Mormon 'Scripture' on those brothers: Jesus and Lucifer

[RC_Matt]

A no… you have to be a Polygamist at least in faith. No practice necessary. If God commands it I’ll do it.

You need to go back and carefully read what Brigham Young said once again, particularly the passages you highlighted. He makes it quite clear that one must “ENTER INTO” polygamy in order to become a god. Others, i.e., those who are polygamists in faith only, may enter the celestial kingdom, but will not get all the cool stuff. I don’t really care one way or the other, but that’s how Mormons have always explained it to me and that premise is certainly supported here.

Watchu talkin about Willis?!

You tellin me the Bible is mistranslated?

Gen. 21: 3
3 And Abraham called the name of his son that was born unto him, whom Sarah bare to him, Isaac.

LOL, ok, lets try this again. A woman must first BEAR a child before she can BARE the child. In the first instance BEAR means carry, and in the latter (as in the case of your biblical example) BARE means display/show/reveal/present. As in your original comment to me, some women cannot BEAR children, however anybody can BARE children. Ursus arctos horriblis is a different animal…

Yet we still are to live the 10 commandments (Romans 13) looks like some one is picking and choosing what parts of the bible the like and throwing away the rest.

Jesus did not modify the Ten Commandments, in fact he reiterated them. The first four have to do with man’s relationship to God, and the other six have to do with man’s relationship to man. He summarized this in the New Testament; again I think it’s in Matthew.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

When you cant beat them… make fun of their spelling.

It goes hand in hand with their goofy “interpretations.”

Your example of ‘rock’ meaning ‘revelation’ speaks volumes on mormon sense twisting and personalized interpretation: forget connotation and denotation, let mormonize that passage!:banghead:

Robert

 

[East_Anglican]

On the contrary… We’ve never given an excact date when it happened. Persoanlly. I… Like Martin Luther, John Calvin, Welsey and many others don’t hold that it happened until possibly 570AD,

Luther, Calvin and Wesley believed in One God. You believe in three.

,
Example We see the teaching on Baptism Morph over that period of time. From an Absolute necessity for Salvation Given to new Adult Prosylites to a sprinkling cermony given infants. And many such other things.

Baptism is a sign of the covenant. You beleive it is a covenant in its self. This shows you have no understanding of covenant. Circumcision was a sthe sign of the old covenant, baptism is the sing of the new covenant. Infant circumcision was valid and infant baptism is valid.

You see, we havn’t just got 2000 years of Church History, we have 2000 years of biblical history to back us up as well.

The Church Fathers give us plenty of proof that the Apostasy did indeed happened.

Blasphemous? Degrees of Glory in Heaven?

Thats almost exactly what the 1st century Christians taught too using the exact same verses:

The Church Fathers spoke against the heresy of gnosticism, which yours is a variety of.

You don’t understand reality. You think there are two realities, the spiritual and the physical. Both are real and both are reality. Neither are secret though you think the spiritual is. This is classic gnosticism.

I don’t agree with the above statement, but here is another thought… if the Great Apostasy happened, Jesus came in vain.

It doesn’t seem to follow that God would take on human flesh, die for our sinful natures, then establish an apostate church. It would seem to me that he would have waited until a more modern time to reveal himself… in fact, that may make for a good discussion in itself.

RAR

Amen.

This is another reason why Mormonism is blasphemous.

 

[East_Anglican]

2 Tim. 1: 15
15 This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.

Doesn’t sound very Figurative to me. Here a whole trunk of the tree was lopped off. How much longer did the rest of the tree live? Apparently 70AD.

Did you know that Peter also means “Seer” ergo Christ would build his church on “Seer Stones” ( ie Revelation).from God the Father.

Sounds to me like a reference to Joseph Smith in the grove of Trees and his first vision in which he Saw God the Father and Jesus Chirst.

As The Bible says “No One has seen The Father. We can dismisss this vision imediately. The phrase No One has seen The Father.” wasn’t said by just anyone either. Jesus himself said it.

 

[East_Anglican]

Finally… something we can sink our teeth into:

A very Bibilical teaching…

Rev. 20: 6
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Rev. 21: 7
7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

Here is a list of Biblical verses that verify this teaching:

(Ps. 15: 1; Ps. 24: 3; Ps. 27: 4; Ps. 84: 11; Dan. 12: 3; Luke 6: 35; Luke 12: 44; John 7: 34; John 16: 15; 1 Cor. 3: 21; 1 Pet. 1: 9; 2 Pet. 1: 3; Rev. 1: 6; Rev. 21: 7)

Also from the Vatican Cathecism:

John 1: 12
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Philip. 2: 15
15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;

1 John 3
1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

What are “sons of God” called? Pslams 82:6 - Ye are Gods, and all of you are children of the most high.

Where do people become gods in this?

Stop clutching at straws. Stop kicking against the pricks and come to the real Jesus Christ. He’s calling you to himself.

 

[East_Anglican]

Wrong dude, you must ACCEPT polygamy or you cannot enter into the celestial glory, i.e., the celestial kingdom, the presence of god. You needn’t practice it; but in that event you don’t get to become a god, have your own planet, beget “spirit children” to poplulate it and all that cool stuff. That’s what we were discussing.

The Bible says that a bishop must be a man of but one wife. Does this mean bishops can not enter into celestial glory?

You don’t believe The Bible anyway do you?

Come home!

 

[lukewarm]

Zakusa is being very long winded and not actually touching on the issue here. Catholics have always adopted theosis, nothing changed at “Vatican II” and quoting all the ECF’s in the world doesn’t change that fact we willingly admit it.

However Zakusa is then trying to draw the comparison that his Churches interpretation of ECF meaning and scipture passages inherently back his Churches view of “becoming gods” (actually literally becoming a god of your own planet where you create “spirit children”) rather than the orthodox view of theosis where we become “gods” by overcoming sin and sharing in God’s divine nature. I mean the two are worlds apart from one another and that is where Zakusa is not going. He’s showing the ECF’s believe in theosis, great, so do Catholics… What we do not believe in is that by being perfect Mormons we can go to the Celstial Kingdom where we’ll call our wives from beyond the veil and become literal Gods and Godesses and have eternal sex and make spirit babies. Focus on the last part if you want to argue theosis because this is where Mormons go off the rail.

 

[PaulDupre]

Did you know that Peter also means “Seer”…

I doubt that. Call for references!

Paul

 

[swariffin]

Debateble.

Even the OT says Gods word had a beginning as will as an end.

Are you saying that before the existence of God’s word, God has no word or no mouth?

 

[swariffin]

Not in the least… since I beleive the Apostasy happend gradualy over the past two millenia.

Which is shown with each new Catholic creed coming out and declaring those who came before as Heretics becuase they held to the “true faith delivered to the Apostles”, and didn’t keep up to all the changes and Apostasy happening around them.

Dear Zakuska,

What do you think God was doing for the past two millenia since the Apostasy you mentioned? In the OT, God sent the prophets almost for all periods until Jesus came.

 

[holdencaulfield]

Luther, Calvin and Wesley believed in One God. You believe in three.

Actually, Mormons believe in infinite gods and goddesses.

Baptism is a sign of the covenant. You beleive it is a covenant in its self. This shows you have no understanding of covenant. Circumcision was a sthe sign of the old covenant, baptism is the sing of the new covenant. Infant circumcision was valid and infant baptism is valid.

However Mormon baptism is not valid.

You see, we havn’t just got 2000 years of Church History, we have 2000 years of biblical history to back us up as well.

True.

The Church Fathers spoke against the heresy of gnosticism, which yours is a variety of.

I think it’s more of a variety of paganism.

You don’t understand reality. You think there are two realities, the spiritual and the physical. Both are real and both are reality. Neither are secret though you think the spiritual is. This is classic gnosticism.

Well that is.

This is another reason why Mormonism is blasphemous.

Extremely blasphemous.

 

[holdencaulfield]

Dear Zakuska,

What do you think God was doing for the past two millenia since the Apostasy you mentioned? In the OT, God sent the prophets almost for all periods until Jesus came.

Nice.

 

[holdencaulfield]

Where do people become gods in this?

Stop clutching at straws. Stop kicking against the pricks and come to the real Jesus Christ. He’s calling you to himself.

They don’t Mormons are insane just like Joseph Smith.

 

[holdencaulfield]

Zakusa is being very long winded and not actually touching on the issue here. Catholics have always adopted theosis, nothing changed at “Vatican II” and quoting all the ECF’s in the world doesn’t change that fact we willingly admit it.

Although Theosis is not becoming a god it is just becoming holy and in the presence of God.

 

[holdencaulfield]

Polygamy is a disgusting sin, and a mockery to women. You should be ashamed of yourself for saying that you would like to commit that sin.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Here it is.

What do our mormon friends and readers think of their ‘scripture’ here? Can you explain this for us?

 

[holdencaulfield]

No mormon poster (Zakuska, Paul G, PaPa, Good Daughter, Zerinus, whyme, BC Poulson) stepped forward to
**
Address the mormon “scripture” equating Jesus to Lucifer**

 

[Zakuska]

The Bible says that a bishop must be a man of but one wife. Does this mean bishops can not enter into celestial glory?

You don’t believe The Bible anyway do you?

Come home!

Course I beleive the Bible. More literally than most I know…

According to the church fathers the particular verse you are eluding to means they have never been divorced. What happens if they marry… their first wife dies… can they remarry and still be a Bishop?

 

[Zakuska]

No mormon poster (Zakuska, Paul G, PaPa, Good Daughter, Zerinus, whyme, BC Poulson) stepped forward to
**
Address the mormon “scripture” equating Jesus to Lucifer**

 

[Zakuska]

Although Theosis is not becoming a god it is just becoming holy and in the presence of God.

CFR…

The Church fathers would disagree profoundly with you.