Milk before meat, the mormons may have gotten it right!

  • Thread starter Thread starter why_me
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mfbukowski said:
Yep, I guess that’s really getting that old body nailed down all right! Talk about subjection. Not gonna be going out with the girls if you’re nailed to a cross No siree.

Whatcha doin? Oh just hangin’ around!
Click to expand...
Dude, you’re trying to divert the discussion from religious canon to religious fanaticism. The former is institutionally taught doctrine, the latter is mental illness. I dunno, kinda seems like you’re taking another spin on the “don’t answer the question that’s asked, answer the question that SHOULD have been asked” deal. In any case, everybody has nut-jobs in the ranks. You have them, we have them; some Baptists and Pentecostals even think it’s a cool idea to play with live rattlers and copperheads during church (and I’d recommend that one even less than getting nailed to a cross). This sort of lunacy has noting to do with dogma, it’s practiced by a tiny minority of people and it is indicative of serious psychological issues on a personal level.
 
Ruthie said:
Well, I went to scripture.lds.org and searched “gods.” It gave me the singular as well as the plural - hmph. But I did find this (bolding mine):

19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man… (instructions snipped)… 20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from aeverlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be bgods, because they have call power, and the angels are subject unto them.
DNC 132

So that answers one of Ralph’s questions. Yes, the Mormon church teaches that men can become gods.

Ruthie
Click to expand...
And yet, so does the New Testament teach that there are many gods and lords.
 
And yet, so does the New Testament teach that there are many gods and lords.

Where? Chapter and verse, please.

Ruthie
 
why_me said:
Not exactly. A prophet is not perfect. In fact, for the most part, they are products of their time. They must also learn and grow outwardly and inwardly.

Now lets look at the early church after christ died in Jeruselum. I am sure that some of the jews who coverted to christ and some of the leaders of the early church were just a little racist against the gentiles. No one is perfect.
Click to expand...
whyme, the Church has never, at any time, kept someone from Sacramental rites because they are a gentile, or anything else.

Whereas, Mormonism kept people from Mormon ordinances because of skin color, based on claimed prophecy.

If you are going to compare, at least make a full comparison.
 
RebeccaJ said:
whyme, the Church has never, at any time, kept someone from Sacramental rites because they are a gentile, or anything else.

Whereas, Mormonism kept people from Mormon ordinances because of skin color, based on claimed prophecy.

If you are going to compare, at least make a full comparison.
Click to expand...
There was a division in the early church just after Christ died between those who wished to take the gospel to the gentiles and those who did not. Those that did not, thought the gentile unclean as in Jewish law. At least that is my understanding of the division between Paul and James.
 
ralphinal said:
But that is my issue with this one. Prior to the 1970s, the LDS Church did say a bunch of racist things, or at least people in positions of authority did. If a prophet speaks with authority, when is it acceptable to question his authority? Do you guys have a rule of thumb on that? Are there times that you can ignore a prophet’s words?
Click to expand...
First of all, there is no “issue”. You go to the Church. You accept what the Church says.

But in answer to your question, the answer is yes, there is a rule of thumb.

zerinus
 
zerinus said:
First of all, there is no “issue”. You go to the Church. You accept what the Church says.

But in answer to your question, the answer is yes, there is a rule of thumb.

zerinus
Click to expand...
And I take it that whatever the current teaching is, that is the correct one until it is changed. What about things that are not openly discussed and there does not seem to be any change on it?

For example, did the Father have sex with Mary?
 
ralphinal said:
And I take it that whatever the current teaching is, that is the correct one until it is changed. What about things that are not openly discussed and there does not seem to be any change on it?

For example, did the Father have sex with Mary?
Click to expand...
They won’t admit that, but they do claim that the Father conceived Christ, not the Holy Spirit.
 
ralphinal said:
Thanks for the correction. I guess I took the logical step as to what that meant.
Click to expand...
Usually, the “Well, he is the son of the Father, isn’t he?” agumentum ad logicam.

Some here:
While one New Testament passage seems to imply that Jesus was begotten of the Holy Ghost (Matt. 1:18-20), dozens of other passages clearly indicate that Jesus is the Son of God the Father, rather than the son of the Holy Ghost. Luke 1:35 clarifies that the Holy Ghost’s role was to prepare Mary to receive the power of the “Highest”–God the Father. Note carefully the entire verse: “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest, shall overshadow thee: therefore also that Holy thing which shall he born of thee shall he called the Son of God.”
If anti-Mormon critics would take the time to read the entire lecture given by Brigham Young, they would realize that his point is one that they may well agree with. President Young was addressing those who erroneously teach that the Holy Ghost begat the Son, saying this misunderstanding detracts from the Fatherhood of our Heavenly Father. Brigham Young was affirming that God the Father was the Father of Jesus–not the Holy Ghost.
Click to expand...
The Bible abounds with scriptures attesting to the fact that Jesus was the Son of God the Father; he was not the son of the Holy Ghost. Thus it was God the Father, not the Holy Spirit, who spoke to Jesus at the time of his baptism, saying, “thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased” (Lk 3:21-23, Matt. 3:16-17). It was to his Father, God the Father, rather than to the Holy Ghost, that Jesus taught his disciples to pray (Matt. 6:6-18). “We beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father” (John 1:14); “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son” (John 3:16; see also John 3:18, 1 John 4:9).
Click to expand...
Passages like these demonstrate that Brigham Young was correct: Jesus was the begotten Son of the Father. It appears that the Holy Spirit in some miraculous way unknown to mortals, prepared Mary for the conception of God’s Son. Rather than being critical of Brigham Young, our antagonists should be pleased that he defended the Biblical position that God the Father, rather than the Holy Ghost, is the father of Jesus.
Click to expand...
lightplanet.com/response/answers/begotten.htm

Must have been something those Neo Platonists inserted into the Scriptures!! 🙂
 
ralphinal said:
Does the LDS church teach that God lives on a planet? DId it ever?

Does it teach that God was once man? Did it ever?

Does it teach that men can become gods with their own worlds full of spirit children? Did it ever?

Does it teach that Jesus and Satan are brothers? Did it ever?

Does it teach that dark skinned people are cursed by God for being spiritually impure? Did it ever?
Click to expand...
If there questions can be answered “yes” or even “yes and no”,then are people baptized into the Mormon Church without knowing the answers.
 
Stephen168 said:
If there questions can be answered “yes” or even “yes and no”,then are people baptized into the Mormon Church without knowing the answers.
Click to expand...
That, my friend, is the point of this thread. Former Mormans all say “Yes, they are brought in without being told.” Mormons hold toa postion of milk before meat. They do agree, but they say it is acceptable.
 
ralphinal said:
That, my friend, is the point of this thread. Former Mormans all say “Yes, they are brought in without being told.” Mormons hold toa postion of milk before meat. They do agree, but they say it is acceptable.
Click to expand...
So both groups (ex-mormon and current mormons) agree that people are baptized before they understand who/what they are worshiping.
 
The converts don’t know this stuff, but, isn’t this what the children chatechists are taught? The Mormons keep the religion from their own children?
 
why_me said:
The Mormon nature of God is located in the lds bible dictionary which is a companion in their sriptures. The bible dictionary at the back of their bibles is filled with meat. All can read it.

scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/g/43

Also, here is the address of the bible dictionary as included in the lds edition of their KJV bible:

scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/g/contents
Click to expand...
Oddly enough, nothing under “E” for “eternal progression”, or “P” for “plurality of gods”

Heck, nothing in there even about “exaltation”.

Cognitive Dissonance that those concepts don’t exist in the Bible?

🙂
 
why_me said:
There was a division in the early church just after Christ died between those who wished to take the gospel to the gentiles and those who did not. Those that did not, thought the gentile unclean as in Jewish law. At least that is my understanding of the division between Paul and James.
Click to expand...
And this idea of not teaching gentiles was Church doctrine, when?
 
scipio337 said:
They won’t admit that, but they do claim that the Father conceived Christ, not the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
They teach that the Holy Spirit protected Mary from the Father’s presence. This is how they get around the scripture that says no one can be in the presence of the Father. :confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top