130 replies to this topic

[AFJ]

Revelation 19:21 shows the execution of the very same people that are earlier said to be tormented day and night forever. These very same people are left unburied and consumed by the birds. The same comparison can be made of Sodom and Gomorrah, they are said to burn forever in one scripture and they are said to be destroyed in another (both in the NT). 

I don't want to ad nauseum you. So this is all I say. The "execution" you spoke of has nothing to do with hell--it takes place on Earth, when Christ returns. The beast and the false prohet are thrown into the lake of fire at that time, and the rest are killed, and will be judged at the final judgement of Christ on his throne.

Here is the passage we are discussing.

Revelation 19:17
And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;

18That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.

19And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.

20And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

21And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

We know by other scriptures, both OT and NT that the last war will be at the valley of Megiddo in Israel, when God gaters all nations against Israel.

The Time is the Day of the Lord.

Joel 3:13-14 Put ye in the sickle, for the harvest is ripe: come, get you down; for the press is full, the fats overflow; for their wickedness is great. Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision: for the Day of the Lord is near in the valley of decision.

The Place is HAR-MIGEDDO (Armageddon)

Revelation 16:16 And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.

Corresponding names: Valley of Jehoshaphat (heb. "Jehovah judges")

Joel 3:1-2
For, behold, in those days, and in that time, when I shall bring again the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem, I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land.

Again

Joel 3:9-12
Proclaim ye this among the Gentiles; Prepare war, wake up the mighty men, let all the men of war draw near; let them come up: Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruninghooks into spears: let the weak say, I am strong. Assemble yourselves, and come, all ye heathen, and gather yourselves together round about: thither cause thy mighty ones to come down, O LORD. Let the heathen be wakened, and come up to the valley of Jehoshaphat: for there will I sit to judge all the heathen round about.

We know that Jesus will return to Israel, where he left from the Mount of Olives.

Zechariah 14:2-8
For I (Jehovah God) will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city. Then shall The Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when He fought in the Day of Battle. And His feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south. And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and The Lord my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.

It all corresponds. You can see it speaks of God himself fighting against many nations gathered against Israel, and he will destroy them. They will be flesh and blood, not spirits, and yes, they will be killed. But that has nothing to say of hell, nor is any point about hell to be made from it, except that the beast and the false prophet will be cast "alive" into the lake of fire during that battle.

[AFJ]

Anyway, I realize mama and I got off the subject of Mormons. To get back to it, I do not feel that Mormons are on target in the least. I will not judge individual Mormons, but I will judge their doctrine.

It is my conviction that there are many doctrines that Christians may not see eye to eye on, but anything that transgresses on the Person or work of Christ is serious heresy, and it endangers the souls of those who recieve the error.

The first thing I noticed when given a book of Mormon was that it said "Another Testament of Jesus Christ." Therefore it shows the absolute ignorance of the New Testament in Christ's blood. Christ shed his blood, and died on a cruel cross to pay for the demands of the first covenant of Moses--the law. There is no third testament. The first testament was instituted by Moses, the reading of the law, and the blood of lambs and heifers. Christ instituted the New Covenant by His own blood--forever! He cried on the cross "It is finished! Jesus paid it all.

The mormon teaching not only attempts to add another false testament without any shedding of blood, but in doing so insults the blood that Christ shed, and the New Testament He eternally instuted by that blood.

Read Hebrews if you don't agree. Therefore the mormons preach another Jesus and have received another spirit. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth--he only testifies of Christ, and only works through and testifies of the covenant Christ eternally instituted. Therefore the mormons are operating by another spirit.

[Geode]

Anyway, I realize mama and I got off the subject of Mormons.  To get back to it, I do not feel that Mormons are on target in the least.  I will not judge individual Mormons, but I will judge their doctrine.

It is my conviction that there are many doctrines that Christians may not see eye to eye on, but anything that transgresses on the Person or work of Christ is serious heresy, and it endangers the souls of those who recieve the error. 

The first thing I noticed when given a book of Mormon was that it said "Another Testament of Jesus Christ."  Therefore it shows the absolute ignorance of the New Testament in Christ's blood.  Christ shed his blood, and died on a cruel cross to pay for the demands of the first covenant of Moses--the law.  There is no third testament.  The first testament was instituted by Moses, the reading of the law, and the blood of lambs and heifers.  Christ instituted the New Covenant by His own blood--forever!  He cried on the cross "It is finished!  Jesus paid it all.

The mormon teaching not only attempts to add another false testament without any shedding of blood, but in doing so insults the blood that Christ shed, and the New Testament He eternally instuted by that blood. 

Read Hebrews if you don't agree.  Therefore the mormons preach another Jesus and have received another spirit.  The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth--he only testifies of Christ, and only works through and testifies of  the covenant Christ eternally instituted.  Therefore the mormons are operating by another spirit.

In my opinion you are imposing a definition on "testament" that is not what is intended by the subtitle to the published volume. I think it is meant that the contents testify to Jesus as the Christ, and that is what Mormons teach and what is taught within the Book of Mormon. My copy of the Book of Mormon does not even carry that phrase. It was published in 1981 and I think this wording was only added to published copies of the Book of Mormon since 1982. It is very similar to the Bible in what it teaches of Christ even if it is fiction. Mormons say that it compliments what is written in the Bible in attesting to Jesus as our Savior. I don't think "testament" was meant to be taken as you define the word here. You have placed the word "new" in front making the term more what I am accustomed to seeing as "new covenant"... I do not think that the Mormons show an absolute ignorance of this concept, for they teach it as well. I think you have gotten off on a false tangent here with shadings of semantics being at the root. I think you are interchanging "testament" and "covenant" in true fee a manner.

From what you have posted it would appear that you have not read the Book of Mormon and are largely unaware of its contents. You say that the Mormons teach a "false testament without any shedding of blood" but this is untrue in my opinion (and theirs) for the crucifixion of Christ in the Holy Land is noted and discussed within. The same shedding of blood and sacrifice written about in teh Bible is what is noted.

The Mormons do have theological ideas that are different, some of which I no longer accepted and so departed from them. However, I think it is best to find disagreement with them about concepts where they actually are holding to something different. I do not think this is the case here, and they basically accept what you describe about Christ accomplishing by the spilling of his blood. But I already posted this days ago, and also that they also agree that Christ died for all sins.

It is true that I heard Mormons speculate a few times in Sunday School class venue and the like whether there might be other worlds that could have people on them, and if so would they have their own "Christ".... but the consensus usually went dead center that even if there were other peoples, there is only one Christ, and that was Jesus. That he died for anybody who could have sinned wherever they lived. It is also true that I heard some individual Mormons speculate that Jesus had been married, perhaps even to multiple wives. This I found insulting. Perhaps I was an atypical Mormon and that is why I ultimatel parted with them? I guess thsi is possible.

Personally I think Mormons worship the same Jesus as you and I. I came to accept Jesus as my savior when still a Mormon and feel that this was confirmed in a spiritual witness I received. I do not think this was a different spirit, by the same Holy Spirit that testifies to truth. My belief in Christ is one thing that did not change when I left the Mormons. I remained a Christian that had accepted Him before and afterward. Accepting the Book of Mormon as scripture is a different issue. It has been critcized as plagiarizing the Bible, and parts of it seem to have straight out of the King James version. What is taught of Christ, or taught by Him is so similar to the Bible that I find it had to see this in terms of an "insult"....

[Geode]

There is a maliciously inaccurate film that was made about the Mormons many years ago that makes many of the same assertions you have set down here. Some years ago a group at my church (The Evangelical Church of Bangkok) decided to show it, and then have me give comments at the end from the vantage point of an ex-Mormon. I had never seen the film before, and my comments were not what they were expecting. I told the group that there were significant differences in theology between more mainstream Christianity and Mormonism, but it is best to start from a point of what the Mormons actually believe and not the distortions that had been presented in the film. I then outlined some of the untrue portions, a few that you have given here, and volunteered to entertain any question and give as accurate an answer as I could offer. I was disappointed that they lost interest in what I had to say when I didn't just collaborate what had been shown.

The same argument that can be used to falsify atheism can also be used to show that Mormonism can't be true. I've presented this to many Mormons, and I've yet to get one to even reply to it.

I am replying as an ex-Mormon but I think in some ways my point of view might be taken to be more objective than that of a Mormon, for although I spent my life up to the my late 30's following that faith and know it from an insider's point of view I ultimately parted with them. I do not feel the need to defend portions of Mormon theology that I do not find to be correct in my opinion, but on the other hand will defend them when I feel a criticism made towards them is not valid.

When witnessing to a Mormon, a Christian has one arm tied behind his back. The Mormon is taught that the Bible has been corrupted. So you can't use God's word. If you show that the Book of Mormon is false, they say it's true because they believe it. What's a good Christian to do? C.S. Lewis came to the Lord by examining evidence for the existence of God--evidence which showed that there is no existence without God. Below is an argument I presented to a Mormon.

This is not really correct. Mormons believe that the Bible is correct "as far as it is translated correctly." In practice they accept every verse within it, and have not made the case that what is currently present is corrupted as you are arguing. You can quote any verse to a Mormon and they should respond with acceptance that it is scripture, at least to the extent that it is accepted by Christian in general. What the Mormons actually think about the Bible is that parts are missing that included “plain and precious truths” not that what is left is corrupted. Mormons are taught that they should seek their own answer as to the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, and that they will receive an answer by spiritual witness.

But now to the argument you used with a Mormon:

Our God (Christian Jesus) became a man and died to save us. Let’s examine Mormonism: Rather than God becoming man, Mormon men become gods. The Mormon father god of this earth came from a Planet Kolob. This father god was birthed into the spirit world by a S@xual union of a mother goddess and a father god (who came from gods on another planet, who came from gods on another planet, and so on). The first spiritual children of this Mormon father god (who is flesh and bone) and mother goddess (who both lived on Planet Kolob) were Jesus Christ (first son) and Satan (second son). Satan and Jesus are spirit brothers. These spirit children are then injected into earth when humans have S@xual intercourse. There is no difference between any human and Jesus Christ, except one. Jesus Christ was birthed into the physical world by a literal physical S@xual union between this father god (who is flesh and bone) and his daughter Mary. But then the Mormons are confronted with a god who is married in heaven, but who commits adultery on his goddess wife and incest with his daughter Mary who is engaged to his son Joseph. The Mormons don't like to be confronted with this. They try to hide it and deny that it's doctrine. But a Google search will render about thirty pages of quotes from Mormon founders, leaders, apostles, teachers, presidents, theologians et.al. When asked if God can sin and remain sinless, they have a huge problem. When the Mormon Church teaches that Jesus is "the only begotten of the father," this is a phrase they mean quite literally.

This sounds like it is straight out of the “God Makers” (the book and video that I talked about at the start of my post) and has many things in it that are not Mormon theology and not taught by the LDS church.

The part about the birth of Christ comes from the thoughts of Brigham Young and yes, I have met an occasional Mormon in the past that thought this was correct. However, in decades of Mormon classes I was always taught the biblical account of Christ's birth involving the Holy Spirit. The Mormon church teaches a virgin birth. When the Mormon church teaches about Jesus being the only begotten most of them do not hold this to be literal in the sense Brigham Young taught,

The part about God the Father having parents is not taught by the current Mormon church and was speculation by some Mormons in the 19th Century. Again, this seems to come straight out of “The God Makers” which is a very poor source in terms of what Mormons really believe.

Mormons teach that matter is eternal. The reason for this is that their gods are not eternal. Each god comes from within (not outside) the creation. Whereas the real Christian God lowered Himself, became a man, and entered His own creation to save us, a good Mormon attains godhood "as all other gods before him." So, their definition of eternal has to be eternity future, or from the moment they become gods! (Notice that the Mormon Jesus Christ bypassed the normal struggle that all Mormons endure to become gods. Mormons do not have an explanation for this.)

Mormons do have an explanation for how Christ came to be deity. They believe that Christ was unique in the same way other Christians do, to bring salvation to mankind. Yes, Mormons think matter is eternal and do not hold to the concept of ex nihilo but they teach about The Father as if He always existed.

But I argue that the Mormon god could not even guarantee our existence let alone salvation. The argument below can be used to disarm an atheist as well. But while we can convince an atheist or a Mormon mentally with Reason and Logic, his heart can still remain hard. Pharaoh in Egypt knew in his mind that Moses' God was the true God, but the Pharaoh refused to humble himself and repent. If he had, God would have blessed Egypt instead of destroying it.

First of all you must present something that seems more logical to a Mormon than his or her existing beliefs.

Now the argument I present to Mormons:

"I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, NOR JESUS ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of JESUS ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet." Joseph Smith

"Has any [heathen] nation changed its gods, WHICH ARE NO GODS? But my people have changed their Glory [the real God] for what does not profit" (Jer. 2:11). What God is saying here is that the heathens are more loyal to nonexistent gods than Jews (and Christians) are to the true God of Israel. The Mormons are more loyal to Smith than they are to God. Does Smith sound like a man who worshipped and loved the Lord? I think not. I attached this quote to show the true character of the man to whom Mormons are entrusting their eternal souls and the souls of their families.

The Mormons are not more loyal to Smith than to God and were not even as such during Smith's lifetime. Many took exception with some of his teachings, in that they did not seem biblical. The quote from Smith is authentic and seems prideful. But in some ways his statement was correct in terms of numbers of members of a church. Smith was clearly a man with weaknesses, as is shown in this statement. However, on balance I think he did worship The Lord. He certainly gave a good impression of it the vast majority of the time, staying in character to his death.

A Mormon to whom I witnessed wrote: "If we use your definition of eternal [past and future], then God cannot offer eternal life and God would then be in violation of a promise that He Himself made." I answered: “Yes, if he's a Mormon god.” But it gets worse! If we use the Mormon definition of "eternal” (future only), you, I, and the universe could not even exist. The universe could not have created itself from nothing. For if it did not exist, then there was nothing. Nothing can’t create something, nor can something come from nothing. The universe could not have always been here, because the Law of Entropy (Second Law of Thermodynamics) shows that the useable amount of energy in the universe is decreasing and the universe is going from order to disorder. This means that at one time, there was more energy and more order. Therefore it had a beginning. The logic argument would be:

a. Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
b. The universe had a beginning.
c. Therefore the universe had a Cause.

I find this argument in the realm of philosophy and not science. That is a creationist reading of thermodynamics and not my understanding of the way it is held and applied by mainstream physics. The Mormon viewpoint is actually closer to the scientific concepts as held by those who are purely secular in my opinion.

Now if it could not have created itself from nothing, and it could not have always been here, it had to have had a beginning. And if it had a beginning, then it had to have a Beginner. Some Power outside the material universe had to have created it from nothing because at one time, it did not exist. This Power had to have always existed, for this Power could not have created itself from nothing if it did not always exist.

This is a creationist argument not held by many Christians who are not Mormons.

Dare we call this Supernatural Power God? Perhaps the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? If we look at His creation--matter, animals, and humans, we can determine His attributes. For example, He is living, and He has to have always lived. He could not have come to be if He did not always exist. He is personal because we are persons and we are created in His image. He is relational--within the Godhead and with us. He is good, in that He has never been unjust or hurtful to us or within the Godhead. He is loving, for He sent His only begotten Son to die for us. This Son (Jesus Christ) did not ever cease to exist, for Scripture shows that He is the Creator God. He is not after creation; He is before creation. Remember: All Mormon gods attained godhood “as all other gods before us.” So, for the Mormon, finding the first man who became the first god, and then explaining how everything came to be is a conundrum of the first order.

Until the last sentence this sounds similar to what Mormons teach. On the other hand they do not teach this last sentence. They now teach as if The Father existed before pre-existent matter was organized by Him. They do not teach that he was the product of a god and his wife as you have stated. This is drawn from speculation from some of the more imaginative Mormon leaders in the 19th Century. But many sources critical of Mormonism basically create a patchwork from the uttering of any Mormon and give them full weight as Mormon Doctrine when this is not the case.

The Mormon god can't guarantee existence let alone salvation. No Mormon god could have been before creation, for they all were born inside creation or this side of creation. This is why Mormons have to believe (against all well established science) that matter is eternal. Their gods are not eternal! And this may come as a shock to Mormons, but all humans and angels will exist eternally future. None will ever cease to exist. "Some will be raised to eternal glory and some to eternal damnation." God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit have no beginning or end. And unless They existed eternity past, nothing could have existed, could now exist, or will exist in the future.

Any Mormon reading this knows that this is true. Now they must humble yourselves and accept the true Jesus into your hearts. The Mormon Jesus came to Be (in Smith’s imagination). The Mormon Jesus did not exist in the past, does not exist in the present, and will not exist in the future. Therefore, he is not God and can’t be the Savior

The Mormons believe God existed before “creation” as they hold the concept. He organized matter into worlds. Science as I understand current thinking is closer to Mormon concepts than evangelical Christian creationism. They believe in an Eternal Father. They believe Christ came to be as the firstborn of the spirit children of The Father. Mormons believe that all of these existed as “intelligences” before their creation as spirits. This is a different belief that they do in fact hold.

Much of what you have written is not true or correct as viewed by this ex-Mormon and I am sure most Mormons would find fallacies here as well. If you wish to successfully witness to Mormons, I would take a more humble and factual approach to their beliefs or they will most likely just reject your thoughts from the onset. They feel they follow the biblical Christ and such approaches seem arrogant to them. They think they have the form of church that was instituted by Christ and the Apostles that was later modified in the 2nd century and beyond.

[AFJ]

In my opinion you are imposing a definition on "testament" that is not what is intended by the subtitle to the published volume. I think it is meant that the contents testify to Jesus as the Christ, and that is what Mormons teach and what is taught within the Book of Mormon. My copy of the Book of  Mormon does not even carry that phrase. It was published in 1981 and I think this wording was only added to published copies of the Book of Mormon since 1982. It  is very similar to the Bible in what it teaches of Christ even if it is fiction. Mormons say that it compliments what is written in the Bible in attesting to Jesus as our Savior. I don't think "testament" was meant to be taken as you define the word here. You have placed the word "new" in front making the term more what I am accustomed to seeing as "new covenant"... I do not think that the Mormons show an absolute ignorance of this concept, for they teach it as well. I think you have gotten off on a false tangent here with shadings of semantics being at the root. I think you are interchanging "testament" and "covenant" in true fee a manner.

From what you have posted it would appear that you have not read the Book of Mormon and are largely unaware of its contents. You say that the Mormons teach a "false testament without any shedding of blood" but this is untrue in my opinion (and theirs) for the crucifixion of Christ in the Holy Land is noted and discussed within. The same shedding of blood and sacrifice written about in teh Bible is what is noted.

The Mormons do have theological ideas that are different, some of which I no longer accepted and so departed from them. However, I think it is best to find disagreement with them about concepts where they actually are holding to something different. I do not think this is the case here, and they basically accept what you describe about Christ accomplishing by the spilling of his blood. But I already posted this days ago, and also that they also agree that Christ died for all sins.

It is true that I heard Mormons speculate a few times in Sunday School class venue and the like whether there might be other worlds that could have people on them, and if so would they have their own "Christ".... but the consensus usually went dead center that even if there were other peoples, there is only one Christ, and that was Jesus. That he died for anybody who could have sinned wherever they lived. It is also true that I heard some individual Mormons speculate that Jesus had been married, perhaps even to multiple wives. This I found insulting. Perhaps I was an atypical Mormon and that is why I ultimatel parted with them? I guess thsi is possible.

Personally I think Mormons worship the same Jesus as you and I. I came to accept Jesus as my savior when still a Mormon and feel that this was confirmed in a spiritual witness I received. I do not think this was a different spirit, by the same Holy Spirit that testifies to truth. My belief in Christ is one thing that did not change when I left the Mormons. I remained a Christian that had accepted Him before and afterward. Accepting the Book of Mormon as scripture is a different issue. It has been critcized as plagiarizing the Bible, and parts of it seem to have straight out of the King James version. What is taught of Christ, or taught by Him is so similar to the Bible that I find it had to see this in terms of an "insult"....

You can go to this, the book of Mormon online and see the phrase I spoke of. http://lds.org/scrip...s/bofm?lang=eng

As I said Geode, there are many doctrines that Christians may see a little differently, and I though there is difference, it is not going to affect one's salvation, nor veer from the gospel. The book of Hebrews specifically speaks on the word "testament." It is clear the death of the testator is necessary, or a will is not in force. Jesus Christ died that we might inherit His life and and righteousness.

Why would I want to read a book (and I have perused it) that makes this error on the cover. If it is truly just an "aid" to the Bible, or it is prophecies made in line with the words of Jesus Christ, and the other prophets, I would have no problem. But in testing the first phrase--it truly does not pass the test. It vaunts itself as "another testament of Jesus Christ." There is only one testament of Jesus Christ, so I say Joseph Smith is a false teacher, and a false prophet.

I understand that Mormons "on the ground" may be very sincere and devout people--family oriented. I also beleive the gospel is the gospel whether it is preached in a Mormon church, or a Catolic church. But we are to grow in the knowledge of our Lord. Satan came in AFTER the gospel in church history with all sorts of false doctrines and teachers, and we are commanded to WATCH. Joseph Smith is a false teacher.

[Geode]

You can go to this, the book of Mormon online and see the phrase I spoke of. http://lds.org/scrip...s/bofm?lang=eng

As I said in my last post, I am quite aware of that phrase being included with the title of the Book of Mormon. Why are you adding this link? Are you attempting to imply that I was wrong about this only being in place since 1982?

As I said Geode, there are many doctrines that Christians may see a little differently, and I though there is difference, it is not going to affect one's salvation, nor veer from the gospel.  The book of Hebrews specifically speaks on the word "testament."  It is clear the death of the testator is necessary, or a will is not in force.  Jesus Christ died that we might inherit His life and and righteousness.

Sorry, I still do not agree with your definitions of some words in terms of the context in which you attempt to place them. Now you have added a new one and given a legal definition that I do not think is relevant to the previous word as used by the Mormons and often by others in terms of religion. From the Merriam Webster dictionary:

tes·ta·ment
noun \ˈtes-tə-mənt\
Definition of TESTAMENT

1a archaic : a covenant between God and the human race
b capitalized : either of two main divisions of the Bible

2a : a tangible proof or tribute
b : an expression of conviction : creed

3a : an act by which a person determines the disposition of his or her property after death
b : will
— tes·ta·men·ta·ry \ˌtes-tə-ˈmen-tə-rē, -ˈmen-trē\ adjective

See testament defined for English-language learners »
Examples of TESTAMENT

1. The success of the album, which is only available online, is a testament to the power of the Internet.
2. a person's last will and testament

It appears to me that you are imposing the archaic definition given as 1a and now definition 3 when it is rather clear and obvious that the Mormon church was using 2a. But thanks for posting this idea. I thought I had seen just about every criticism ever leveled at the Mormons, but this was a new one for me.

Why would I want to read a book (and I have perused it) that makes this error on the cover.  If it is truly just an "aid" to the Bible, or it is prophecies made in line with the words of Jesus Christ, and the other prophets, I would have no problem.  But in testing the first phrase--it truly does not pass the test.  It vaunts itself as "another testament of Jesus Christ."  There is only one testament of Jesus Christ, so I say Joseph Smith is a false teacher, and a false prophet. 

Personally I wouldn't read it now either if I had not already done so. But in having done so I am in a better position to comment upon its contents. But I was not the one who started a discussion of what it contains or why it is wrong. Your last sentence here is flawed because Joseph Smith did not add that phrase to the Book of Mormon.

I understand that Mormons "on the ground" may be very sincere and devout people--family oriented.  I also beleive the gospel is the gospel whether it is preached in a Mormon church, or a Catolic church.  But we are to grow in the knowledge of our Lord.  Satan came in AFTER the gospel in church history with all sorts of false doctrines and teachers, and we are commanded to WATCH.  Joseph Smith is a false teacher.

I agree with what you say here with one possible exception. Smith taught some false principles, but not all that he taught was false. In part he taught Christian principles that you would likely agree with completely.

[Geode]

The cover story for TIME magazine dated April 25th is:

"What If There's No Hell?"

It is about evangelical pastor Rob Bell and the buzz he has created in his book "Love Wins:A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Eve Lived" where he speculates about Christ's sacrifice as applying in a universalist manner and that nobody is destined for a literal hell.

Bell, a tall, 40-year-old son of a Michigan federal judge, begs to differ. He suggests that the redemptive work of Jesus may be universal — meaning that, as his book's subtitle puts it, "every person who ever lived" could have a place in heaven, whatever that turns out to be. Such a simple premise, but with Easter at hand, this slim, lively book has ignited a new holy war in Christian circles and beyond. When word of Love Wins reached the Internet, one conservative Evangelical pastor, John Piper, tweeted, "Farewell Rob Bell," unilaterally attempting to evict Bell from the Evangelical community. R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, says Bell's book is "theologically disastrous. Any of us should be concerned when a matter of theological importance is played with in a subversive way." In North Carolina, a young pastor was fired by his church for endorsing the book.

The traditionalist reaction is understandable, for Bell's arguments about heaven and hell raise doubts about the core of the Evangelical worldview, changing the common understanding of salvation so much that Christianity becomes more of an ethical habit of mind than a faith based on divine revelation. "When you adopt universalism and erase the distinction between the church and the world," says Mohler, "then you don't need the church, and you don't need Christ, and you don't need the cross. This is the tragedy of nonjudgmental mainline liberalism, and it's Rob Bell's tragedy in this book too."

Particularly galling to conservative Christian critics is that Love Wins is not an attack from outside the walls of the Evangelical city but a mutiny from within — a rebellion led by a charismatic, popular and savvy pastor with a following. Is Bell's Christianity — less judgmental, more fluid, open to questioning the most ancient of assumptions — on an inexorable rise? "I have long wondered if there is a massive shift coming in what it means to be a Christian," Bell says. "Something new is in the air."

And yet there is a contrary scriptural trend that suggests, as Jesus puts it, that the gates of hell shall not finally prevail, that God will wipe away every tear — not just the tears of Evangelical Christians but the tears of all. Bell puts much stock in references to the universal redemption of creation: in Matthew, Jesus speaks of the "renewal of all things"; in Acts, Peter says Jesus will "restore everything"; in Colossians, Paul writes that "God was pleased to ... reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven."

So is it heaven for Christians who say they are Christians and hell for everybody else? What about babies, or people who die without ever hearing the Gospel through no fault of their own? (As Bell puts it, "What if the missionary got a flat tire?") Who knows? Such tangles have consumed Christianity for millennia and likely will for millennia to come.

TIME

[AFJ]

Geode,

I think you'll see the context of the teaching on "Testament" in Hebrews is a will. As far as me trying to "impose" anything, I am not trying to do anything. I am reading the Bible.

Hebrews 9
11When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here,b he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. 12He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. 13The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death,c so that we may serve the living God!

15For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

16In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, 17because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. 18This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. 19When Moses had proclaimed every commandment of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. 20He said, “This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep.”e 21In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. 22In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

I don't think it is wise for one to split hairs on the definition of testament, the context is clear in verses 16 and 17. I personally have a "last will and testament."
Furthermore, when Joseph Smith was alive, the most published version of the Bible would have been the King James, which uses the word "testament" in verse 16. The words are interchangable in the context the apostle writes.

Smith, nor the church of Mormon obviously do not understand the gravity of vaunting the writings as a testament. In my opinion it oversteps it's bounds, infringes on the blood of of our Savior. It is a false doctrine.

That is all I have to say. You are free to believe what you want. Many Christian preachers have written books, some of them have even written of dreams and visions, but few have put and advertised their writings to be "another testament of Jesus Christ." Such is arrogant disregard for the Doctrine of Christ.

[Geode]

Geode,

I think you'll see the context of the teaching on "Testament" in Hebrews is a will.  As far as me trying to "impose" anything, I am not trying to do anything.  I am reading the Bible. 

[color=blue]

I don't think it is wise for one to split hairs on the definition of testament, the context is clear in verses 16 and 17.  I personally have a "last will and testament."
Furthermore, when Joseph Smith was alive, the most published version of the Bible would have been the King James, which uses the word "testament" in verse 16.  The words are interchangable in the context the apostle writes.

Smith, nor the church of Mormon obviously do not understand the gravity of  vaunting the writings as a testament.  In my opinion it oversteps it's bounds,  infringes on the blood of of our Savior.  It is a false doctrine. 

That is all I have to say.  You are free to believe what you want.  Many Christian preachers have written books, some of them have even written of dreams and visions, but few have put and advertised their writings to be "another testament of Jesus Christ."  Such is arrogant disregard for the Doctrine of Christ.

I don't think we know what Joseph Smith's opinion would be about the change in the title of the Book of Mormon. he might be mad that somebody altered what he had written. I agree that "testament" and "covenant" can be used in context in a similar way and the Mormons do this as well. They may even have thought of this as well when making the "name change."

However, as I posted days before, the Mormons believe that the Book of Mormon goes hand in hand with the Bible in describing the the covenant sealed with Christ's blood. It does not set fort ha different one. It is the same covenant made in the same time and place and simply written about in a volume other than the Bible, and does not invalidate or mock the events in my opinion. If it does, then those other works by Christian preachers should cause you the same concern as well.

Even if the Book of Mormon is to be taken as a "testament" using the definition you have used, I do not see how this infringes upon the "blood of our Savior" or sets forth false doctrine about this since it basically sets forth the same events that are chronicled in the Bible with the exception of Christ appearing to people in the New World. Adding a fictional appearance does necessarily make what is written false doctrine. You can consider this arrogant, but since it sets forth the same doctrine I do not see how this shows a lack of respect or disregard.

[AFJ]

Even if the Book of Mormon is to be taken as a "testament" using the definition you have used, I do not see how this infringes upon the "blood of our Savior" or sets forth false doctrine about this since it basically sets forth the same events that are chronicled in the Bible with the exception of Christ appearing to people in the New World. Adding a fictional appearance does necessarily make what is written false doctrine. You can consider this arrogant, but since it sets forth the same doctrine I do not see how this shows a lack of respect or disregard.

Geode,
I am glad you see my concern over the subtitle. The subtitle causes a red flag with me, and causes me not to trust the words in the pages of the Book of Mormon. Error is many times subtle, but as the scripture teaches, is leaven. (Galatians 5:9; I Corinthians 5:6) Remember, Jesus died on the passover, and the passover was celebrated by eating a slain lamb with unleavened bread. It was a shadow of what was to come in Christ.

Now, for the word "testament," and the blood of our Savior. Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread and the fruit of the vine, and said, "This is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for many." The old testament under the law was being fulfilled through Jesus blood, which was a payment for the sin of mankind. Therefore, the new "testament" is established by divine blood. To haphazardly, or intentionally state a book to be "another testament" is to claim another covenant--it is not a peripherial error, but rather central.

This why most Christian denominations consider the Mormons a cult. Because they want to "add" to the word of God. There are curses pronounced by the law, Paul the apostle, and the book of Revelation for those who have done this. A true prophet, or group of people who claim revelation from God should not contradict, or haphazardly use such a central doctrine concerning the covenant of Jesus Christ. In misusing this foundational word, they have committed serious heresy.

[AFJ]

I wanted to give a hard comparison between the prophetic books of the Old Testament and the Book of Nephi, the first book of the Book of Mormon. The reason being is that authorship was directly correlated to authenticity in the cannon of scripture.

Here is Nephi, which has only claimed authenticity since 1820 (?) by Joseph Smith. And was wirtten AFTER the events had happened.

1I, Nephi, having been aborn of bgoodly cparents, therefore I was dtaught somewhat in all the learning of my father; and having seen many eafflictions in the course of my days, nevertheless, having been highly favored of the Lord in all my days; yea, having had a great knowledge of the goodness and the mysteries of God, therefore I make a frecord of my proceedings in my days.

2Yea, I make a record in the a language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians.

Just some questions.

1. Where are the manuscripts, or plates written in the "language of the Egyptians?"

2. Did Joseph Smith know ancient Egyptian? Or did the angel translate them into English for Smith?

3. Why would Nephi the "prophet" write to the Hebrews in Egyptian? The Jewish scriptures are written in Aramaic and Hebrew.

4. Smith writes that Nephi's father prophesied during the reign of Zedekiah, who was king in Jerusalem, when Nebuchadnezzar came and seiged the city. Why is there no record of him prophesying the destruction of Jerusalem in Jewish history or cannon?

By comparison, here is Isaiah, which was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in the cave 1 of Qumran. http://en.wikipedia....ead_Sea_Scrolls. It begins with a historical setting. It is claimed to be authentic first in that Isaiah successfully prophesied of the fall of Jerusalem by Babyon. It was not a popular message and Isaiah was sawed in half, according to Jewish history. Unlike Nephi, it was written before Christ, yet made many messianic prophecies. The fulfilled fall of Jerusalem to Babylon made his writings part of the Jewish cannon.

1 The vision concerning Judah and Jerusalem that Isaiah son of Amoz saw during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.

Here is Jeremiah, which was also found in the caves of Qumran. He prophesied of the rebuilding of Jerusalem after seventy years of exile in Babylon, which came to pass in history. This established his writings as part of the Jewish scriptures. He also prophesied of the messiah (Jeremiah 23:5)

1 The words of Jeremiah son of Hilkiah, one of the priests at Anathoth in the territory of Benjamin. 2 The word of the LORD came to him in the thirteenth year of the reign of Josiah son of Amon king of Judah, 3 and through the reign of Jehoiakim son of Josiah king of Judah, down to the fifth month of the eleventh year of Zedekiah son of Josiah king of Judah, when the people of Jerusalem went into exile.

Jeremiah would have been a contemporary with Nephi's father. The fact that Jeremiah was put into a dungeon and persecuted for his prophesying against Jerusalem, and that many of the false prophets at that time were prophesying peace--makes it easy to think Jeremiah and Nephi's father might have known each other. And that Nephi's father would have been later named somewhere in Jewish history, especially since he supposedly started a clan of people which later went to America!! But there is no record of this until 1820.

[gilbo12345]

I thought southpark had a comprehensive episode on the Mormon religion

(100% joke )

[Teejay]

=gilbo12345,Apr 26 2011, 08:03 PM]
I thought southpark had a comprehensive episode on the Mormon religion

(100% joke )

Hello to all on this thread. I'm new to this web site, so I have some questions.

On this thread my Post 12 proves that Mormonism can't be true and that all Mormons are worshipping a Jesus Christ that exists only in the mind of Joseph Smith.

1. Did anyone read Post 12?
2. If not, why not?
3. Why has no one responded to it or challenged it?
4. Am I doing something wrong?

TeeJay

[Geode]

Hello to all on this thread.  I'm new to this web site, so I have some questions.

On this thread my Post 12 proves that Mormonism can't be true and that all Mormons are worshipping a Jesus Christ that exists only in the mind of Joseph Smith.

1.  Did anyone read Post 12?
2.   If not, why not?
3.  Why has no one responded to it or challenged it?
4.  Am I doing something wrong?

TeeJay

So am I invisible? I read, replied and challenged some of your thoughts about this topic a month ago. Are you doing something wrong? Perhaps you are not looking at the hierarchy of the thread correctly in terms of seeing replies to posts.

[Teejay]

[quote]=Geode,Apr 18 2011, 06:42 AM]
There is a maliciously inaccurate film that was made about the Mormons many years ago that makes many of the same assertions you have set down here. Some years ago a group at my church (The Evangelical Church of Bangkok) decided to show it, and then have me give comments at the end from the vantage point of an ex-Mormon. I had never seen the film before, and my comments were not what they were expecting. I told the group that there were significant differences in theology between more mainstream Christianity and Mormonism, but it is best to start from a point of what the Mormons actually believe and not the distortions that had been presented in the film. I then outlined some of the untrue portions, a few that you have given here, and volunteered to entertain any question and give as accurate an answer as I could offer. I was disappointed that they lost interest in what I had to say when I didn't just collaborate what had been shown.[/QUOTE]

Geode, Please forgive me. I overlooked your post. I'm recovering from a knee replacement and I'm spaced out on pain killers. But that's no excuse and I will endeavor to read more carefully.

Yes, one can argue that there is “significant differences in theology between more mainstream Christianity….” But there is one crucial point in Christianity that separates truth from falsehood. Jesus Christ is God the Son who has existed eternally past and He died for us and rose from the dead. When you denounced Mormonism, did you accept Jesus Christ as God the Son who has existed eternally past, is now existing, and will exist eternally future?

In my post, I am not presenting “what Mormons believe.” I am presenting what is the doctrine of the Mormon Church. Most Mormons are totally unaware of what the Mormon doctrine is all about.

I assume that you are referring to “The God Makers.” I have not seen the film, but I have read the book. Everything in the book was absolutely true in its description of Mormon "doctrine." The purpose of the "God Makers" was not to define what individual Mormons believe. Rather it was written to expost the true doctrine to the rank and file Mormon. This it did.

I can’t count the number of Mormons I’ve encountered that are totally unaware of the true doctrine of the Mormon Church.


[QUOTE]I am replying as an ex-Mormon but I think in some ways my point of view might be taken to be more objective than that of a Mormon, for although I spent my life up to the my late 30's following that faith and know it from an insider's point of view I ultimately parted with them. I do not feel the need to defend portions of Mormon theology that I do not find to be correct in my opinion, but on the other hand will defend them when I feel a criticism made towards them is not valid.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough. False accusations should be exposed. But my post is accurate and I am able to defend it with the truth. And now that you have left Joseph Smith’s army and enlisted in the true God’s army, you should be willing to expose Mormonism for what it is.

Question: Why did you abandon Mormonism?


[QUOTE]This is not really correct. Mormons believe that the Bible is correct "as far as it is translated correctly." In practice they accept every verse within it, and have not made the case that what is currently present is corrupted as you are arguing. You can quote any verse to a Mormon and they should respond with acceptance that it is scripture, at least to the extent that it is accepted by Christian in general. What the Mormons actually think about the Bible is that parts are missing that included “plain and precious truths” not that what is left is corrupted. Mormons are taught that they should seek their own answer as to the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, and that they will receive an answer by spiritual witness.[/QUOTE]

Again I must stress that my post is not what Mormons believe. Rather, I am positing what is the doctrine of the Mormon Church. And you are correct that the Mormon Church argues that the Bible has not been translated correctly. But Mormon doctrine also believes that the Bible has been corrupted.

Orson Pratt wrote, “Can we rely upon [the Bible] in its present known CORRUPTED state, as being the faithful record of God’s word… “The Bible Alone An Insufficient Guide,” pp. 44-47

Another example of Mormons’ claim that Scripture is corrupted: “[The quotations from Isaiah found in the Book of Mormon are] no doubt the only truly accurate quotations in existence today…. A direct reference to baptism was plainly deleted from Isaiah 48:1. How many similar deletions were made, no one knows, because we have only fragments from the brass plates. But the Bible as we know it is a different volume from what it was – and would have been—had it not been changed so much by those with selfish interests.” Apostle Mark Petersen, As Translated Correctly, pp. 54, 67

One of Joseph Smith’s undertakings was to retranslate the King James version. The whole of the Old Testament was translated into Greek a few hundred years before Jesus Christ’s first coming. It was called the Septuagint. Jesus Christ and the apostles (Paul included) quoted from it as an accurately translated document from the Hebrew. King James translators used it to write the King James version. But Joseph Smith deemed it unworthy to be accepted as is and needed his translation.

You wrote that Mormons are taught to seek their own answer as to the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. If the Book of Mormon disagrees with the Bible, it can’t be true. No amount of seeking will reveal the truth of something that is false. A lie can’t ever be defended with truth. It can only be defended with another lie.

[QUOTE]But now to the argument you used with a Mormon:
This sounds like it is straight out of the “God Makers” (the book and video that I talked about at the start of my post) and has many things in it that are not Mormon theology and not taught by the LDS church.[/QUOTE]

"In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints 'do not believe in the traditional Christ.' 'No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.'" LDS Church News, June 20, 1998, p. 7

"Christ was not begotten of the Holy Ghost...He was not born without the aid of Man, and that Man was God." Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:18

"Now remember from this time forth, and forever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. ...If the Son was begotten by the Holy Ghost, it would be very dangerous to baptize and confirm females, and give the Holy Ghost to them, lest he should beget children to be palmed upon the Elders by the people bringing the Elders into great difficulties." Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 1:51

Now I can give you pages and pages of quotes from Mormon founders, apostles, teachers, leaders, et.al. teaching that Mary was literally impregnated by a physical union between the Mormon father god and Mary. To save space, I will let you google this subject. But please do not deny that it is Mormon doctrine. I had a debate with a Mormon science professor some years ago. He denied that Mormonism teaches that the Mormon father god fathered Jesus by a literal physical S@xual union. I mailed him 36 typewritten pages of affirming quotes of Mormon founders, leaders, apostles, theologians, teachers, et.al. He got angry at me and quit the debate. So for you to argue that this is not Mormon doctrine does not surprise me. Do you really think that the Mormon Church would be up front with this doctrine?

[QUOTE]The part about the birth of Christ comes from the thoughts of Brigham Young and yes, I have met an occasional Mormon in the past that thought this was correct. However, in decades of Mormon classes I was always taught the biblical account of Christ's birth involving the Holy Spirit. The Mormon church teaches a virgin birth. When the Mormon church teaches about Jesus being the only begotten most of them do not hold this to be literal in the sense Brigham Young taught[/QUOTE]

Every Mormon I've debated has wanted to distance himself from crazy Uncle Bringham. But Brigham Young was second in command to Joseph Smith. I will not allow a Mormon to simply divorce himself from the teachings of one of the founders of this false religion. If you were not taught this in any of your Mormon classes, then the truth of Mormonism was purposely withheld from you. Jesus being the “only begotten of the father” was taught by the vast majority of the early Mormon Church. I can provide quotes—too many for you to read. Again, I am not arguing for what Mormons believe but rather the true doctrine of the Mormon Church.

[QUOTE]The part about the birth of Christ comes from the thoughts of Brigham Young and yes, I have met an occasional Mormon in the past that thought this was correct. However, in decades of Mormon classes I was always taught the biblical account of Christ's birth involving the Holy Spirit. The Mormon church teaches a virgin birth. When the Mormon church teaches about Jesus being the only begotten most of them do not hold this to be literal in the sense Brigham Young taught, [/QUOTE]

It does not surprise me that this truth was withheld from you.

[QUOTE]The part about God the Father having parents is not taught by the current Mormon church and was speculation by some Mormons in the 19th Century. Again, this seems to come straight out of “The God Makers” which is a very poor source in terms of what Mormons really believe.[/QUOTE]

No it was not speculation. As I recall, the “God Makers” revealed the doctrine of the Mormon Church and not what Mormons believe. If the Mormon Church revealed what they’re really about at the outset, most would run for their lives. Will you agree that what Mormons believe is in opposition to true Mormon doctrine?

[QUOTE]Mormons do have an explanation for how Christ came to be deity. They believe that Christ was unique in the same way other Christians do, to bring salvation to mankind. Yes, Mormons think matter is eternal and do not hold to the concept of ex nihilo but they teach about The Father as if He always existed.[/QUOTE]

No Mormon god existed eternally past. All came to be. Any god that has not always existed eternally past can’t guarantee your existence let alone your salvation.

FACT. Mormonism continues to teach that God the Father is a glorified, resurrected Man, and men and women may become Gods and Goddesses. Apostle Bruce R. McConkie makes this claim: "God himself, the Father of us all, is a glorified, exalted, immortal, resurrected Man!" (Mormon Doctrine, p. 643) Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism taught: "...you have to learn how to be Gods ourselves...the same as all Gods have done before you,..." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 346) The Lord Himself answers this teaching by pronouncing: "...I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God." (Isaiah 44:6)

[QUOTE]First of all you must present something that seems more logical to a Mormon than his or her existing beliefs.[/QUOTE]

I did!

[QUOTE]The Mormons are not more loyal to Smith than to God and were not even as such during Smith's lifetime. Many took exception with some of his teachings, in that they did not seem biblical. The quote from Smith is authentic and seems prideful. But in some ways his statement was correct in terms of numbers of members of a church. Smith was clearly a man with weaknesses, as is shown in this statement. However, on balance I think he did worship The Lord. He certainly gave a good impression of it the vast majority of the time, staying in character to his death.[/QUOTE]

It is not I arguing that those who worship false gods are more loyal to their false gods than Israel and Christians are to the true God. It is God himself lamenting this in Jeremiah. I wish that Christians were as dedicated and as loyal to the true God of Abraham as the Mormons to their false god. I get at least one (sometimes two) Mormon missionary groups ringing my door bell yearly. Since I’ve been a Christian, I’ve only had one Christian missionary visit my house.

Please reread Smith’s boast. In this boast, Smith elevates himself above Jesus Christ. He’s fortunate that Jesus Christ did not strike him dead. If Smith had made that statement back in the Old Testament, there would be a burnt grease spot on the ground where he had been standing.

“Smith was clearly a man with weaknesses” is an understatement. Smith was a false prophet of the first order and is now in hell awaiting judgment. He should be exposed for what he was so that millions of Mormons will not follow him to his eternal resting place.

[QUOTE]I find this argument in the realm of philosophy and not science. That is a creationist reading of thermodynamics and not my understanding of the way it is held and applied by mainstream physics. The Mormon viewpoint is actually closer to the scientific concepts as held by those who are purely secular in my opinion.[/QUOTE]

C.S. Lewis and the Apostle Paul used philosophy and logic. I take pride in being in such a group. The laws of thermodynamics are not philosophy. No scientist has observed a violation of these laws. Mormons argue against all known and proven science that matter is eternal. They must do this because their gods are not eternal. All Mormon Gods come from within and this side of creation. I will be glad to debate you solely on this issue if you like. If you deem my argument above to be false, can you be specific.

[QUOTE]This is a creationist argument not held by many Christians who are not Mormons.[/QUOTE]

Nor is it held by many atheists. But the truth or falsehood of my argument does not rest on what one believes. Believing something does not make it true. Rather we should believe it because it is true. If you can refute it, present your argument.


[QUOTE]Until the last sentence this sounds similar to what Mormons teach. On the other hand they do not teach this last sentence. They now teach as if The Father existed before pre-existent matter was organized by Him. They do not teach that he was the product of a god and his wife as you have stated. This is drawn from speculation from some of the more imaginative Mormon leaders in the 19th Century. But many sources critical of Mormonism basically create a patchwork from the uttering of any Mormon and give them full weight as Mormon Doctrine when this is not the case.[/QUOTE]

One can’t have it both ways. Either matter existed before the Mormon god or the Mormon god existed before matter. Mormons argue that matter is eternal. The Mormon science professor I debated argued for eternal matter even though his own field of science proved the opposite.

“They do not teach this last sentence.” But they did originally. When it could not be defended, they conveniently changed beliefs.

So, you admit that all of the Mormon leaders of the 19th century are false prophets? If so, then Mormonism is a false religion. No? Simply arguing that the 19th Century Mormon founders and leaders were simply “imaginative” does not magically redeem Mormonism simply because we have moved into the 20th and 21st Centuries. If the first five books of the Bible were found to be false, could a Christian simply say, "Oh well! Moses was simply being 'imaginative." Could we continue to believe that the rest of the Bible was true? I think not.

[QUOTE]The Mormons believe God existed before “creation” as they hold the concept. He organized matter into worlds. Science as I understand current thinking is closer to Mormon concepts than evangelical Christian creationism. They believe in an Eternal Father. They believe Christ came to be as the firstborn of the spirit children of The Father. Mormons believe that all of these existed as “intelligences” before their creation as spirits. This is a different belief that they do in fact hold.[/QUOTE]

There are many Christians who do not believe that Jesus rose from the dead or that He is God. But the doctrine of the Christian Church and the Bible say just the opposite. Notice that you say that God organized matter. The Bible says that He created matter. The Law of Non-contradiction does not allow for both to be true. Both can be false, but both can’t be true. Which do you believe is true, the Mormon version or Genesis?

For Mormons to argue that people existed as eternal spirit children is absurd on the face of it. Only God is eternal past. He is the First Cause. There can only be one First.

[QUOTE]Much of what you have written is not true or correct as viewed by this ex-Mormon and I am sure most Mormons would find fallacies here as well. If you wish to successfully witness to Mormons, I would take a more humble and factual approach to their beliefs or they will most likely just reject your thoughts from the onset. They feel they follow the biblical Christ and such approaches seem arrogant to them. They think they have the form of church that was instituted by Christ and the Apostles that was later modified in the 2nd century and beyond.[/QUOTE]

I will be glad to argue for the true DOCTRINE of the Mormon Church on any subject or doctrine you care to choose. I will not argue or discuss what individual Mormons believe. I had a Mormon friend who was closer to me than a blood brother. When I presented the Mormon doctrine to him as taught by Smith and the early founders, he was astonished. He replied: “TeeJay, where in the world did you get this. I don’t believe that." Most Mormons are kept totally in the dark as to the true doctrine.

[/quote]

TeeJay

[Teejay]

=MamaElephant,Apr 6 2011, 11:35 AM]
We don't know what judgment anyone will have. God looks at the heart. He sees accurately and judges mercifully. Jesus is the judge, not us.—Matthew 25:31-40

I think that there is a distinction between what is taught overall and whether the individual members are Christian. We are none of us perfect and all of us have growing to do, including Mormons, Catholics, and Jehovah's Witnesses. Perhaps that growth will lead to individuals changing their affiliation, but to imply that they are not Christian is just not right.

MammaElephant,

I would like to respond to your post. I am a Christian, so I will respond from the Christian perspective.

Actually, I do know what judgment people will have. Paul writes in Romans 9 and 10 that "if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus Christ and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, YOU WILL BE SAVED." All people, men and women, gain membership in the Body of Christ only by personal faith (Rom. 10:9-10 and Eph. 2:8-9; Phil 3:9).

After making this profession of faith, the Holy Spiirt baptizes us into the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13).

The Holy Spirit SEALS believers and never departs (Eph. 1:13; 4:30). We can't lose our salvaton.

Members in the Body of Christ are taken out from under the condemnation of the law. Paul writes that we are cursed if we teach law (Gal. 3:10). Where there is no law, there is no condemnation, for we can't be condemned by a law that we are not under.

So, if you don't know if you are going to heaven, then you are not going. Why? Because there is only one way to be samed, and that is to be saved by the confession of faith in Romans 9 and 10. If we deny the diety of Jesus Christ, then we are worshipping a false god--which the Mormons and JW's do. If we deny that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, then we are still in our sins.

Anyone who dies without making this confession of faith goes directly to hell and awaits judgment. Members of the Body of Christ will not be judged concerning their salvation. There salvation is assured (Rom. 8:35, 37-39; Gal. 2:20; Eph. 1:13-14; 2 Tim. 1:12).

Members of the Body are "free from the wrath [Tribulation] that is to come" (1 Thes. 1:10; 4:18, 5:9; Rom. 5:9; Col. 3:6; Eph. 5:6).

When we make this confession of faith, our names are written in the Lamb's Book of Life.

The only judgment members of the Body will undergo is at the awards banquet where Paul writes that our works will be tested by fire. Any work that is not burned up will be rewarded. Some will receive gold crowns; some will receive less. But while some will be denied rewards, no one in the Body will lose his salvation.

Mormons and JW's are worshipping a false Jesus Christ who is not god and who is not eternal and who does not exist. "No one comes to the Father accept through Me," Jesus Christ warned.

TeeJay

[MamaElephant]

Hey all... husband and I have really been searching and are pretty much telling everyone we used to be JWs now, but I still worship the Almighty God and JWs still teach the closest thing I have found to my beliefs, and I feel no need to be rebaptized... so I left it in my description.

I don't want to ad nauseum you. So this is all I say. The "execution" you spoke of has nothing to do with hell--it takes place on Earth, when Christ returns. The beast and the false prohet are thrown into the lake of fire at that time, and the rest are killed, and will be judged at the final judgement of Christ on his throne.

I see what you are saying. Thank you.

Teejay, I will get beyond confused if I don't respond within this quote, so I will use a color, here we go:

MammaElephant,

I would like to respond to your post. I am a Christian, so I will respond from the Christian perspective.

Actually, I do know what judgment people will have. Paul writes in Romans 9 and 10 that "if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus Christ and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, YOU WILL BE SAVED." All people, men and women, gain membership in the Body of Christ only by personal faith (Rom. 10:9-10 and Eph. 2:8-9; Phil 3:9).

After making this profession of faith, the Holy Spiirt baptizes us into the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13).

The Holy Spirit SEALS believers and never departs (Eph. 1:13; 4:30). We can't lose our salvaton. There are several Christians on this forum who disagree with that, and I am one of them. JWs do not believe in OSAS.

Members in the Body of Christ are taken out from under the condemnation of the law. Paul writes that we are cursed if we teach law (Gal. 3:10). Where there is no law, there is no condemnation, for we can't be condemned by a law that we are not under.

So, if you don't know if you are going to heaven, then you are not going. I fully agree, and JWs would as well. Why? Because there is only one way to be samed, and that is to be saved by the confession of faith in Romans 9 and 10. If we deny the diety of Jesus Christ, then we are worshipping a false god--which the Mormons and JW's do. If we deny that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, then we are still in our sins.

Anyone who dies without making this confession of faith goes directly to hell and awaits judgment. Going to hell to await judgment. See this is why I don't use the word hell. The original Bible language makes so much more sense. Members of the Body of Christ will not be judged concerning their salvation. There salvation is assured (Rom. 8:35, 37-39; Gal. 2:20; Eph. 1:13-14; 2 Tim. 1:12).

Members of the Body are "free from the wrath [Tribulation] that is to come" (1 Thes. 1:10; 4:18, 5:9; Rom. 5:9; Col. 3:6; Eph. 5:6).

When we make this confession of faith, our names are written in the Lamb's Book of Life. The scriptures speak of names also being "blotted out" of the book of life.

The only judgment members of the Body will undergo is at the awards banquet where Paul writes that our works will be tested by fire. Any work that is not burned up will be rewarded. Some will receive gold crowns; some will receive less. But while some will be denied rewards, no one in the Body will lose his salvation.

Mormons and JW's are worshipping a false Jesus Christ who is not god and who is not eternal and who does not exist. "No one comes to the Father accept through Me," Jesus Christ warned. I feel the need to point out that Mormons and JWs do not have the same beliefs concerning Jesus. JWs do not believe that Jesus is an angel. Neither do they believe that Jesus is Satan's brother. Actually, we (both JWs and myself) have always believed that Jesus created Satan.

TeeJay

Thanks.

[MamaElephant]

MammaElephant,

I would like to respond to your post. I am a Christian, so I will respond from the Christian perspective.

Actually, I do know what judgment people will have. Paul writes in Romans 9 and 10 that "if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus Christ and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, YOU WILL BE SAVED." All people, men and women, gain membership in the Body of Christ only by personal faith (Rom. 10:9-10 and Eph. 2:8-9; Phil 3:9).

It is as simple as that is it? "Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall."-- 1 Corinthians 10:12

All people, men and women, gain membership in the Body of Christ only by personal faith (Rom. 10:9-10 and Eph. 2:8-9; Phil 3:9).

The key word is personal. You don't know how other people will be judged. What about this young man, do you know his eternal destiny? "Something good toward Jehovah the God of Israel has been found in him."--1 Kings 14:13

[Teejay]

[quote] name='MamaElephant' timestamp='1310094588' post='73172']
It is as simple as that is it? "Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall."-- 1 Corinthians 10:12



The key word is personal. You don't know how other people will be judged. What about this young man, do you know his eternal destiny? "Something good toward Jehovah the God of Israel has been found in him."--1 Kings 14:13
[/quote]

ME, I'm sorry I did not answer this sooner. I'll try to be more responsive in the future. When last I studied the JW beliefs, I read where they did not believe Jesus Christ is God who existed eternally past--the God "Who is, Who was, and Who is to come." I will do some research on this and get back to you. I have found that the average Mormon has no idea what the doctrine of the Mormon Church really is. And as long as the worker bees keep bring in the honey, they do not tell them the truth.

Now on the other issue of OSAS, I think the confusion exists because of a failure to distinguish between Israel and the Body of Christ. There are many passages that argue against OSAS, but you will notice that they are in the OT (written to Israel) and in the Circumcision apostles's letters (written to Israel). In Paul's writings (to members of the Body of Christ) you will find no such uncertainty.

Many falsely believe and teach that Israel was no longer under the law AFTER THE CROSS. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Covenant of Circumcision (law) given to Abraham was a perpetual and everlasting covenant. Israel will be circumcising, keeping Sabbath law, and observing feasts in the millineium kingdom and in the new heaven and the new earth. And I can show you this with Scripture.

Under the Covenant of Circumcision, one had to "endure to the end." If he gave it his best shot, God would add a little grace and say, "Well done, good and faithful servant." And he was saved. If he was forgiven by God but did not forgive his neighbor, the sins that God forgave were put back on him. He had to forgive to be forgiven, take the plow an not look back, visit the sick, visit the prisoners, lay hands on the sick, preach the Gospel of Circumcision, produce fruit, be a profitable servant, keep the law (the weightier matters without leaving the lesser undone), circumcise, keep the Sabbath, keep the feasts, rebuke the wicked, baptize, take up his cross, follow Jesus, love Jesus more than his mom, step on snakes and not die, drink poison and not die, love his enemies and you can probably add much more to this list. Whew! A Jew under the Gospel of Circumcision (or law) was not assured of his salvation. Such is life under the law. We are not under the Covenant of Circumcision. We are under the Covenant of Grace. Understand that the Jews were saved by grace under their covenant just as we are under ours. God can add grace to works (for the Jews). But, and this is a big but, He can't add works to grace. Grace is a free gift of love. If you try to work for a gift of love, then it is no longer a gift. If a man works hard all year to give his wife a diamond ring, she can repay him only with her love. If she attempts to repay him with money, he is deeply hurt. Our motivation under the Gospel of Grace is love for God and love for our neighbor. There is no law, nor is there a need for it.

Galatians 2:7-9 is proof positive that there were two covenants in effect in the last half of the Book of Acts:

"But on the contrary, when they [circumcision apostles at Jerusalem Council] saw that the gospel for [OF] the uncircumcised had been committed to me [Paul], as the gospel for [OF] the circumcised was to Peter (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the GRACE [GOSPEL] that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised." Gal. 2:7-9

Note: The KJV renders the passage in the most common manner, true to the usual function of the genitive case of these Greek nouns, “the gospel "OF" the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel "OF" the circumcision was to Peter.” The KJV translates these nouns as expected as genitives of description (describing the Gospel that was committed to each). Unexpectedly, the NKJV erroneously translates them as though they were indirect object genitives. Even if this unlikely translation were correct, WHICH IT IS NOT, the point remains: there is one Gospel for the Body and one Gospel for Israel, the former based on grace, the latter on circumcision [law].

I will be glad to discuss this further until you completely understand that Israel is not the Body and the Body is not Israel. Once a Christian grasps this simple truth, all become crystal clear and all doctrinal disputes disappear.

[MamaElephant]

Hello... you replied the very next day, so I wouldn't expect an apology for not replying sooner. I am the one who was gone for quite a while. At times I need to take time away from other people and just read the scriptures and pray. I will reply in pink again if that is alright.

ME, I'm sorry I did not answer this sooner. I'll try to be more responsive in the future. When last I studied the JW beliefs, I read where they did not believe Jesus Christ is God who existed eternally past--the God "Who is, Who was, and Who is to come." JWs teach that Jesus was the only begotten of God... so no other creature is like Jesus. All of creation in heaven and earth were created by Jesus. It is actually not as different to the Trinity teaching as everyone (including JWs) lets on. They base this on Proverbs 8 and Colossians 1:15. I will do some research on this and get back to you. As I learn more I am finding that I can understand how the Trinity doctrine helps some people come to know God... because he has manifest himself to us in those 3 ways and of course the scripture in my signature is vital for Christians to grasp. "He that has seen me has seen the father also." The Truth is deep and has many facets and isn't so clear and simple as a lot of JWs or other Christians think it is, but, then again, of course, we all need a starting point.

Now on the other issue of OSAS, I think the confusion exists because of a failure to distinguish between Israel and the Body of Christ. There are many passages that argue against OSAS, but you will notice that they are in the OT (written to Israel) and in the Circumcision apostles's letters (written to Israel). In Paul's writings (to members of the Body of Christ) you will find no such uncertainty. Interesting. JWs believe in 2 groups of people... spiritual Israel(Little Flock) and the Other Sheep, and I just read a testimonial from a former JW who said that when she stopped applying the scriptures to only one group (which I actually think she may have taken too far) and applied all of the scriptures to all Christians, the Truth opened up to her.

Many falsely believe and teach that Israel was no longer under the law AFTER THE CROSS. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Covenant of Circumcision (law) given to Abraham was a perpetual and everlasting covenant. Israel will be circumcising, keeping Sabbath law, and observing feasts in the millineium kingdom and in the new heaven and the new earth. And I can show you this with Scripture.

Under the Covenant of Circumcision, one had to "endure to the end." If he gave it his best shot, God would add a little grace and say, "Well done, good and faithful servant." And he was saved. If he was forgiven by God but did not forgive his neighbor, the sins that God forgave were put back on him. He had to forgive to be forgiven, take the plow an not look back, visit the sick, visit the prisoners, lay hands on the sick, preach the Gospel of Circumcision, produce fruit, be a profitable servant, keep the law (the weightier matters without leaving the lesser undone), circumcise, keep the Sabbath, keep the feasts, rebuke the wicked, baptize, take up his cross, follow Jesus, love Jesus more than his mom, step on snakes and not die, drink poison and not die, love his enemies and you can probably add much more to this list. Whew! A Jew under the Gospel of Circumcision (or law) was not assured of his salvation. Such is life under the law. We are not under the Covenant of Circumcision. We are under the Covenant of Grace. Understand that the Jews were saved by grace under their covenant just as we are under ours. God can add grace to works (for the Jews). But, and this is a big but, He can't add works to grace. Grace is a free gift of love. If you try to work for a gift of love, then it is no longer a gift. If a man works hard all year to give his wife a diamond ring, she can repay him only with her love. If she attempts to repay him with money, he is deeply hurt. Our motivation under the Gospel of Grace is love for God and love for our neighbor. There is no law, nor is there a need for it.

Galatians 2:7-9 is proof positive that there were two covenants in effect in the last half of the Book of Acts:

"But on the contrary, when they [circumcision apostles at Jerusalem Council] saw that the gospel for [OF] the uncircumcised had been committed to me [Paul], as the gospel for [OF] the circumcised was to Peter (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the GRACE [GOSPEL] that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised." Gal. 2:7-9

Note: The KJV renders the passage in the most common manner, true to the usual function of the genitive case of these Greek nouns, “the gospel "OF" the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel "OF" the circumcision was to Peter.” The KJV translates these nouns as expected as genitives of description (describing the Gospel that was committed to each). Unexpectedly, the NKJV erroneously translates them as though they were indirect object genitives. Even if this unlikely translation were correct, WHICH IT IS NOT, the point remains: there is one Gospel for the Body and one Gospel for Israel, the former based on grace, the latter on circumcision [law].

I will be glad to discuss this further until you completely understand that Israel is not the Body and the Body is not Israel. Once a Christian grasps this simple truth, all become crystal clear and all doctrinal disputes disappear.

I will have to take time to look into what you are saying.