 |
Business Directory |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coupons |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Classifieds |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| | Author | Messages | |
EEE
Posts:374
 | | 11/19/2007 5:43 PM |
 Alert | http://www.sltrib.com/ci_7403990
Mormon's claim the BOM is the most true book, however this proves otherwise. They can't use that line anymore, because here is proof their leaders are tampering with the book.
This should be evidence to Mormons to wake up and realize they are in a false Religion, and they need to repent and turn to the one true God of the Bible. | |
Yeah, it's true- He allowed the fall of man/
But He used it now to exalt the Lamb/
The Lord, who's wise, permits existence of sin/
to be glorified in His forgiveness to men/ | |
| | love@hm
Posts:486
| | 11/19/2007 6:10 PM |
Alert | This was a change in the introduction, not in any of the translation. The meaning has not changed, it has simply become more clear. The difference between:
". . . they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians"
and
". . . they are among the ancestors of the American Indians"
is not really a change in definition. This has always been known throughout the church. If you read the Book of Mormon you will find there are other groups of people who are discussed. People who the Nephities came across (Zarahemla). As child, my very active mother taught me there was more than one group - including those who came over the Bering Strait. What the media says and uses in orderto decribe our beliefs is not always accurate, and it often times an overview, which people take as deep doctrine. Again this is something we don't sit around discussing in our mtgs. Most of us don't worry about who's decendants are who's - instead we worry about the teachings.
| | | |
|
| | moinmoin
Posts:415
| | 11/23/2007 11:23 AM |
Alert | EEE:
As noted by love@hm, the introduction, footnotes, chapter headings, index, etc. are not the Book of Mormon text; they are study and reference helps and are subject to change from time to time, over the years. What I find revealing is the zeal with which you and others like you hyperventilate and “make a man an offender for a word, . . . and turn aside the just for a thing of nought” (Isaiah 29:21) over minor textual corrections or changes in features separate from and incidental to the text (i.e., introductions, footnotes, chapter headings, indexes, etc.). The sneering and derisive tone you and others like you assume when gleefully attacking latter-day revelation can’t help but remind me of those who similarly mocked Jesus Christ’s ability to prophesy :
“Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands, Saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?” (Matthew 26:67-68)
“And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy: and the servants did strike him with the palms of their hands.” (Mark 14:65)
“And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and smote him. And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee? And many other things blasphemously spake they against him.” (Luke 23:63-65)
You and others like you are modern-day Pharisees. Like the Pharisees of old, you are convinced that you are Christ’s true followers, witnessing against heresy and threats to orthodoxy. This is precisely the same position the Pharisees in Jesus’ time saw themselves in. Like the Pharisees of old who rejected Jehovah in the flesh but were sure that they would have accepted His prophets, had they lived in their days, you consider yourself to be the preserver of orthodoxy and believe you would have accepted Him, had you lived in His time. In both cases, your present attitude, assumptions, and demands show what your attitude would have been in the presence of Christ and His prophets. You would have rejected Elijah, John the Baptist, Jeremiah, and even Jesus Himself had you lived back then, and in the same way and for the same reasons that you deride and reject Joseph Smith.
Attempts by fundamentalists to capitalize on periodic changes to the Book of Mormon’s non-textual reference helps reveal the insecurities of their own “sola scriptura”/infallible-inerrant Bible world-view, a world-view which fellow evangelicals are increasingly coming to realize has serious ramifications on how they see the Bible, revelation, and prophets. From this week’s “Christianity Today:” “How Evangelicals Became Over-Committed to the Bible and What Can Be Done About It: Fighting ‘Bibliolatry’ at the Evangelical Theological Society:”
http://tinyurl.com/2g775k
As Mormon apostle Daniel H. Wells (contemporary of Brigham Young) noted long ago, when such critics of revelation and scripture in Mormonism “hold up the Bible as the all-sufficient guide to the possession of life eternal, they at the same time inculcate a principle which would never have given them a Bible.” (September 14, 1862, Journal of Discourses 9:362). Your demands and assumptions of scripture being produced through some sort of an “always-on” DSL connection with God (with prophets being mind-less, will-less human fax machines) would have led you to regard the Savior and His prophets in the same way as Jesus likened His generation:
“But whereunto shall I liken this generation? It is like unto children sitting in the markets, and calling unto their fellows, And saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented” (Matthew 11:16-17; Luke 7:32).
You similarly have certain preconceptions and demands of prophets and how God works through them that not only do not square with reality, but which would have precluded you from accepting the fulness of the gospel in past ages, even as they keep you from accepting it in yours. | | | |
|
| | Rooman
Posts:7
| | 11/25/2007 6:05 PM |
Alert |
Wow, you are one arrogant individual moinmoin! Way to contradict yourself by claiming the Bible isn't true, then try to defend your point by using Bible scriptures! What is the Bible moinmoin, true or false? You can't be in the middle. But hey, I give you a C for effort. I already know you don't believe the Bible is true so lets talk about your bible, the book of mormon.
As a former mormon I would like to refute your claims that the title page didn't mean what it said it meant. Oh, and just so you know, I did serve a "mission" and was even a branch president, so I do know about the religion. Anyway's, in response to your weak attempt to defend yet another change in mormon doctrine I say this. What about those revelations in d&c concerning the Native Americans needing the gospel delivered to them because they are "descendants of Lamen and Lemuel?" It can't be any more clear than that. Joseph Smith didn't realize that Science would put a stop to his little scheme. So my advice, should you be humble enough to take it, would be to open your eyes and think for yourself. Spend some time reading what Jesus says in the Bible and less time reading what joseph smith wrote. Jesus is the way to God, not joseph smith.
Shane Pannell
| | | |
|
| | moinmoin
Posts:415
| | 11/25/2007 11:11 PM |
Alert | Rooman: "Way to contradict yourself by claiming the Bible isn't true, then try to defend your point by using Bible scriptures!"
Where did I claim that the Bible isn't true? As do all Mormons, I believe the Bible to be scripture, but I don't believe it to be infallible or inerrant. For that matter, the Book of Mormon, though "the most correct book," isn't infallible or inerrant either. From the actual title page (part of the text, published in 1830, not the 1981 introduction, which you repeatedly insist on calling the "title page"):
"And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ."
From Mormon 8:12
"And whoso receiveth this record, and shall not condemn it because of the imperfections which are in it, the same shall know of greater things than these."
Rooman: "What is the Bible moinmoin, true or false? You can't be in the middle. But hey, I give you a C for effort. I already know you don't believe the Bible is true so lets talk about your bible, the book of mormon.
A former "branch president," huh? On your mission, right? Sounds like you were a top-notch missionary. As you well know (assuming you really are a former Mormon, and not a non-Mormon trying to use the jargon), Mormons believe in the Bible accounts of God's dealings in the Old World; they believe in the prophets of the Old Testament and the Savior and apostles of the New. Even the most vocal and active critics of Mormonism grant this --- nobody but an ill-informed nitwit would claim otherwise, and I mean that in the nicest way possible. 
Rooman: "What about those revelations in d&c concerning the Native Americans needing the gospel delivered to them because they are "descendants of Lamen and Lemuel?"
Hmmm. Misspelled "Laman." Really a Mormon?
What about the Doctrine and Covenants passages (and Book of Mormon ones)? How would they not be "descendants," even if Lehi's colony merged with numerous already existing indigenous peoples? Are you Abraham's seed? Isn't everyone? Then what makes it so special?
You see, you and I (and everyone else) are descendants of everyone in our genealogies, no matter how far back and minute their gene contributions are thought to be.
Do you mock the Abrahamic covenant (and yes, I believe Abraham was a prophet of God)?
| | | |
|
| | moinmoin
Posts:415
| | 11/25/2007 11:33 PM |
Alert | Shane:
I apologize for calling you a nitwit. It was ungentlemanly and un-Christlike. Please forgive me.
I read your bio on the "former Mormons" thread, and I believe that you did serve a mission for the Church. My brother served his mission in Tacloban; were you in Manila or Qezon City?
I understand that your life has taken a different route, but how can you honestly say that Mormons don't believe the Bible? Is it because we reject inerrancy, or because you are unhappy about certain interpretations you disagree with? I just thought that your post seemed disingenuous, like you knowingly claimed certain things with an exagerration you knew to be less than true. | | | |
|
|  | Rooman
Posts:7
| | 11/26/2007 10:47 PM |
Alert | Moinmoin,
Hello friend and I do accept your apology. While I agree that my posts can come across as somewhat harsh, I do not feel that they are disingenuous. Like you, I firmly believe in what I say and feel.
Before I continue, I'll answer your question as to what part of the Philippines I was in. My mission was the Philippines,San Pablo mission, about 70 miles south of Manila. I speak Tagalog fluently and still communicate weekly with some of my friends and "family" there. The experience of learning another culture was great and I truly feel like I am half filipino now.
During my two years in the Philippines I was in leadership positions from pretty much day 1. I was a zone leader for 1 year and an assistant to the President the last 8 months of my mission. It was during these last 8 months that I started having some serious doubts about the mormon church. I honestly do not want to have contentious discussions about these reasons because we both know that will get neither of us anywhere. We both have extensive training on how to overcome "ant-mormon" questions and believe me, I know what your response would be to every scripture or anything I say because I know them all myself. I'm not into chess matches, I'm only into truth.
Do I believe that mormons believe in the Bible? Honestly, no. Mormons put more trust and faith in the bom than the Bible so that, to me, is unacceptable. Am I wrong when I say that? Do mormons not really put the bom first in doctrine and teaching? There is no dispute and we both know that. The reason I started doubting the mormon church in the first place was because of the book of mormon, and I will give you an explanation as to why tomorrow. I would tonight, but it is getting late and my bed is calling me. Till tomorrow.
| | | |
|
| | justincredible02
Posts:25
| | 11/27/2007 7:09 AM |
Alert | They are floppers just like politicians. For example the "Curse of Cain" here are the notes from good old Brigham Young's words. There stance changed in the 1978.
It is a great blessing to the seed of Adam to have the seed of Cain [the negro race] for servants. - Brigham Young Addresses, MS d 1234, Box 48, folder 3, LDS Church Historical Dept., as cited in Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism, p. 132, and in Tanner, Mormonism: Shadow or Reality?, 5th ed., p. 293A.
Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so. - JoD: vol.10 p. 110: (March 8, 1863)
| | | |
|
| | moinmoin
Posts:415
| | 11/27/2007 6:50 PM |
Alert | Posted By justincredible02 on 11/27/2007 7:09 AM
[Mormons] are floppers just like politicians. For example, the "Curse of Cain." Here are the notes from good old Brigham Young's words. Their stance changed in 1978.
The problem here, justincredible02, is that Jesus and His apostles did something very similar to what you are alleging is an unforgivable “flip-flop” for Mormonism. When sending forth the apostles and the seventy, Jesus commanded them not to take the gospel to the Gentiles:
"These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not" (Matthew 10:5).
Where is the fundamentalist Christian/evangelical outrage? Where is the questioning of whether “the true God” would really deny the gospel to any people at any time? But it gets worse: Jesus Himself, when asked by a Greek (Syro-phoenician )woman to heal her daughter, followed this same policy, first by ignoring her (“But he answered her not a word”), then by telling her “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 15:24), and then by telling her “It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs” (Matthew 15:26). Only when she replied that even “the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table” did Jesus “flip-flop” and heal her. [IRONY ALERT FOR THE NUANCE AND SUBTLETY-CHALLENGED: I believe the Bible and have no problem with this account. I believe that Jesus did exactly what God wanted here.] But, for those who claim that the 1978 revelation allowing all worthy men to hold the Priesthood demonstrates an unacceptable “flip-flop,” do you hold the Bible and Jesus Christ to the same standard ? Enquiring minds want to know.
But it gets worse yet. Jesus’ command not to preach the gospel to the Gentiles was so persistent and pervasive (as well His commands should be), it took a direct revelation to the president of the Church (president = one who presides), Peter, to change the policy and allow the gospel to go to the Gentiles (Acts 10). Yet, when Spencer W. Kimball, the Lord’s prophet and president of His Church in 1978 received the revelation extending priesthood and temple rights to all worthy people, fundamentalists gleefully pounce on it as a “holy grail” silver bullet against Mormonism.
This is a perfect illustration of what I said about critics of Mormonism demonstrating through their assumptions, expectations, and demands that they would have reacted the same way to Jesus or prophets in those days if they lived back then. As LDS Church policies and practices are authoritatively changed from time to time, critics, acting in their role as modern-day Pharisees, “revile . . . wagging their heads” (Matthew 27:39), but in doing so they “inculcate a principle that never would have given them a Bible.” There is a certain amount of perceived “safety” in an all-sufficient, inerrant, infallible Bible (or pope): one is spared from having to wrestle with the gravity of discerning divine revelations and divine communications, since absolutely nothing outside of the closed canon of the Bible is even considered. When asked if God could reveal something to us in our day or call prophets in our day, bibliolaters confidently reply, “He simply won’t. End of discussion.”
Which would have done Abraham no good at all when God commanded him to sacrifice, in his old age, his only son (and to all human appearance the only means for fulfilling God’s promise that his seed would be innumerable). After all, everyone knows that “the true God” would never require that, right? Similarly, modern-day Pharisees need never fear being in danger of being tried or tested to see if they will do all that God commands, whatever that is. To them, all God has to say or ever will have to say is already safely contained in the "all-sufficient" Bible.
| | | |
|
| | lovecopasometimes
Posts:46
| | 11/27/2007 6:56 PM |
Alert | | justincredible02 and rooman-you both have just said exactly what I have been thinking reading this thread. Good job. | | | |
|
| | Rooman
Posts:7
| | 11/27/2007 10:13 PM |
Alert | Moinmoin,
I am going to explain this as clearly as possible. The more mormons use Bible scripture after Bible scriptue to argue their points, the less credibility they have. YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE! Please, stop it. Your claim that Jesus didn't want to preach the gospel to the Gentiles is totally false. I could go round and round with you over that, but it would be pointless because I spend my time studying the Bible, while your religion spends coutless hours trying to discredit it and claim mistranslations. Argue with the bom, because that is what you believe in. | | | |
|
| | moinmoin
Posts:415
| | 11/28/2007 2:40 PM |
Alert | Posted By Rooman on 11/27/2007 10:13 PM
Moinmoin,
I am going to explain this as clearly as possible. The more mormons use Bible scripture after Bible scriptue to argue their points, the less credibility they have. YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE! Please, stop it.
You repeat this mantra like you're trying to reassure yourself that it's true, but just saying it doesn't make it so. Here are links to the Mormon Sunday School courses of study for the Old and New Testament, which comprises exactly half of the entire curriculum (rotated annually; both the Old and New Testament are covered for a year apiece, the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants both have a year apiece as well):
Old Testament: http://tinyurl.com/3xokwq
New Testament: http://tinyurl.com/3755sp
I challenge you, or anyone else, to find one instance in them that tries "to discredit [the Bible] and claim mistranslations," to say nothing of "countless hours" spent doing so. This is not only an absurd claim, it is patently false, and I can't help but think that you know it to be false to some degree. This may well be your recollection of what is taught and pursued in the Church, but it is honestly foreign to believing, active Mormons. The caricature of Mormon teachings and practices emphasized by other churches bears no resemblance to what we as members teach and practice, and actually helps our evangelizing efforts. It is pretty obvious to those who are searching or unencumbered by prejudices and preconceptions (and who become intimately acquainted with Mormons and Mormonism) that other churches are unreliable sources of information concerning our church. As reported in Reuters last week, for example, the Southern Baptist Convention “regard[s the LDS Church] as a competitor that is winning — or poaching — converts from among the evangelical flock.” According to Dr. Richard Land of the SBC, “There are now more Mormons that used to be Southern Baptist than any other denomination . . . As a consequence, Southern Baptists and other evangelicals have taught their people what Mormons believe . . . to inoculate them against those Mormon missionaries.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071121/pl_nm/usa_politics_romney_dc_1
I’m amazed that it doesn’t seem to occur to other churches that holding seminars and classes on how to combat Mormonism not only doesn’t stop defections, it piques the interest and curiosity of its members and invites investigation of Mormonism. In my experience, such classes have the opposite effect to what is intended. Mormon Church meetings, on the other hand, do not hold presentations on how to witness to Methodists, or Baptists, or Presbyterians, etc.
It may interest some on this forum to know that, despite non-Mormon professions of love for the Bible and accusations that Mormons don’t really believe in it, Barna Research (an evangelical research group) finds that “Mormons are more likely to read the Bible during the week than are Protestants or Catholics.” This is within my experience as well, and is a source of some embarrassment and consternation to devoted Bible readers outside the Mormon faith.
http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=103
Rooman wrote: “Your claim that Jesus didn't want to preach the gospel to the Gentiles is totally false. I could go round and round with you over that, but it would be pointless because I spend my time studying the Bible, while your religion spends countless hours trying to discredit it and claim mistranslations.”
I didn’t say Jesus didn’t want to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles, only that He commanded them not to. Why would explaining this to me be pointless? This is a religion folder in an online discussion and message forum. I have never seen a critic of Mormonism (especially those anxious to exploit the 1978 revelation) explain in a satisfactory manner how this is somehow all right in the New Testament, but the 1978 revelation is all wrong. Please enlighten me.
It’s interesting that you bring up the question of desire in this. Pre-1978 Mormon leaders consistently spoke of the day when God would authorize the priesthood policy to be changed. These statements (which I can provide, if anyone is interested) were referred to in the actual 1978 revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants:
“Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God's eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance. He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple.” (Official Declaration 2).
Rooman wrote: “Argue with the BoM, because that is what you believe in.”
I have no argument with the Book of Mormon or the Bible; I am merely defending the Church from attacks and criticisms. | | | |
|
| | Rabbit
Posts:250
| | 11/28/2007 3:59 PM |
Alert | This should be evidence to Mormons to wake up and realize they are in a false Religion, and they need to repent and turn to the one true God of the Bible.
i have never understood why people feel the need to:
A) judge a person based on their religion. religion does not necessarily dictate the "goodnes" of a person.
B) try to force people to into believing in the same things as them.
C) believe, so devoutly in something, that they are unable to accept that any alternatives might or might not exist. perfect example: evolution.
im a smart guy, i think...but the behavior of some people is just incomprehensible to me. | |
"Sometimes I think you have to march right in and demand your rights, even if you don't know what your rights are, or who the person is you're talking to. Then on the way out, slam the door." | |
|
| | joe_2007
Posts:83
| | 11/28/2007 6:06 PM |
Alert | Posted By moinmoin on 11/28/2007 2:40 PM
You repeat this mantra like you're trying to reassure yourself that it's true, but just saying it doesn't make it so. Here are links to the Mormon Sunday School courses of study for the Old and New Testament, which comprises exactly half of the entire curriculum (rotated annually; both the Old and New Testament are covered for a year apiece, the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants both have a year apiece as well):
Old Testament: http://tinyurl.com/3xokwq
New Testament: http://tinyurl.com/3755sp
I challenge you, or anyone else, to find one instance in them that tries "to discredit [the Bible] and claim mistranslations," to say nothing of "countless hours" spent doing so. This is not only an absurd claim, it is patently false...
Moinmoin,
Apperently your Sunday school materials don't quote the Articles of Faith or Orson Pratt,the last surviving member of the original Council of the Twelve.
"We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is traslated correctly"("Eighth Article of Faith")
"But the Bible has been robbed of it's plainess; many sacred books having been lost, others rejected by the Romish Church, and what few we have left, were copied and recopied so many times, that it is admitted that almost every verse has been corrupted and mutilated to the degree that scarcely any two of them read alike" (Seer, Orson Pratt, p 213) | | | |
|
| | DaybyDay
Posts:288
| | 11/28/2007 8:22 PM |
Alert | Where did I claim that the Bible isn't true? As do all Mormons, I believe the Bible to be scripture, but I don't believe it to be infallible or inerrant.
Here is a major difference. Christians do believe the Bible to be infallible and inerrant. Without a doubt, we believe the Bible to be the only Word of God. This, as well as some other key doctrinal issues, cannot be changed. However, when I speak to Mormons they believe they are Christians, or at least, they will tell you they are Christians...however, when you get into it with them...believes such as the one quoted from a person on this forum, come out. I do not know how you can say that you are Christians or that you believe in God (of the Bible) and then make statements like this. | | | |
|
| | EEE
Posts:374
| | 11/28/2007 9:36 PM |
Alert | Changing a word in the introduction to the Book of Mormon may not seem like a huge thing to most folks, but it is the word that is changed that says a lot.
Joseph Smith believed the Book of Mormon story took place all across the United States, including upstate New York. That is, the battles and armies described in the book were not tiny affairs hidden away in some yet-to-be-discovered valley in the jungle of Meso-America. The fact that Smith identified some bones found during one of his journeys as a "Lamanite" proves this.
Now, the current leaders of the Mormon church realizes that the introduction made historical claims that have no foundation whatsoever, thus the word change. This takes away creditability from Joseph Smith(To those that thinks he has any)
So do you believe God did not give the most accurate information to your apostle Bruce R. McConkie in 1981, and saved it for the LDS leaders to change in 2007? God doesn't make mistakes.
| |
Yeah, it's true- He allowed the fall of man/
But He used it now to exalt the Lamb/
The Lord, who's wise, permits existence of sin/
to be glorified in His forgiveness to men/ | |
|
| | EEE
Posts:374
| | 11/28/2007 9:42 PM |
Alert | Posted By Rooman on 11/25/2007 6:05 PM
As a former mormon I would like to refute your claims that the title page didn't mean what it said it meant. Oh, and just so you know, I did serve a "mission" and was even a branch president, so I do know about the religion. Anyway's, in response to your weak attempt to defend yet another change in mormon doctrine I say this. What about those revelations in d&c concerning the Native Americans needing the gospel delivered to them because they are "descendants of Lamen and Lemuel?" It can't be any more clear than that. Joseph Smith didn't realize that Science would put a stop to his little scheme. So my advice, should you be humble enough to take it, would be to open your eyes and think for yourself. Spend some time reading what Jesus says in the Bible and less time reading what joseph smith wrote. Jesus is the way to God, not joseph smith.
Shane Pannell
Shane,
I appreciate you sharing your testimony, and I look forward to learning more.
You gave a few reasons on why you left Mormonism, but if you don't mind I wold like to hear the specifics on those reasons on what turned you away from Mormonism and to the true Christ of the Bible. | |
Yeah, it's true- He allowed the fall of man/
But He used it now to exalt the Lamb/
The Lord, who's wise, permits existence of sin/
to be glorified in His forgiveness to men/ | |
|
| | EEE
Posts:374
| | 11/28/2007 9:49 PM |
Alert | Posted By moinmoin on 11/27/2007 6:50 PM
The problem here, justincredible02, is that Jesus and His apostles did something very similar to what you are alleging is an unforgivable “flip-flop” for Mormonism. When sending forth the apostles and the seventy, Jesus commanded them not to take the gospel to the Gentiles:
"These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not" (Matthew 10:5).
Where is the fundamentalist Christian/evangelical outrage? Where is the questioning of whether “the true God” would really deny the gospel to any people at any time?
Wow, your eisegesis is in full force here.
God didn't forbid the disciples to preach to Gentiles or Samaritans if they encountered them on the way, but they were to take the message first to the covenant people, in the regions nearby.
Romans 1:16
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
That is a very ridiculous claim to compare the Mormons outcasting of Blacks to Christ telling the Apostles to goto the Jews first. | |
Yeah, it's true- He allowed the fall of man/
But He used it now to exalt the Lamb/
The Lord, who's wise, permits existence of sin/
to be glorified in His forgiveness to men/ | |
|
| | EEE
Posts:374
| | 11/28/2007 9:57 PM |
Alert | I find it interesting how the Mormons today can't agree on what their doctrine teaches.
For Example:
Do Mormons believe in the virgin birth of Christ?
OR
Do Mormons believe Jesus is the physical offspring of Elohim, the Father, who likewise has a physical body. That is, that Jesus was physically begotten in a sexual union between the Father and Mary?
If was taking a tally, I would say it's 50/50 of the answers I have received from Mormons on this topic?
I thought Mormons have the same lessons Nationwide every Sunday? Then, how come they can't agree on something as important as the birth of Jesus Christ? | |
Yeah, it's true- He allowed the fall of man/
But He used it now to exalt the Lamb/
The Lord, who's wise, permits existence of sin/
to be glorified in His forgiveness to men/ | |
|
| | justincredible02
Posts:25
| | 11/29/2007 6:24 AM |
Alert | "I thought Mormons have the same lessons Nationwide every Sunday? Then, how come they can't agree on something as important as the birth of Jesus Christ?"
Good points EEE. Why do LDS members think Sunday is a day when you're only allowed to go to church. Well if that's the case why was Steve Young descent of Brigham Young allowed to "work" on Sundays? It could be that he's kicking back 10% back to the church.
Mormons think they are "holier than thou" | | | |
|
| |
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
| |
ActiveForums 3.6 |
|
|
|