Mormons prefer to prey on which? - Catholics or Protestants?

[rinnie]

I agree. In spite of the amazing transcendance they claim for humanity in the next life, there is a deficient understanding of the communion of saints.

The whole notion of apostasy seems to preposterous to me that I just can’t take it seriously, I guess. I don’t get annoyed because it is clear their whole faith rests upon a vain imagination.

Hi Guan, Hope all is well with you and your family. Now Guan. you gotta remember a vain imagination of one mortal man. Joseph Smith!

 

[rinnie]

Our different understanding of the Trinity does not mean we are 'cutting one out," Rinnie. It simply means that we understand the Trinity differently.

…and if you want to call even a partial separation from God’s glory ‘hell,’ then I guess that we are talking about hell.

It’s still better than here, though.

But I don’t understand how you can call it a partial separation dianaiad. There is only one GOD. Do you agree? The Trinity is 3 separate persons one in being with the Father. Do you disagree with that? Because you can’t have it both ways. Is there one God or not in your faith?

 

[guanophore]

I personally think the idea of the Trinity as that term was originally used, if I have understood what I have read, is closer to three actual Persons who are One because they have a unified, glorified Spirit substance or divine essence, hence they are not divided and can be described as One God. But when Christ returns to earth, if I understand the belief then it would be expected that Christ will have a physical body as He had when He was resurrected, and He will be a separate Person from Heavenly Father, or in other words those who see Him will not be seeing Heavenly Father, and Heavenly Father will still be in heaven at that moment in time. (I am not in any way trying to tell anyone what they believe–I am interested in understanding whether what the words I have read have meant to me are what those words mean to someone else who has the belief.)

There is no physical return of Christ to earth. He will always have a glorified body, and when He returns, we will be taken up to Him, and also transformed into our glorified bodies.

When we see Him, we see the Father. None of the persons of the Trinity can ever be separated from one another. They were not separated when He was here in the flesh, either.

 

[zerinus]

Jesus said that in heaven, they are neither male or female, . . .

Jesus didn’t say anything of the kind. He said they “neither marry nor are given to marriage”. That does not mean that they lose their gender as well.

. . . but are like the angels.

Yes, that is what He said.

They do not marry, nor are they given in marriage. They are members of the communion of saints, joined as members one of another to His Body. I agree with what you are asserting about the limits of marriage vows. Marriage is for this life. Communion with God and one another in a glorified (non-sexual) body is for the next life.

That is a false dichotomy. Marriage and the “communion of the saints” are not contradictory. First of all, communion of the saints is not just for people in heaven; it includes people here on earth. We are all within that communion if we are within the true fold of God. Secondly, marriage does not hinder the communion of the saints, but facilitates and enhances it, as Paul said: “Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord” (1 Corinthians 11:11).

We say 'there was an apostasy.

Yes, that is the problem. The blog to which I was referred in this thread cannot identify when, where, and why this happened.

I presume you are referring to my blog. If so, you ought to know that all of that was specified therein.

It was “gradual”, and instead of using the Apostolic definition of “apostasy” a new definition is invented by Mormons. It is very misleading.

And in another post I explained the meaning, to which you have not replied.

The apostasy was supposed to have happened “gradually” and did not affect all believers, but resulted in loss of authority to the priesthood.

See above.

Even though the Jews had apostasized, Jesus still affirmed the authority of the priesthood!

The priesthood there was hereditary. The NT priesthood was a different order of priesthood, and it was not hereditary.

Besides that, we can specifically identify the reasons Rome fell, and the elements/factors in the fall, however gradual. Apparently this cannot be done for the “fall” of the Catholic Church.

You know that that is not correct. That is not a very honest way to discuss religion.

 

[zerinus]

Mark 3:34-35

34 Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! 35 Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.”

All who are in Christ are together with Him, and one another, as family. The spiritual joining we have to one another in Him transcends even the human experience of family bonding.

True, those who are within the bond of the gospel become natural “kinsmen” of Jesus Christ. That does not mean that they lose their kinship with each other. Those to whom Jesus addressed those remarks, were still “brothers and sisters” and “fathers and mothers” to each other. They did not lose their kinship with each other, nor lose the obligations they had toward each other by virtue of that relationship.

 

[zerinus]

I agree. In spite of the amazing transcendance they claim for humanity in the next life, there is a deficient understanding of the communion of saints.

You are very much mistaken I am afraid. LDS theology provides a deeper understanding of the “communion of the Saints” than you realise:

D&C 107:

18 The power and authority of the higher, or Melchizedek Priesthood, is to hold the keys of all the spiritual blessings of the church—

19 To have the privilege of receiving the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, to have the heavens opened unto them, to commune with the general assembly and church of the Firstborn, and to enjoy the communion and presence of God the Father, and Jesus the mediator of the new covenant.

The whole notion of apostasy seems to preposterous to me that I just can’t take it seriously, I guess. I don’t get annoyed because it is clear their whole faith rests upon a vain imagination.

You are very much mistaken again. My faith is based on the Restoration, not on the Apostasy. I am not a Mormon because I believe in the Apostasy; I believe in the Apostasy because I am a Mormon. I am a Mormon because the Spirit of the Lord witnesses to me that it is true. When I read the Book of Mormon, or actively participate in the life of the Church, the Spirit of the Lord witnesses to me that it is true, and that its leaders are inspired of the Lord and act and speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost. Having determined (independently) that Mormonism is true, I am led to the (inevitable) conclusion that an apostasy must have occurred for the restoration to be made necessary. That is how I believe in the Apostasy. Joseph Smith did not start Mormonism on the premise of the Apostasy. He did not say, “Christianity is apostate, therefore let’s start a new religion”. Joseph Smith was just 14 years old when he received his First Vision; and he didn’t go to the woods to start a new religion. He went there to inquire of the Lord which church was right, so he knew which one to join. It was the Lord that then informed him that none of the churches were right (thus implying that there had been an Apostasy), and that he should join none of them; and that at some future date the truth would be revealed to him. The LDS doctrine of the Apostasy is incidental to the Restoration, not the other way round.

 

[dianaiad]

But I don’t understand how you can call it a partial separation dianaiad. There is only one GOD. Do you agree? The Trinity is 3 separate persons one in being with the Father. Do you disagree with that? Because you can’t have it both ways. Is there one God or not in your faith?

Rinnie, I’m a Mormon.

That means that I believe in God the Father, in His Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. they make up one Godhead, and they are one in purpose, and in that quality ‘God,’ but they are entirely separate Beings/Individuals. God the Father is not Jesus, Jesus is not the Holy Ghost, and the Holy Ghost is neither God nor Jesus.

You are using language that describes modalism more than it does the Trinity when you speak of 'three separate persons one in being with the Father.

The simplest way to figure it, from your point of view, is to figure that we aren’t Trinitarians, not the way you are, anyway. So, when you examine our doctrine and our beliefs in heaven and our 'Plan of Salvation," in order to understand what we are referring to, you have to accept that, y’know what…Mormons aren’t trinitarians. Don’t let it confuse you; just factor it into things.

 

[Finrock]

Good evening rinnie! I hope you’ve had a wonderful day.

Thank you finrock. I believe we have spoken before and remember you nothing but kind.

You’re welcome and thank you for your kind words.

And hope you can understand I mean no disprespect to you or your faith, I just seems to contradict scripture after scripture to me. BUt I am open for you to show me the scripture and where I am misled if you believe I am.

Thank you for your charity.

Hi Finrock, Here is my problem. Okay I understand what you are saying, but according to the bible yes Men are called to God in the way God chooses. But when they are called to God they are to receive the gift of the Holy SPirit by the laying of hands from the apostles. Thats where we run into a problem. Jesus still gave the Apostles the authority and only his apostles authority to do this. Let me show you

Acts 6:6 they layed hands and sent them off

Now God said to his apostles To do this. Now he instructed them to hold fast ot traditions I handed on to you. Now JS did not receive the Power of the HS like God said. It says to shun those acting not according to tradition. Mal 2:7 says seek instruction from a priest he is Gods messenger. Not a self-proclaimed prophet. THe bible says shun them. Is that not correct. Could you show me where the bible says to accept a self-proclaimed prophet and go against Tradition. I showed you 2 places where it says to not do this. Now you must show me where you again are not contradicting scripture.

Now, to answer the things you’ve brought up in your post…

As I mentioned in my last post, please understand that I don’t disagree with what you are postulating. I agree that a man cannot be self-appointed. That is why I provided the quote from our Article of Faith and also described how Joseph Smith received his calling and authority.

Again, the New Testament apostles, Peter, James, and John, came down from heaven and gave Joseph Smith the priesthood, making him a prophet and an apostle. So, the pattern you described as being necessary is exactly how Joseph Smith was set apart.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[zerinus]

Good evening rinnie! I hope you’ve had a wonderful day.

You’re welcome and thank you for your kind words.

Thank you for your charity.

Now, to answer the things you’ve brought up in your post…

As I mentioned in my last post, please understand that I don’t disagree with what you are postulating. I agree that a man cannot be self-appointed. That is why I provided the quote from our Article of Faith and also described how Joseph Smith received his calling and authority.

Again, the New Testament apostles, Peter, James, and John, came down from heaven and gave Joseph Smith the priesthood, making him a prophet and an apostle. So, the pattern you described as being necessary is exactly how Joseph Smith was set apart.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

Hi Finrock! Just a little side note: You remember the little discussion we had sometime ago about Jesus creating the spirits of men in the pre-existence? I expanded on that topic and wrote an article about it in my Blog, which I then posted in MADB for discussion. I thought that would be a more appropriate place to discuss it than here. Here is the link to that thread. Feel free to contribute to that discussion if you like.

The day after I had started that thread, they updated their software to a completely new version, and all the older posts in that thread (and in other threads) went wrong. I had to go back and re-edit all of my own posts to fix them; but other people haven’t done that. So if some of the older posts look messed up, that is the reason.

 

[Answersplease]

exposeromney.com/pages/Video_LDS.html

Robert Millet, a Professor of Ancient Scripture, BYU

“NEVER GIVE MEAT, WHEN MILK WILL DO”

Robert Millet, famed LDS author and Brigham Young University (BYU) professor instructs young men preparing for their Mormon mission. He tells them not to worry when asked difficult or controversial questions because as members of the LDS Church they already know far more about God than anyone else they will encounter. Millet shows an arrogance that pervades the Mormon culture, but is rarely captured on film because of the closed nature of the religion. His instructions to Mormon missionaries include:

• Mormons do not need to provide a straight answer to every question
• When possible avoid certain subect areas that Christians will find objectionable.
• When asked a difficult question by a non-Mormon, don’t answer that question, instead
  answer the question that person “should have asked.”

 

[Answersplease]

Lying for the Lord
mormonwiki.org/Lying_for_the_Lord

Lying for the Lord refers to the practice of lying to protect the image of and belief in the Mormon religion, a practice which Mormonism itself fosters in various ways. From Joseph Smith’s denial of having more than one wife, to polygamous Mormon missionaries telling European investigators that reports about polygamy in Utah were lies put out by “anti-Mormons” and disgruntled ex-members, to Gordon B. Hinckley’s dishonest equivocation on national television over Mormon doctrine, Mormonism’s history seems replete with examples of lying. Common members see such examples as situations where lying is justified. For the Mormon, loyalty and the welfare of the church are more important than the principle of honesty, and plausible denials and deception by omission are warranted by an opportunity to have the Mormon organization seen in the best possible light. This is part of the larger package of things that lead many to describe Mormonism as a cult. “Lying for the lord” is part of Mormonism’s larger deceptive mainstreaming tactics, and conversion numbers would drastically lower if important Mormon beliefs were fully disclosed to investigators.
…

…
Robert Millet, in a presentation about how to handle the tough anti-Mormon questions missionaries may face while on their missions or afterward, says, “We really aren’t obligated to answer everyone’s questions.” He goes on to say, “We never provide meat when milk will do”, and, “We seek to answer any serious question by finding the most direct route to the Sacred Grove.”
…

…
Mormon Molly Bennion writes:

“Many have argued, often under the guise of ‘milk before meat,’ that we must not disillusion the new or weak with all-too-human history or the questioning of the Lord’s anointed–questioning being by definition under this theory, criticism, even heresy. Better the lie.”

 

[ParkerD]

Answers,
People go to great lengths to provide misinformation, as you demonstrate repeatedly. They do it on Wikipedia, they do it in many places on the internet. It’s easily done, as you’ve shown. Discernment through the light of Christ and the Holy Ghost is all the more important in our day. Polygamy was a tough issue in the days of Abraham and a tough issue in the days of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, but here we are in 2009 and the past is gone. Welcome to the 21st century.

 

[Answersplease]

Answers,
People go to great lengths to provide misinformation, as you demonstrate repeatedly. They do it on Wikipedia, they do it in many places on the internet. It’s easily done, as you’ve shown. Discernment through the light of Christ and the Holy Ghost is all the more important in our day. Polygamy was a tough issue in the days of Abraham and a tough issue in the days of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, but here we are in 2009 and the past is gone. Welcome to the 21st century.

Now you are sinking to Zerinus’s level, personal attack when you can’t provide an answer.

Instead of saying that those articles I quoted are wrong, PROVE that they are wrong.

SHOW me that they are liars.

Your personal attack reflects poorly on your Mormon religion, and just shows the weakness of your position.

You talked about polygamy (and did’nt prove it was a lie), but what about the other things like Robert Millet?

I don’t agree with the Mormon religion, but if you can show me that the things I quoted from those articles are lies, then I will admit that they are false and I will stop using those examples.

 

[phummel]

Most Mormons I know prefer to pray and not prey.

God bless all,
paul

 

[Stephen168]

Polygamy was a tough issue in the days of Abraham and a tough issue in the days of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, but here we are in 2009 and the past is gone. Welcome to the 21st century.

The writer of Hebrews said, “Welcome to the first century.” Polygamy is inconsistent with Christianity.

 

[ParkerD]

The writer of Hebrews said, “Welcome to the first century.” Polygamy is inconsistent with Christianity.

I agree, today and in my lifetime.

 

[Zundrah]

I think that trying to convert people is a non specific target game. So I think it is probably even.

 

[Zundrah]

I agree, today and in my lifetime.

Polygamy is still practiced by mormons in countries where it is stilll legal. But I say just leave them to it, when people want to sin you shouldn’t bother trying to stop them if they wont listen. Let them continue. Polygamy isn’t just a mormon thing, it is common in certain eastern countries. But it is sad when a christian is doing it… because they are representing our faith to the world in a terribly negative way.

Ploygamy is a selfish act to please ones self only.

xxx zundrah xxx

 

[guanophore]

We believe that many early Christians (members and leaders of the church) actually apostatized, as a result of which the church as a whole lost the priesthood authority that it originally possessed. We call that the Apostasy of the early Christian church. That is not to say that there were no more good Christians left in the world. If you don’t like the word “apostasy” to describe this phenomenon, can you recommend to us a more suitable word that we can use? We can’t think of any.

No, I cannot think of a better word. I do agree that many members and leaders did fall away from the faith. Unfortunately, that does not equate to the loss of priestly authority which Jesus promised Himself. Basically, you are calling Christ a liar, or a weakling, since He was not able to keep His promise. If the Church lost authority, then it is no longer the Church, and the gates of hell did prevail against it.

 

[zerinus]

No, I cannot think of a better word. I do agree that many members and leaders did fall away from the faith. Unfortunately, that does not equate to the loss of priestly authority which Jesus promised Himself.

Jesus made no such promise.

Basically, you are calling Christ a liar, or a weakling, since He was not able to keep His promise.

I did no such thing, and He made no such promise.

If the Church lost authority, then it is no longer the Church, and the gates of hell did prevail against it.

The answer to all of that has already been given. If you want to turn a blind eye to it, I have nothing further to say.