This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Find out how Christians are supposed to act in the following study
https://christianforums.net/threads/charismatic-bible-studies-1-peter-2-11-17.109823/
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
Well I have posted many reports of the evil of these men and those around them, you ignore them all and defend that which cannot be defended. I think that is a fruit of this mormon religion, a group of people who will follow a wicked group of men, no matter what evidence is presented to them. You would be my first example, is the gospel that was delivered by the apostle Paul the standard by which we are to serve God? A simple strait forward answer would be that which an honest christain could give. If you cannot give a strait forward answer, then that shows the fruit of mormonism.
[FONT="]Well, when one reads all the verses on Faith versus Works [which are put into a sense of two separate descriptive elements] by Paul and James in particular, you get a more clear picture that the important thing is to gain Faith in Jesus Christ and if that Faith is right—works will follow. Works without Faith are “dead works†and I really think the Mormon Church misses the Grace part of it all. Under Grace or under the Law. Pretty much all of the Book of Hebrews addresses this question as does the Book of Romans, among other places in the New Testament. “Scripture interprets Scripture†and if it’s unclear in one verse, many other verses will supplement the meanings of one problematic verse.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Even you will admit that you still sin, even though you are likely baptized and supposedly repented--according to LDS Church mandates. “Sin†merely crops up from time–to-time in your life as it does for all of us and really how can we say you’ve “truly repented� So, as to keeping the Commandments in 24/7 thing for the rest of our lives—it just isn’t going to happen because of our sin nature and at the end of our lives, we have lost the battle as to always keeping the Commandments and thus according to your response, we didn’t love Christ as we should have—also according to Mormon Doctrine. With all that, “total repentance†never happens because we keep breaking the "Law". We are simply lost without the continuing Grace of Christ..
Not particularly interested in how Webster’s defines it. The point is that if one want to understand how a word in the Bible is used and what it means—you simply go to the Source [ie--- the Bible] and study the context in which a word comes forth. Also you study verses elsewhere in the Bible that use the same word. And, for deeper understandings, you go to the Greek and Hebrew meanings of the Word in a Concordance.
Well there is a reason The Holy Spirit makes clear that the true gospel was delivered through Paul. So that all doctrine could be judged by his epistles. We even see that James and Peter were rebuked by Paul, for not living according to the truth of his gospel. Now Gal. makes it clear in absolute terms that no other meassage can or should be received other than that which Paul taught. It is written in clear and evident words and is a warning to all who would dare take up the Word of God and attempt to teach others of the truth of Christ. It cannot be that another gospel would be in conflict with Pauls writtings. If any other doctrine does not come into agreement with his epistles that doctrine is to be rejected and that man is cursed by God.
I have already offered to answer these challenges one by one in a debate or separate thread. I have also given you references to sites that will answer all of these challenges.
Again, your example here for evidence of the truth of your claim is pure circular reasoning and begs the question. (Please google “logical fallacies†if you’re not quite sure what these terms mean.) It has already been established that there are people who follow these men. The question is whether the fruits of their lives as a group or majority of individuals exemplify the teachings of Christ or do they exemplify your conclusion of what their organization was founded on, sex, money and power?
To single out the writings of Paul as the only standard would be to separate out a small portion of the Gospel of Christ from its context within the rest of the gospel, and use it to judge the rest of the context. Why would you want to do that?
The book, Mormon Doctrine, was a scholarly pursuit by an apostle. It has never been accepted by the church as official “Mormon Doctrineâ€, and for that reason he was chastised by his superiors for naming it so. Most of what is in this book is accurate, but some things are only his opinion. In light of some more recent statements by Presidents of the church, I would say that he is not completely accurate in his assessment of this issue. I know of examples in the scriptures that I would interpret as contradictory to what he says here. What is very clear is that the whole matter can only be judged by God on a case by case basis. And again, I see this as an example of someone rejecting the atonement, not a limitation of it.
What I was referring to was simply that other Christian belief systems limit the scope of the atonement to only those who have a chance to hear about it in this life. That cuts out most of the human race. My point was that that is limiting the atonement much more than saying it doesn’t cover hard core Murderers, even if that was an official Mormon belief.
The only reason blood atonement came up is that you used it as an example to counter my point that Mormon doctrine limits the atonement less than other Christian belief systems. So it is the discussion on this little known doctrine that has sidetracked this whole thread. Not the other way around.
Mormon doctrine agrees with everything you say here except the part that claims Mormonism misses the grace part of it all. Your limited understanding of the Mormon belief on this subject may miss the grace part of it, but my understanding of Mormon belief places it right up front. You are just exposing your ignorance of true Mormon doctrine here.
It is true that receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands as taught in Acts 8:17-18 is not generally practiced by most Christian churches. It is no secret that Mormons teach that they are the only ones who have actual authority from Jesus Christ to perform ordinances by the laying on of hands. Therefore it is true that the Gift of the Holy Ghost can only be experienced by baptized members of the church. The Gift of the Holy Ghost is the promise of His constant companionship as long as and to the degree that we accept its influence. But we believe that God can and does inspire and communicate with all of His children through the Light of Christ continually and the Holy Ghost periodically.
And I have studied the Bible, Old and New Testaments, through and through and have found that this idea of Deification or Eternal Progression permeates through it all in one way or another.
First of all, I agree that Paul’s epistles contain the truth of the gospel. I have no problem with any of their teachings. But I believe you are missing something in Galatians 1:8. Paul is clearly referring to teachings he and others preached to the Galatians on some former occasion, which are not in our scriptures. Notice that he says WE, not I. So I think your theory of his special status falls apart here, as well as your assumption that he is speaking of what we have of his epistles.
Good observation Webb. Let me explain. Because someone becomes sealed to someone, does not mean it involves sex. That is what was involved in many of these instances. Also, if God commands someone to practice polygamy and they resist obeying, because it is so opposite from their desires, until God has to finally send a destroying angel threatening them with destruction if they don't obey, how can you say he practiced polygamy because of a lustful desire? There is much context left out when criticizing these things because the intent is to distort in order to sensationalize.
Where in any of what I wrote could you have possibly come up with the idea that I believed that Paul only had parts of the truth. I have continually said the opposite. There is nothing in the Bible I do not believe or is there anything there that conflicts with my religion. Talk about twisting things. Are your arguments so weak that you have to pretend that I have said things I have not said in order to know how to argue against me?
George, I believe you are a good man trying to do good. The concept I am trying to introduce you to is obviously too different from the traditions and assumptions you are accustomed to. I think at this point we just need to agree to disagree on this question about Paul. But just because we have different points of view on this, does not mean that either one of us dismisses the Bible or any part of it. We just see it differently. I really do appreciate learning your perspective. It is an approach to the epistles of Paul I have not been exposed to as yet. Thanks for sharing.
