Jump to content


Do You Love God?


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#21 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 03 July 2010 - 11:11 AM

This is incorrect, and therefore untrue:

The Mormons use the Bible + the Book of Mormon (which, for the most part is anathema to the Bible). In other words, the Mormons use the Bible, except where they don't like what it says. They will then either twist the scriptures to fit their views, or refer to the book of Mormon to meet their views.

The JW's came up with their own translation (sans scholarship) that out-and-out mistranslates and distorts scripture verses to meet their needs.

You really should do a little more research before you promulgate propaganda here.

View Post


Yes Ron. The Jehovah's Witness translation of the Bible had one translator. No accountability or review criticism. I believe King James appointed 46. The NIV had 110 from all different faiths.

I have heard the JW Bible says for John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the word was with God, and the Word was a god." All other reliable translations say "...the Word was God."

All you have to do is look at the next verse--"All things were created by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made." Was the universe created by "a god," or God?

#22 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 05 July 2010 - 05:28 AM

Hi Geode,

The Mormons read the Book of Mormon in addition to the KJV. On the front cover it says "Another Testament [covenant] of Jesus Christ."  One need go any further--they deny that Christ's blood covenant is sufficient, so we need additional help--"another testament."

In the following passage found in Hebrews chapter 9, the author explains the finality and absolute sufficiency of the blood covenant of Jesus Christ with all who will turn to him by faith. I'm going to make a few comments between the verses.
This is the authority of the New Testament.  Christ paid the penalty required by the first covenant (Old Testament)--the law.  He sets us free from that penalty, which is death.  The wages of sin is death. (Romans 6:23) 

SO you see, the New Testament isn't just the last half of your Bible--it's a living document.  It is the testimony and teaching of what Jesus gave whoever would receive.
Christ died, making his new covenant active.  SO now he has paid the penalty of the first covenant and activated the new covenant by his death on the cross.
SO now Paul gives us the pattern of blood covenant established in the law, and in fact from the beginning.  This is exactly why God did not accept Cain's offering and accepted Abel's (Genesis 3).  Because Cain's was a bloodless sacrifice.
There it is.  Without blood, there is no forgiveness.  Blood must activate a covenant.  Where is the blood that activated the Book of Mormon?
There is alot here, but I have emphasized verse 26.  Basically to show that it is not necessary for Christ to come and suffer again.  His atonement at the cross, through his death burial and resurrection is completely sufficient for salvation.  Anything that detracts or adds to that is counterfeit.

View Post


I made a couple of simple statements that I stand by as being correct. Your points are from a position that you think is contrary to the Mormon beliefs. I no longer hold to Mormon theology as I already posted and I am not trying to argue their point of view. I will post if I think a misunderstanding is present that I can correct.

However, I don't think you represent the Mormon viewpoint accurately. They do not feel that the Book of Mormon takes the place of the New Testament and what it states about the sacrifice of Christ. They hold to the New Testament account as being true. They do not feel that Christ had/has a need to come and suffer again and do not teach this.

#23 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 05 July 2010 - 05:45 AM

This is incorrect, and therefore untrue:

The Mormons use the Bible + the Book of Mormon (which, for the most part is anathema to the Bible). In other words, the Mormons use the Bible, except where they don't like what it says. They will then either twist the scriptures to fit their views, or refer to the book of Mormon to meet their views.

The JW's came up with their own translation (sans scholarship) that out-and-out mistranslates and distorts scripture verses to meet their needs.

You really should do a little more research before you promulgate propaganda here.

View Post


Actually what I said was correct. It is true that the Mormons use both the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Mostly the Book of Mormon gives roughly the same content as the Bible in terms of spiritual matters, at least the King James Bible which it contains as major portions copied verbatim. It does not really deviate in many places from the ideas in the Bible. Some criticize it for that very reason, saying that Joseph Smith just plagiarized it as source material. It is also true that the Mormons use interpretations that take some verses to fit their theology better that some other interpretations, just as I have found that some Protestants disagree with each other or with Orthodox or Catholic interpretations.

Where Mormon theology really deviates from others is in writings other than the Book of Mormon that they claim as additional scripture, such as the "Doctrine and Covenants" and "Pearl of Great Price."

It is from a position of decades of research that I post. I was an active Mormon all my life until reaching my late 30's and have actually read the Book of Mormon. I know its contents. Can you make the same claim? Since leaving them I have been on the other side of the Christian fence or divide. I have a viewpoint coming from knowledge gained through years of actual experience and not just looking at it from one point of view,

I have visited several sites claiming things about Mormons that come from a point of ignorance, picking at a bit of this and a bit of that out of context or arguing against Mormon beliefs that were not officially accepted (often the ramblings of Brigham Young). Some even argue using material proven as forgeries decades ago.

My post was not propaganda, but an educated opinion. I am not trying to sell their point of view and I think the Mormons have quite a few things wrong. That is why I left them. However, some websites seem to cross the line between providing information and actually engaging in what amounts to anti-Mormon propaganda that is often inaccurate. If a group is to be called out at least get the the story correct about what is wrong with their thinking. Some of these sites were developed by disgruntled ex-Mormons with an apparent axe to grind for being thrown out of the Mormon church. They seem to be obsessed with revenge. I believe in religious tolerance. The Mormons have at least come to the point where they rarely strike out at those with different beliefs. For some reason evangelical Christians seem to be the most intent on tearing away at other people's beliefs. Some probably are well-intentioned, but I fear that with some others there is at least a component of more base motivation.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users