having more than one wife is bad...? You will recall that he had several prior to Bathsheba

2) Joseph Smith required it....
In case you missed it:
Polygamy was done away by the church 130 years ago
Polygamy was done away by the church 130 years ago
Polygamy was done away by the church 130 years ago

3) When Jesus was asked about divorce ....
Again, the topic was polygamy.

4) Joseph Smith was not a prophet....
Again, the topic was polygamy and yet, you seem to think it is relevant and helpful to provide insult to those who might be Mormon. I’m always surprised when people provide insults to Mormons by:
1)insulting their leadership
2) casting disparagement upon their relationship with Christ (this is where you’ll repeat your assertion that Mormons “believe in a different Christ”)
3) not engage in an honest discussion, but instead assume that they need to be lectured to (the discussion was about polygamy - but you couldn’t even stay focused on that).
And then after providing insult (although you were politer than most) you are surprised that LDS members really aren’t interested in anything you have to say after that...

Do me a favor and think about that. Seriously. Because if you truly believe Mormons are lost then you should be trying to communicate with them in a way that leads to a better understanding and actually show you care about them (instead of playing piñata with them). But no, you chose to approach this “discussion” in a way that all but guaranteed it would not continue. Guarantee that any further attempts on your part to open a dialogue would most certainly be ignored.

And with that, we have come to the end of this thread and conversation.

 

[JonShaff]

1) Moses and David were sinners....
Exactly what I meant by seeing the obvious and jumping to the wrong conclusion. Moses received the law from God and somehow it was never mentioned to him by the Lord not to have more than one wife? David was in close contact with the Prophets Samuel and Nathan and yet neither mentioned to him having more than one wife is bad...? You will recall that he had several prior to Bathsheba

2) Joseph Smith required it....
In case you missed it:
Polygamy was done away by the church 130 years ago
Polygamy was done away by the church 130 years ago
Polygamy was done away by the church 130 years ago

3) When Jesus was asked about divorce ....
Again, the topic was polygamy.

4) Joseph Smith was not a prophet....
Again, the topic was polygamy and yet, you seem to think it is relevant and helpful to provide insult to those who might be Mormon. I’m always surprised when people provide insults to Mormons by:
1)insulting their leadership
2) casting disparagement upon their relationship with Christ (this is where you’ll repeat your assertion that Mormons “believe in a different Christ”)
3) not engage in an honest discussion, but instead assume that they need to be lectured to (the discussion was about polygamy - but you couldn’t even stay focused on that).
And then after providing insult (although you were politer than most) you are surprised that LDS members really aren’t interested in anything you have to say after that...

Do me a favor and think about that. Seriously. Because if you truly believe Mormons are lost then you should be trying to communicate with them in a way that leads to a better understanding and actually show you care about them (instead of playing piñata with them). But no, you chose to approach this “discussion” in a way that all but guaranteed it would not continue. Guarantee that any further attempts on your part to open a dialogue would most certainly be ignored.

And with that, we have come to the end of this thread and conversation.

Good afternoon!

It is helpful to "quote" the post you are addressing as to keep better organization of thoughts and what/who is actually being addressed. Thanks!

 

[Fjw]

Good afternoon!

It is helpful to "quote" the post you are addressing as to keep better organization of thoughts and what/who is actually being addressed. Thanks!

Apologies. Baptist believer

 

[Yeshua1]

Which means what?

Mormons hold that Joseph Smith decides who makes heaven, not Jesus Christ!

 

[Baptist Believer]

1) Moses and David were sinners....
Exactly what I meant by seeing the obvious and jumping to the wrong conclusion. Moses received the law from God and somehow it was never mentioned to him by the Lord not to have more than one wife?

It's called progressive revelation.

David was in close contact with the Prophets Samuel and Nathan and yet neither mentioned to him having more than one wife is bad...? You will recall that he had several prior to Bathsheb

There were some things going on regarding the kingly line and wives. David and Solomon needed to take on the wives of their predecessors so that one one else could claim the throne. That's not to say that what they did was right, but it also points out that the situation was quite different than in the 19th-21st centuries.

Regarding the prophets Samuel and Nathan, prophets in the Old Testament and New Testament function quite differently than prophets in Mormonism.

2) Joseph Smith required it....
In case you missed it:
Polygamy was done away by the church 130 years ago
Polygamy was done away by the church 130 years ago
Polygamy was done away by the church 130 years ago

That does not change the fact that Joseph Smith, Jr. required it.

3) When Jesus was asked about divorce ....
Again, the topic was polygamy.

Both divorce and polygamy concern marriage. Therefore what Jesus had to say is relevant.

4) Joseph Smith was not a prophet....
Again, the topic was polygamy and yet, you seem to think it is relevant and helpful to provide insult to those who might be Mormon.

Since Joseph Smith required polygamy for those in his church (Doctrine & Covenants Section 132), it is extremely relevant.

What I wrote was not intended to be an insult, but a statement of fact. I can back that up if you like.

If Joseph Smith, Jr. was a prophet of God, the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" represents God upon this earth, the sacred writings of the Mormon faithful (the King James Bible "as correctly translated", The Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price), and the words of the Mormon President are a faithful and true word of God for today, then all of my disagreements must vanish.

Joseph Smith, Jr. claimed that all religious were corrupted and he was restoring the true gospel and true church upon the earth. If what he said was true, then we should all shut our mouths and listen to him. If what is said was false, then Mormon claims about polygamy (based on Joseph Smith's teaching) are simply another human opinion.

I’m always surprised when people provide insults to Mormons by:
1)insulting their leadershi

I haven't done that, except to point out that Joseph Smith, Jr. was not a prophet of God. He either is or he is not. You can't claim a middle ground.

2) casting disparagement upon their relationship with Christ (this is where you’ll repeat your assertion that Mormons “believe in a different Christ”)

I have not made such a claim. However, it is objective fact that non-Mormon Christians understand Christ differently than Mormons.

3) not engage in an honest discussion, but instead assume that they need to be lectured to (the discussion was about polygamy - but you couldn’t even stay focused on that).

Actually, I am dealing with the polygamy issue head-on, as well as the underlying issue of authority, which is the real issue here. You seek to limit the conversation so you don't have to deal with issues of authority, as well as deny any evidence that does not support your assertion.

And then after providing insult (although you were politer than most) you are surprised that LDS members really aren’t interested in anything you have to say after that...

Actually, I'm not surprised. Also, I didn't realize that you are not interested in anything I have to say. I know from long experience with Mormons (a number of whom I count as friends), that they retreat from any critical thinking about the claims of their faith and the claims of Joseph Smith. So I am not surprised that you are afraid to have that conversation.

Do me a favor and think about that. Seriously. Because if you truly believe Mormons are lost then you should be trying to communicate with them in a way that leads to a better understanding and actually show you care about them (instead of playing piñata with them).

I am trying to do so. I am pointing out relevant Mormon texts from my own study of Mormonism many years ago. I do care about you, but caring about you doesn't mean agreeing with you about important matters when it is clear you don't want to think about them.

But no, you chose to approach this “discussion” in a way that all but guaranteed it would not continue. Guarantee that any further attempts on your part to open a dialogue would most certainly be ignored.

And with that, we have come to the end of this thread and conversation.

And now you run away.

That's too bad. If you want to continue having the conversation, remember that the authority of Joseph Smith, Jr. is the fundamental issue. If he spoke for God, then we should simply accept what he said about everything, including polygamy. If not, then his opinions -- and the opinions of the Mormon church -- are open to scrutiny.

 

[annsni]

Which means what?

That his religious beliefs are false and that Mormonism is a cult and completely unbiblical and against all of what God has taught. The man that died has no seen the truth of who Jesus Christ is - God incarnate - and I'm sure is regretting all he believed.

 

[annsni]

I do believe the thread is polygamy not “what is your denomination?”.

Actually, this thread is not about polygamy either but about the structure of replacing a dead president in a religious organization.

But that was a valid question. Are you a Mormon?

 

[annsni]

Actually, this thread is not about polygamy either but about the structure of replacing a dead president in a religious organization.

But that was a valid question. Are you a Mormon?

@Fjw - Can you answer the above question?

 

[Fjw]

That his religious beliefs are false and that Mormonism is a cult and completely unbiblical and against all of what God has taught. The man that died has no seen the truth of who Jesus Christ is - God incarnate - and I'm sure is regretting all he believed.

I believe the correct word is heretic.
Cults involve secret knowledge. If Mormons are cultist they most certainly wouldn't be coming to your door and telling you what they believe and posting all of it online.

 

[Fjw]

@Fjw - Can you answer the above question?

Why yes I can.

 

[Fjw]

Mormons hold that Joseph Smith decides who makes heaven, not Jesus Christ!

Which goes to show that you are really good at cutting and pasting from anti-Mormon websites, but obviously know very little about Mormonism.
Ephesians 2:8-9

 

[Fjw]

That his religious beliefs are false and that Mormonism is a cult and completely unbiblical and against all of what God has taught. The man that died has no seen the truth of who Jesus Christ is - God incarnate - and I'm sure is regretting all he believed.

Did you realize that Mormons hold the Bible as sacred scripture and prime in our doctrine?
So what part, exactly would you define as false?
Atonement - have it
Salvation - have it
Redemption - have it
Living a Christ like life - have it
The great commission - have it
etc....

 

[annsni]

Did you realize that Mormons hold the Bible as sacred scripture and prime in our doctrine?
So what part, exactly would you define as false?
Atonement - have it
Salvation - have it
Redemption - have it
Living a Christ like life - have it
The great commission - have it
etc....

What would I define as false? Who is Jesus? That is the fundamental difference between true followers of the Biblical Jesus and a false religion. What we believe about Jesus makes all the difference.

So can you answer me this: Is Jesus God?

 

[Fjw]

It's called progressive revelation.

Dear Baptist Beliver,

Q1. There were some things going on regarding the kingly line and wives. David and Solomon needed to take on the wives of their predecessors so that one one else could claim the throne....

A1. Uh.... No. David's first wife was Saul's daughter. His second was the wife of someone who stabbed him in the back. Bathsheba was the wife of one of his men at arms.... When Absalom rebelled against David and slept with his father's wives - those women were put to the side when David regained his throne. Solomon's wives were mostly political.

Q2. Regarding the prophets Samuel and Nathan, prophets in the Old Testament and New Testament function quite differently than prophets in Mormonism.

A2. Which doesn't answer the question of if it was "so bad" why didn't they speak up? Why didn't God tell Moses that having more than one wife was bad?

Correct me if I am wrong, but prophets receive revelation from God and dispense it to His people. Mormons would tell you that our prophets (which include the quorum of the 12 as well as the President) do the same thing.

Q3. That does not change the fact that Joseph Smith, Jr. required it.

A2. Which goes back to what the prophet thing and polygamy. From what I have read from my own study, polygamy was allowed or not allowed depending upon the time, place, and circumstances. And no, polygamy wasn't required. According to one website, hostile to Mormons, it was between 20-30%.

But let's put that into a historical and cultural perspective. Mormons were driven from place to place. NY to PA to OH to MO to IL to UT, because of persecution. Persecution that often involved the murder of men and boys leaving women w/o husbands or the potential to obtain a spouse. Mormons do believe that marriage is very important and to be sealed to your spouse is also very important. Since you can only be sealed to your spouse if they are LDS.... See the problem?

Q4. Both divorce and polygamy concern marriage. Therefore what Jesus had to say is relevant.

A4. And apples and oranges are good for a balanced diet. Doesn't mean that they are relevant to one another. With all due respect, I think we will have to disagree on this point (like the others =-), but I think the point you were trying to make was a bit of a leap.

Q5. Since Joseph Smith required polygamy for those in his church (Doctrine & Covenants Section 132), it is extremely relevant.

A5. Relevant to the discussion if you and I were talking about the LDS church from 1830'ish to 1890'ish. Which again, goes back to that prophet point you made above. Mormons believe that our prophets receive revelation for the church today and the present circumstances. Again, we can politely disagree on whether or not that happens to be the case. Those who engage in plural marriages or perform the ceremony are EXCOMMUNICATED. This was also revealed to the president of the church, who is also considered a prophet.

But I do believe that God still speaks to people and reveals His purpose to us (if you feel led to do something by the spirit, how would you define that?).

Q5. What I wrote was not intended to be an insult, but a statement of fact. I can back that up if you like.

If Joseph Smith, Jr. was a prophet of God, the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" represents God upon this earth, the sacred writings of the Mormon faithful (the King James Bible "as correctly translated"....

A5. My point is this about J. Smith and other individuals who are leaders of the LDS Church. I am surprised that individuals who have never read the Book of Mormon, who have never listened to a single General Conference, who do not see all the outreaches the LDS church is involved with, assume, after reading anti-Mormon propaganda websites want to tell me "what they think I believe". Especially when they make their argument based on scriptures or statements that are taken out of context (like polygamy) either scripturally, culturally, or historically.

Your comment "as correctly translated" is something that most denominations believe, even if they don't say it as such. You would tell me that the doctrine of the Trinity is correct because that is what you and others have come to believe based upon your interpretation of certain scriptures, yes?

Q6. Joseph Smith, Jr. claimed that all religious were corrupted and he was restoring the true gospel and true church upon the earth....

A6. Yes, he did teach that. Given the mess the church was during the middle ages and in his own time when you had churches with wildly varying interpretations of the same scripture would you not say it is reasonable to make that argument. But understand, Mormons do not believe that J. Smith said the church was corrupt, they believe that God said it was.

Q7. I haven't done that, except to point out that Joseph Smith, Jr. was not a prophet of God. He either is or he is not. You can't claim a middle ground.

A7. I didn't claim middle ground and from my point of view, yes you did. But we are having a polite conversation and I will let that go if you do the same. Fair?

Q8. ....However, it is objective fact that non-Mormon Christians understand Christ differently than Mormons.

A8. That is a fair statement on your part. Mormons do believe that the Godhead is made up of three distinct entities while most denominations believe in the Trinity. Personally, I think the question is irrelevant (we can discuss that later if you would like). Also, if you look at the scriptures I think it is also fair to say that there are verses that each of us could point to that would support our claim.

Q9. Actually, I am dealing with the polygamy issue head-on, as well as the underlying issue of authority, which is the real issue here. You seek to limit the conversation so you don't have to deal with issues of authority, as well as deny any evidence that does not support your assertion.

A9. Which authority would that be. Again, Mormons would tell you that polygamy was directed to J. Smith by God and later it was revealed to another prophet to discontinue the practice. I understand that your reject that authority, but that is fine. On the flip side I think it is interesting that you ignore the fact that marriage issues as directed by the Bible is limited to: Jews should not marry gentiles. Leaders in the church should be a husband of one wife. God hates divorce. Believers should not marry non-believers. If you are married to a non-believer you should stay married.... No mention of a polygamy ban. No mention to Moses when he was on Mount Sinai, no rebuke to David by Nathan or Samuel. Nothing from the prophets or Christ....

Q10. Actually, I'm not surprised. Also, I didn't realize that you are not interested in anything I have to say. I know from long experience with Mormons (a number of whom I count as friends), that they retreat from any critical thinking about the claims of their faith and the claims of Joseph Smith. So I am not surprised that you are afraid to have that conversation.

A10. Here I am. Which goes back to you providing insults - "So I am not surprised that you are afraid to have that conversation." Which brings me back to my point, if you want to have a conversation try avoid insulting people.

Q11. I am trying to do so. I am pointing out relevant Mormon texts from my own study of Mormonism many years ago. I do care about you, but caring about you doesn't mean agreeing with you about important matters when it is clear you don't want to think about them.

A11. Not asking you to agree with me. Not looking to convert. I am looking for someone to have polite conversations with. It is possible not to see eye to eye and have a polite discussion. I typically enjoy talking to people from other denominations because many times it will give me a different perspective. You say you studied Mormonism. Okay. Have you actually read the the Book of Mormon and compare it to the Bible? Have you listened to General Conference? Have you been on a service project and worked with Mormons? If not, then I would humbly say you don't know much about Mormonism. When I was younger I did a "lot of study" about the LDS faith. What I later found out was those sources I studied were usually written by people with an ax to grind, who took things out of context, and typically ran with the most absurd conclusions.

And then, people read this nonsense and turn into what I call "cut and paste warriors" by visiting anti-Mormon sites and regurgitating what they read there?

Q12. And now you run away.

A12. And again with the insults.... I do have a job and a family and callings....

Q13. That's too bad. If you want to continue having the conversation, remember that the authority of Joseph Smith, Jr. is the fundamental issue. If he spoke for God, then we should simply accept what he said about everything, including polygamy. If not, then his opinions -- and the opinions of the Mormon church -- are open to scrutiny.

A13. Are you open to being intellectually honest? Are you finally done with inserting insults in every paragraph? If so, then sure. If not, well I think we can both find a more productive way to spend our time.

If you would like to talk more, then I can be reached at warnerfranklin@yahoo.com
And we can talk about other topics that don't involve polygamy or Mormonism. Maybe you could tell me more about the SBC which I know very little about.

 

[Fjw]

What would I define as false? Who is Jesus? That is the fundamental difference between true followers of the Biblical Jesus and a false religion. What we believe about Jesus makes all the difference.

So can you answer me this: Is Jesus God?

Yes, He is.

 

[Fjw]

What would I define as false? Who is Jesus? That is the fundamental difference between true followers of the Biblical Jesus and a false religion. What we believe about Jesus makes all the difference.

So can you answer me this: Is Jesus God?

As stated above, yes He is. Which makes me wonder, have you read that Mormons deny the divinity of Christ? If so, that’s a new one to me.

Mormons also believe in the following:
Grace
Atonement
Salvation
Baptism by immersion
The Great Commission
Living a Christ-like life
Service to others
Etc....

Sometimes I find the things that are written about Mormons to be amusing. Sometimes those things are common misunderstandings, and many times those things are lies - either made up, coming to the wrong conclusions, or deliberately taking things out of context.

But, to be fair, I know some Mormons have misunderstandings about what other churches believe so it’s not like any of us have a monopoly on that sort of thing.

 

[annsni]

As stated above, yes He is. Which makes me wonder, have you read that Mormons deny the divinity of Christ? If so, that’s a new one to me.

From Mormon.org:

We believe in God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. We believe that They are separate beings but share the same purpose. We believe that we are all God’s spirit children. The purpose and desire of each member of the Godhead is to follow the Father’s plan in helping us all become like Them and enjoy eternal life. We worship Jesus Christ as our Savior and Redeemer. Like us, Jesus was created in the image of God, the Father, and They both have perfected bodies of flesh and bone. We believe that the Holy Ghost is sent to witness of the Father and the Son, comforts and teaches us in times of need, and helps us distinguish between right and wrong.

In this, Jesus is not God. He is different from God. God is not created but here it says that Jesus was created. The Bible tells us clearly that Jesus was not created in John 1. So your belief that Jesus is God and the Mormon belief about Jesus is different.

 

[Fjw]

From Mormon.org:



In this, Jesus is not God. He is different from God. God is not created but here it says that Jesus was created. The Bible tells us clearly that Jesus was not created in John 1. So your belief that Jesus is God and the Mormon belief about Jesus is different.

Mormons see the Godhead differently, yes. As to whether they are "different" Jesus' we will have to agree to disagree. I tell you, twice, that he is God and you choose not to accept my word.... Okay.... Whatever....

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.... Gen 1
In the beginning was the word and the word was with God.... John 1
And yet, you want to get hung up on the trinity....
Okay.... If the father, son and the holy spirit are one and the same explain:
How is it that the Father can be pleased as He was with Christ at son's Baptism?
How does Christ submit to the Father's authority as he did in the garden? (Can one actually place one's self under one's own authority?)
How does Christ go away so He can send the Holy Spirit (it is good that I go away so the comforter may come and teach you in all things)?
How can Christ only do what He sees the father do?
How can Christ say, "why do you call me good teacher? Only the father is good?"
How is it that Stephen, at his martyrdom, saw Christ seated at the right hand of the father?

etc, etc, etc, ad nasium....

The Christ we believe in died on the cross
The Christ we believed in saved us from our sins by becoming an atonement
The Christ we believe in offers us the free gift of salvation and wants us to accept it.
We believe that Christ came to bring us life and that more abundantly.
The Christ we believe in shall return again one day
A Mormon would argue that we see the Godhead as it is actually described in the Bible. The doctrine of the Trinity was actually decreed at the Council of Nicaea THREE CENTURIES after the New Testament was written (but please, do tell me how Mormons make things up).

You would quote to me the scripture, "the father and I are one." I would submit that they are one in purpose. That you disagree with me on that is not important.

But from my point of view, the whole matter of what the actual make up of the Godhead is not particularly important.
Neither is the nature of heaven.
Or when he will come back.
Or what the actual pre-mortal existence was about.
Neither the future or the past, for me, really have any bearing upon where my attention is suppose to be, and that, according to Christ, is here in the present.
It is whether or not I am drawing closer to him.
It is whether or not that I am helping others do the same.
And while doctrine is important so we can answer the honest questions of others when they arise, it is not something I am going to use a brick stick on someone.
I am old enough to understand, whilst not always agreeing, how a reasonable person can have an interpretation different from my own. Nor does that different interpretation that someone might have, disqualifies them from Christendom (or as others have told me, from heaven).

I am fully aware of the fact that you discount my relationship with Christ. I am okay with that, (you aren't the first and won't be the last - heck people told me that back when I was an evangelical) because I am aware of my own relationship with Him and while it has it's ups and downs (I imagine like your own) it does progress.
I know that He saved me.
I know that I am a better person because of it.
I am not overly interested in what church one belongs to so long as I can point to Gal 5:22-23 and see the fruit of the spirit working in someone's life and that they are a little better today than they were yesterday. If I can be part of helping them grow closer to our Father then I am okay with that. If they can help me as well, then so much the better.

If not, well, then I am happy with the blessed phrase of I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Benjamin]

Mormons see the Godhead differently, yes. As to whether they are "different" Jesus' we will have to agree to disagree. I tell you, twice, that he is God and you choose not to accept my word.... Okay.... Whatever....

On the contrary, it appears she (Annsni) chooses not to “accept” your definitions. There is good reason for that. Although you might want to quickly agree to disagree to avoid being confronted with the vitally important truth of the nature of the Godhead – you seem to be missing that this is a Christian debate board and when you come on proselytizing whatever it is you’re trying to teach you are likely to be challenged.

To set such premises, that would attempt to avoid difficulties in maintaining One God in 3 distinctions involving the Homeostatic Union and traditional Nicaea council elements, and to preach your arguments which seem to wrapped up in Universalism thought to their conclusions will not go unchallenged here.

The Nicaea council, whose guidance and teachings you seem to have a problem with, did not sit down to invent the Doctrine of Trinity but rather these men of God Biblically defined One God in 3 distinctions involving the Homeostatic Union to deter Gnostic beliefs and heresies in the Church which carry through to today.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.... Gen 1
In the beginning was the word and the word was with God.... John 1
And yet, you want to get hung up on the trinity....

To begin with, you seem to want to brush off the importance of maintaining that Jesus was not created. So how was the Word with God in the beginning? God (the Word) spoke the heavens and earth into existence. Here we see all creation began with God/Jesus, the Word, not created but there, as God, in the beginning.

Okay.... If the father, son and the holy spirit are one and the same explain:
How is it that the Father can be pleased as He was with Christ at son's Baptism?
How does Christ submit to the Father's authority as he did in the garden? (Can one actually place one's self under one's own authority?)
How does Christ go away so He can send the Holy Spirit (it is good that I go away so the comforter may come and teach you in all things)?
How can Christ only do what He sees the father do?
How can Christ say, "why do you call me good teacher? Only the father is good?"
How is it that Stephen, at his martyrdom, saw Christ seated at the right hand of the father?

etc, etc, etc, ad nasium....

Jesus is the Mediator while yet One with God who is Spirit, “mediating” between God and human creatures. Jesus being the “right hand” should be thought of as the One Person of the Godhead who is doing ”the work” as a Mediator, still in one homeostasis union, nothing less, nothing unequal.

The Christ we believe in died on the cross
The Christ we believed in saved us from our sins by becoming an atonement
The Christ we believe in offers us the free gift of salvation and wants us to accept it.
We believe that Christ came to bring us life and that more abundantly.
The Christ we believe in shall return again one day

I’m not sure who this “we” is but being you are out to defend Mormon doctrine as equal to Christian doctrine these “differences”, which you seem to become quite annoyed with, need be brought to light.

A Mormon would argue that we see the Godhead as it is actually described in the Bible. The doctrine of the Trinity was actually decreed at the Council of Nicaea THREE CENTURIES after the New Testament was written (but please, do tell me how Mormons make things up).

On one hand you rant about being shown Mormon doctrine, even straight from the source, and on the other hand you appear to want to make a comparison of the Nicaea Council and Mormonism to be equally made up? While you continue on your own path that doesn’t seem to take into account the very important purpose for the “Council of Nicaea THREE CENTURIES after the New Testament was written”. You seem to have your own private interpretations which should be a red flag for any sincere Bible student.

You would quote to me the scripture, "the father and I are one." I would submit that they are one in purpose. That you disagree with me on that is not important.

The definition you submit of “one in purpose” falls way short of who Jesus actually is. This can understandably be a very difficult journey but is a very important understanding to have! Who Jesus is revealed throughout the Bible and that knowledge is summed up pretty well for those who see this true relationship and how to know those who don’t see “it” (this relationship revelation), in 1Cor 2.

But from my point of view, the whole matter of what the actual make up of the Godhead is not particularly important.

Have you ever humbly considered that this point of view of yours comes from ignorance? Although, I might agree with that heart knowledge is more important than head knowledge we shouldn’t forget that we are instructed to get to know Him. If one knows Him as anything less than God Himself, well…

Joh 14:6-7
(6) Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
(7) If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

...revelation...

Neither is the nature of heaven.
Or when he will come back.
Or what the actual pre-mortal existence was about.

Neither the future or the past, for me, really have any bearing upon where my attention is suppose to be, and that, according to Christ, is here in the present.
It is whether or not I am drawing closer to him.
It is whether or not that I am helping others do the same.
And while doctrine is important so we can answer the honest questions of others when they arise, it is not something I am going to use a brick stick on someone.

I hope you understand that as much I would like you to reconsider a few things it is up to you whether it feels like a stick or a tap on the shoulder.

I am old enough to understand, whilst not always agreeing, how a reasonable person can have an interpretation different from my own. Nor does that different interpretation that someone might have, disqualifies them from Christendom (or as others have told me, from heaven).

First, the ability to recognize and consider someone else’s view that is different from your own is a good thing. But, perhaps you should consider that certain views, such as Universalism (everything goes), can be very problematic toward your conclusion that these views you have might not have some disqualifying factors toward you claiming to be a teacher of “Christian doctrine” that departs from orthodoxy.

I am fully aware of the fact that you discount my relationship with Christ. I am okay with that, (you aren't the first and won't be the last - heck people told me that back when I was an evangelical) because I am aware of my own relationship with Him and while it has it's ups and downs (I imagine like your own) it does progress.
I know that He saved me.
I know that I am a better person because of it.
I am not overly interested in what church one belongs to so long as I can point to Gal 5:22-23 and see the fruit of the spirit working in someone's life and that they are a little better today than they were yesterday. If I can be part of helping them grow closer to our Father then I am okay with that. If they can help me as well, then so much the better.

I can tell you that if you are under the belief that bearing these fruits can save anyone, is evidence of salvation, that it seems at best you are stuck on the milk and probably shouldn’t be trying to feed the meat to others.

If not, well, then I am happy with the blessed phrase of I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

You might want to consider that perhaps that this phrase is not always a blessing to be happy and satisfied with, especially if you have to use it often when discussing doctrine with Christians.


And with that, my hour is up.

Peace

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Please note: Fjw was banned this morning for denial of the Trinity.