Mormon men can get their own planet

[Sincirr]

any questions?
Only the one that U wouldnt answer.

Mormons just came to my door and I asked them about the getting your own planet thing. First they sorta umm'ed and aaaa'red about it and said well we believe that we can be just like God etc... and I said

OK now come on, can you get your own planet or not?

Now the elders thought that the way I put it made it sound a little silly but they said yes. Yes Mormons can get their own planet like God.

Now I dont know how many times I tried to get a straight answer from facelessman and he ignored my requests, but at least now we know that it is the true doctrine of the mormon church. Just thought I would let everyone know. Once again, I dont hate you, but U should tell the truth.

[creedsister]

:D well the way i look it :) Without Going In To Pacific Details Poochie~~ooochie :D GOD LIKE OWNS THE UNIVERESE In Stuff And We Our Like Children Of God So If We Desire A Planent And Have Placed In Heaven Sure But I Really Dont Have A Need A Of A Planent :D Sounds Like To Much Trouble To Me to be an owner of a entire planent

[Xterminator27]

they can have Venus, but NOONE is touching my Mars

[creedsister]

:D you can have it if i did want one i want one thats not on the maps you know that was here before or something those plantents are so overated i know there is better one out there with much more liken to my brain of wonders :D

[facelessman]

wow, my friend, lets all be mature now. how many times do i have to answer your question. i guess its because you didnt like the first answer. here we go again.
first off let me just say that anyone can have a planet. its just not everyone that will be able to. there are requirements to fulfill. what are they?
matt. 5:5 "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth."
any more questions?

[Sincirr]

hahahah thats hillarious!!! you are getting funnier in your elder-ly age!

Nope, you know cos U have been told that just like God U can get your own planet and can make cellestial babies to send them to earth etc. Cmon now.

Point is even though U wont tell the truth, at least I got it straight from an elders mouth.

[facelessman]

whats with you ppl. you claim to want to understand the truth of the LDS, but when that truth is given, you take it as naught. that is the truth. Christ promised that if we are meek, then we shall inherit the earth. what more do you want? ok ill give more:
"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. 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." 1john 3:2

[aussiecreeder]

what does the meek inheriting the earth got to do with having your own planet? this is jesus saying that the humble (for God hates pride at least of the selfish variety) will be rewarded in the after life but there is no mention of other planets. the notion that jesus and satan are brothers is totally unbiblical, satan is a created being which jesus is not according to the bible. furthermore what exactly is in it for women here? they get to produce baby after baby? go tell the feminist groups that! LOL

anyhow we'll debate forever and no-one will move....sometimes i wonder why i bother.

PS: I will say that Joseph Smith fails as a prophet cause we now know he made up what "The Book of Abraham" states. It had nothing at all to do with Abraham, the Egyptian litreature he "translated" described an embalming procedure.

[Higher_Desire]

I know I shouldn't get involved here because nothing new is going to happen. Let me just start by saying, don't let one speak for all.

Now let me say this. It origianlly stemmed from the biblical teaching of "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." It has been blown way out of proportion since Joseph Smith wrote of it and spoke about it. And Genesis 3:5 says: "For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

Now get it straight: We can become as gods. I AM NOT saying the ONLY Mormons are included in this. This pertains to ALL who inherit the kingdom of God from ANY religion. I don't know why you keep saying that we are avoiding the topic. We tell you this every time you say something about it. Also, MANY LDS people are still confused about the teaching. It has been clarified many times by the president of the church as well as others in high church authority.

You say they hummed and hawed around the subject when I think you're not telling the whole story. They probably said something to the effect of "Well, you see, it's not that simple. It's not as cut and dry like that." and you were once again construing what people say. Ultimatly, one CAN become a creator in the next life. The bible teaches that we will inherit the kingdom of God and can learn EVERYTHING that he knows. Why would that exclude creation? But, as I've told you before, JUST BECAUSE ONE CAN, DOES NOT MEAN ONE WILL.

the notion that jesus and satan are brothers is totally unbiblical, satan is a created being which jesus is not according to the bible. furthermore what exactly is in it for women here? they get to produce baby after baby? go tell the feminist groups that! LOL
First, you are right that that teaching is unbiblical, however, you are wrong in saying that we teach it. This is the basis: All was in the beginning with God. Good and evil are neither created or destroyed as they are concepts. God did create Lucifer, as he did all spirits. He also created Jesus as a spirit. Satan wanted to be sent to earth instead of Jesus and he would make everyone do the right thing and return to him. That was not God's way, and Jesus was sent. Lucifer rebelled and was kicked out of heaven. He then became the "fallen angel." He was cut off from ties with God. THEY ARE NOT BROTHERS AND THE CHURCH DOESN'T TEACH THAT. That is only inferred by people as being what it is.

About women. The same thing applies to men. There is no sex after death. People cannot get married to other spirits after death.
PS: I will say that Joseph Smith fails as a prophet cause we now know he made up what "The Book of Abraham" states. It had nothing at all to do with Abraham, the Egyptian litreature he "translated" described an embalming procedure.
Now, let me give you a brief overview of the story of Abraham.
Joseph Smith acquired the mummies from a man named Michael Chandler. He claimed to have recieved them from a man named Antonio Lobollo in his will when he died because he was a relative. Through searches, it it believed that Chandler's wife was actually the relative. Lobollo was an Italian who did archeological work in Egypt. When someone would remove something from an area, they would put their name on it. Since then, the name of "Lobollo" has been found in areas of Egypt. Chandler lived in Philadelphia. He contacted Joseph Smith in Ohio because he was told of a man who translated plates from another language. He traveled to see Smith and sold him the mummies for about $3,000. Joseph left the mummies in his will to his wife Emma. After JS was killed, Emma remarried Colonel Biddham (a colonel in the Confederate Army) and they donated the mummies to a museum in Chicago. In the great Chicago fire, the mummies were destroyed. Prior to that time, the papyrus that was with them were shown to be ultimately translated correctly. Keep in mind that it wasn't until the discovery of the Rosetta Stone that made many translations known. That is happened, and they have not been shown to be false.


Aren't you guys getting tired of this? Or is it that you have nothing better to do with your time than try to argue what you don't know and point out falts in others when you yourselves have imperfections.

Just out of curiosity, what religions do you belong to?


H-D :pimp:

[aussiecreeder]

I know I shouldn't get involved here because nothing new is going to happen. Let me just start by saying, don't let one speak for all.

Now let me say this. It origianlly stemmed from the biblical teaching of "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." It has been blown way out of proportion since Joseph Smith wrote of it and spoke about it. And Genesis 3:5 says: "For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

Now get it straight: We can become as gods. I AM NOT saying the ONLY Mormons are included in this. This pertains to ALL who inherit the kingdom of God from ANY religion. I don't know why you keep saying that we are avoiding the topic. We tell you this every time you say something about it. Also, MANY LDS people are still confused about the teaching. It has been clarified many times by the president of the church as well as others in high church authority.

You say they hummed and hawed around the subject when I think you're not telling the whole story. They probably said something to the effect of "Well, you see, it's not that simple. It's not as cut and dry like that." and you were once again construing what people say. Ultimatly, one CAN become a creator in the next life. The bible teaches that we will inherit the kingdom of God and can learn EVERYTHING that he knows. Why would that exclude creation? But, as I've told you before, JUST BECAUSE ONE CAN, DOES NOT MEAN ONE WILL.


First, you are right that that teaching is unbiblical, however, you are wrong in saying that we teach it. This is the basis: All was in the beginning with God. Good and evil are neither created or destroyed as they are concepts. God did create Lucifer, as he did all spirits. He also created Jesus as a spirit. Satan wanted to be sent to earth instead of Jesus and he would make everyone do the right thing and return to him. That was not God's way, and Jesus was sent. Lucifer rebelled and was kicked out of heaven. He then became the "fallen angel." He was cut off from ties with God. THEY ARE NOT BROTHERS AND THE CHURCH DOESN'T TEACH THAT. That is only inferred by people as being what it is.

About women. The same thing applies to men. There is no sex after death. People cannot get married to other spirits after death.

Now, let me give you a brief overview of the story of Abraham.
Joseph Smith acquired the mummies from a man named Michael Chandler. He claimed to have recieved them from a man named Antonio Lobollo in his will when he died because he was a relative. Through searches, it it believed that Chandler's wife was actually the relative. Lobollo was an Italian who did archeological work in Egypt. When someone would remove something from an area, they would put their name on it. Since then, the name of "Lobollo" has been found in areas of Egypt. Chandler lived in Philadelphia. He contacted Joseph Smith in Ohio because he was told of a man who translated plates from another language. He traveled to see Smith and sold him the mummies for about $3,000. Joseph left the mummies in his will to his wife Emma. After JS was killed, Emma remarried Colonel Biddham (a colonel in the Confederate Army) and they donated the mummies to a museum in Chicago. In the great Chicago fire, the mummies were destroyed. Prior to that time, the papyrus that was with them were shown to be ultimately translated correctly. Keep in mind that it wasn't until the discovery of the Rosetta Stone that made many translations known. That is happened, and they have not been shown to be false.


Aren't you guys getting tired of this? Or is it that you have nothing better to do with your time than try to argue what you don't know and point out falts in others when you yourselves have imperfections.

Just out of curiosity, what religions do you belong to?


H-D :pimp:

first of all i don't want to be seen as picking on you and facelessman and sincirr probably doesn't either. however i think your church teaches blatant error in fundamental areas of doctrine. btw i belong to a brethern church which is similar to a baptist church if you were wondering. basically a straight-forward teaching of the bible. as for what you said first of all satan is saying there that they can become like gods, in that they'll know good and evil, not that they'ld literally become gods. Satan was right, Adam and Eve did know good and evil in the story but he neglected to mentioned the pain involved in that choice. i'll come back to the papyrus issue a bit later when i've done some more research.

[facelessman]

straight forward teaching of the bible, huh? so youre being fed just the milk? when will you get the meat?" i have fed you with milk and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able" 1 cor 3:2. my man, youre still eatin baby's food. when will you grow up to the real man's stuff? it doesnt matter anyway, cause like it says, you wouldnt be able to bear it. well im glad that the Lord still speaks to us in these latter days, and that he's been feeding us with the meat...like man being able to inherit planet.

[RMadd]

they can have Venus, but NOONE is touching my Mars
how about Uranus?

[creedsister]

how about Uranus?
uh huh uh hu he said anus uh huh And What Do Mormon Chicks Get ?? Uh huh HAAAAAAAAAAAAAA :jam: :jam: :jam: Mormons Kick Ass

[Higher_Desire]

uh huh uh hu he said anus uh huh And What Do Mormon Chicks Get ?? Uh huh HAAAAAAAAAAAAAA :jam: :jam: :jam: Mormons Kick Ass
Do you not even read the posts? :wtf: Faceless and myself have already answered that.


H-D :pimp:

[creedsister]

:) haaaaaaaa yes i really must have read right through it it you guys posts are long ones...read over it, :)

[aussiecreeder]

how about Uranus?

nah no-one is going near my rear end! LOL
facelessman you continue to use verses way out of their context and debating you is nigh on impossible. not because you are beating me but because you are bordering on illogical. you won't find men inheriting plants in the bible.....as simple as that.

[Higher_Desire]

nah no-one is going near my rear end! LOL
facelessman you continue to use verses way out of their context and debating you is nigh on impossible. not because you are beating me but because you are bordering on illogical. you won't find men inheriting plants in the bible.....as simple as that.
It seems to me like you're the illogical one when you don't seem to understand the underlying concept: NEITHER MORMON MEN OR WOMEN GET THEIR OWN PLANET. It's a teaching that's been misunderstood and taken out of context, largely in efforts to extort the church and make it sound false. It also seems to me that you are doing that and not believing us when we say we do not get our own planet. You want to put the church down, as many do, but please stop using the same old tired arguments. If you want to put down our faith, please look deeper into it and find a new accusation that no one else has pointed out. Maybe, while you're doing that, you'll even find something you like. Who knows.

God is our Father in heaven, and Jesus is his son. Jesus died and was resurrected so we can live again. When we die, we can go to heaven (that is, if you are judged as good in this life). We then live in heaven for eternity. That's it. Plain and simple.


H-D :pimp:

[creedsister]

Ok I have a question just one its off topic but its a simple one ..Why did ? they name it THE CHURCH OF LATTER DAY SAINTS ..

[Higher_Desire]

Ok I have a question just one its off topic but its a simple one ..Why did ? they name it THE CHURCH OF LATTER DAY SAINTS ..
The full name of the church is actually The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
In part, it comes from 1 Corinthians 1:2 which says "Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours."

A more full explanation comes from the Book of Mormon in 3 Nephi 27:8 which says "And how be it my bchurch save it be called in my name? For if a church be called in Moses' name then it be Moses' church; or if it be called in the name of a man then it be the church of a man; but if it be called in my name then it is my church, if it so be that they are built upon my gospel."


H-D :pimp:

[tremonti4life04]

PS: I will say that Joseph Smith fails as a prophet cause we now know he made up what "The Book of Abraham" states. It had nothing at all to do with Abraham, the Egyptian litreature he "translated" described an embalming procedure.

This argument puts me in mind of an episode of south park...anyone know which one im talking about?

Well, anyway, i dont think that anyone will inherit their own planet, and i dont think thats the way the mormon religion would want it to be put into context. All human beings collectively inherited this planet, maybe thats the context they tried to put it in. You have to look at all scripture in a broad view, because a lot of it is written in metaphore. If you single out a scripture and look at it as saying one thing, and not looking at the millions of other things it could mean, then you arent exactly open minded in the sense that your religion would prefer that you are.

[tremonti4life04]

Now get it straight: We can become as gods. I AM NOT saying the ONLY Mormons are included in this. This pertains to ALL who inherit the kingdom of God from ANY religion. I don't know why you keep saying that we are avoiding the topic. We tell you this every time you say something about it. Also, MANY LDS people are still confused about the teaching. It has been clarified many times by the president of the church as well as others in high church authority.

Well, look at it this way, havent we already become gods? Look at who runs the world, us. We control the fate of eachother, we control what happens in this world, we control who lives, who dies, what animals become extinct, and soon, probably the creation of new animals, cross genetics and such. We are already, in our own right, acting as gods. One person with nuclear warheads could eradicate an entire country, if thats not acting as god, then i dont know what is.

[creedsister]

The full name of the church is actually The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
In part, it comes from 1 Corinthians 1:2 which says "Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours."

A more full explanation comes from the Book of Mormon in 3 Nephi 27:8 which says "And how be it my bchurch save it be called in my name? For if a church be called in Moses' name then it be Moses' church; or if it be called in the name of a man then it be the church of a man; but if it be called in my name then it is my church, if it so be that they are built upon my gospel."


H-D :pimp:
Thank Ya For Clearing That Up

[Higher_Desire]

This argument puts me in mind of an episode of south park...anyone know which one im talking about?

Well, anyway, i dont think that anyone will inherit their own planet, and i dont think thats the way the mormon religion would want it to be put into context. All human beings collectively inherited this planet, maybe thats the context they tried to put it in. You have to look at all scripture in a broad view, because a lot of it is written in metaphore. If you single out a scripture and look at it as saying one thing, and not looking at the millions of other things it could mean, then you arent exactly open minded in the sense that your religion would prefer that you are.
Yes, I do know what episode of South Park you're referring to. I've seen it a few times. And honestly, in the 20 minute episode, there's about 15 seconds of truth in it. The rest is construed teachings and opinions of Parker and Stone.

Well, look at it this way, havent we already become gods? Look at who runs the world, us. We control the fate of eachother, we control what happens in this world, we control who lives, who dies, what animals become extinct, and soon, probably the creation of new animals, cross genetics and such. We are already, in our own right, acting as gods. One person with nuclear warheads could eradicate an entire country, if thats not acting as god, then i dont know what is.
That's quite right. I couldn't find the scripture that I wanted to post, so I don't remember what the reference is, but the verse starts out "Have I not said, Ye are gods..." and then goes on to talk about how we are gods because our Father is God.

Thanks for what you said. You have a pretty good outlook, IMO.

Thank Ya For Clearing That Up
No prob.


H-D :pimp:

[dario]

I dont know if I would agree about us being "gods" because our Father is God. Could you please find a verse that says that in the context you are using it in. I just dont want to start getting into something until I have some definite sources. Thanks.



"Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."

[Higher_Desire]

I dont know if I would agree about us being "gods" because our Father is God. Could you please find a verse that says that in the context you are using it in. I just dont want to start getting into something until I have some definite sources. Thanks.



"Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."
Sure dario. This is what it refers to.
Firstly, let me start out by saying that this teaching has been greatly skewed because of people who don't understand it. It is NOT saying that we will be God. That is impossible. God is God, and no one can ever do what he does. Afterall, as it says in Ephesians 4:6, "One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."

With that said, Christ teaches that we are gods in John 10:32-35:
32 Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken.

That is also referenced back to Psalms 82:6-7:
6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.



In Deuteronomy 14:1, it says: "Ye are children of the Lord your God."
Essclesiastes 12:7: "And the spirit shall return to God who gave it."
Hosea 1:10: "Ye are the sons of the living God."
Acts 17:29: "Forasmuch then we are the offspring of God."

These references are some among many of ones that reference us as children of God. Because of this, he is our father and we can be like him, (With emphasis on the word LIKE him), and return to live with him. Matthew 5:48 says "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."
Let me explain it like this: I have a maternal father on this earth, as all living things do, and I am his child. I can be exactly like him, do everything like he does, act like him, talk like him, walk in his footsteps, etc. However, though I can be exactly like him, I can never be him. He is him, and I am me. This is the same thing as with God. Do you understand?

The teaching further continues (as is taught in many denominations) that after death, when we reside with God again, that he will make all things known to us, and we will have a perfect knowledge of EVERYTHING. So shouldn't that include creation? We will know how he created the earth, and in theory, could do it. Such as, if you were to build a house, I could know exactly how you did it, and reproduce the exact same house. Just because we would know how, doesn't mean we will do it. Also, we believe that it is not only Mormons who that applies to. It applies to EVERYONE who inherits the kingdom of God.

Does that help? Is there anything else you would like me to explain on it?


H-D :pimp:

[dario]

Thank you very much HD. After reading what you said and the verses you included, I would have to agree with what you have written. However, there are many other topics that have been discussed on this forum that I believe are not Scripturally sound. Topics such as Baptism of the Dead, The Book Of Mormon itself, and the planet issue. My belief is that if you have received Jesus into your heart and trust and follow in Him, then you are going to heaven. I don't believe that baptism plays a role in salvation nor do I believe in baptism of the dead. I haven't read The Book of Mormon, but when I read Revelation 22:18-19, I believe The Book of Mormon is an example of this. One thing I do respect about the Mormon religion however, is their determination to evangalize and the hard work that goes into it. If you care to discuss these topics more, I am more than willing to share with you my personal beliefs and convictions.


"The grace of the Lord Jesus be with God's people."

[creedsister]

:) i never post my opions here ...i just set back and take it all in ...You Have A The Gift Of And Strife :) Of Sticking To One DOCTRINE And You Do it well ... :) You,ve Almost had me converted :) a time or too ...i dont have any questions ... :) We Are All Trying To Get The Someplace If We Believe The Good Lord Has Prepared Us A Plantent..Or A Lit Room With Lit Flying Mintaure Colored ponys ...Or Beautiful Mermaids For serveants :) ....So I Say Peace Be With YA MORMON DUDE.....1 COR.8.20 NOW YE..Are Full Now Ye Are Rich Ye Have Reigned As Kings Wit Out Us And I Would To God Ye Did Reign That We Also Might Reign With You, For I think That God Hath Set Forth Us The Apostles Last As It Were Apponted Death For We Are Made A Spectale Unto The World And Unto The Angels And To Men We Are Fools For Christ Sake But Ye Are Wise In Christ We Are Weak But Ye Are Strong Ye Are Honourable But We Are Despised Even Unto This Present Hour We Both Hunger And Thirst And Are Naked And Are Buffeted And Have No Certain DWELLINGPLACE. And Labour Working With Our Own Hands Being Reviled We Bless Being Persecuted We Suffer Being Defamed We Entreat We Are Made Of Filth Of The World And Are The Offscouring Of All Things Unto This Day..I Write Not These Things To Shame You But As My Beloved Sons I warn You For Though Ye Have Ten Thousand INSTRUCTORS In Christ Yet Have Ye Not Many Fathers For In Christ Jesus I have Begotten You Through The Gospel Wherefore I beeseech You Be Followers Of Me For This I Cause Have I Sent Unto You Timotheus Who Is My Beloved Son And Faithful In The Lord Who Shall Bring You To Rememberance Of My Ways Which Be In Christ AS I TEACH EVERYWHERE AND IN EVERY CHURCH...Now Some Are Puffed Up As Though I would Not Come To You But I Will Come To You Shortly If The Lord Will And Will Know Puffed Up But The Power FOR THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS NOT IN WORD BUT IN POWER..What Will Ye Shall I come Unto You With A Rod OR IN LOVE AND IN THE SPIRT OF MEEKNESS..... 2 Cor..4.7.18 ..But We Have This Treasure In Earthen Vessels That The Excelency OF THIS POWER MAY BE OF GOD AND NOT OF US....We Are Troubled On Every Side Yet Not Distressed We Are Perplexed But Not In Despair Persecuted But Not Forsaken Cast Down But Not Destroyed Always Bearing About In The Body The Dying Of The Lord Jesus That The Life Also Of Jesus Might Be Manifest In Our Body For Which We Live Always Delivered Unto Death For Jesus Sake That the life Of Jesus Might Be Made Manifest In Our Mortal Flesh..So Then Death Worketh In Us But Life In You We Having The Same Spirt Of FAITH Acording As It Is Written I Believed And Therefore Have I Spoken We Also Believe Therefore We Speak...Knowing That Jesus Shall Rise Present Us With You For All Things Are For Your Sakes That The Abundant Grace Many Redound To The Glory Of God FOR WHICH CAUSE WE FAINT NOT But Though Our Outward Man Perish Yet The Inward Man Is Renewed DAY BY DAY For Our Light Afflictions Which Is But A Moment Worketh For Us A Far More Exceeding And Eternal Weight Of Glory..While We Look Not At Things Which Are Seen But At The Things Which Are Not Seen But At The Which Are Not Seen For The Things Which Are Seen Are Temporal But The Things Which Are Not Seen Are Eternal ...

[Higher_Desire]

Thank you very much HD. After reading what you said and the verses you included, I would have to agree with what you have written. However, there are many other topics that have been discussed on this forum that I believe are not Scripturally sound. Topics such as Baptism of the Dead, The Book Of Mormon itself, and the planet issue. My belief is that if you have received Jesus into your heart and trust and follow in Him, then you are going to heaven. I don't believe that baptism plays a role in salvation nor do I believe in baptism of the dead. I haven't read The Book of Mormon, but when I read Revelation 22:18-19, I believe The Book of Mormon is an example of this. One thing I do respect about the Mormon religion however, is their determination to evangalize and the hard work that goes into it. If you care to discuss these topics more, I am more than willing to share with you my personal beliefs and convictions.


"The grace of the Lord Jesus be with God's people."
There are many controversial topics that come up here, and baptism for the dead is one that people have focused on for a long time. I understand where you're coming from, but I believe it to be true. The last post I made for you was basically the foundation of the planet issue. Why people are still so confused about it and think we get our own planet, I don't know. We don't. Plain and simple.

That referece in Revelation is one that comes up quite a lot as well. Basically, there are two ways to look at it.
1) When the Romans organized the Bible, they did not do it in chronological order. They first put in what were believed to be the important gospels (Matt, Mark, Luke, John, and Acts), then put in Romans, as it pertained to them. Revelation was not the last book written in the Bible. Chronologically, it's actually near the beginning. Through archeological work done by Bible scholars, we know that it actually was one of the first written. Keep in mind that John wrote Revelation. The same John that wrote much of the New Testament. Books that come earlier on in the NT were written many years after some others. -- Please note, this is historical fact, and not a Mormon teaching set up to prove us right.

2) John could be talking solely about his book. He didn't want his writings changed. Just as if you were to write a book, and the publisher were to change the story, it would not be your work. John wanted his record to be preserved.

My personal opinion is that the Book of Mormon is not a part of what that references says because it does not add to the Bible in the sence of saying "OK, now you have to do this, this, this, this, and this." It does add another book, but it magnifies what is in the Bible, and accompanies it.

You say you haven't read the Book of Mormon, and my suggestion is maybe you should. You can get one from the missionaries or at an LDS chapel for free if you ask for one. If you would like to focus on it as a historical book instead of a religious book, I suggest that.

There are also believed to be some references in the Bible that reference the Book of Mormon and even Joseph Smith.
1) Isaiah 29:11 – “And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed.”
This is believed to be a reference because a man told that to Joseph Smith when he was translating the Book of Mormon. There were questions of its authenticity, so he took the plates and his translation to a scholar. The scholar looked at them, and wrote a letter saying it was correctly translated. There was a section of the Book that was locked by something, and we still do not have that portion. Because the man couldn’t see them, he ripped up the letter he wrote, and said, “I cannot read a sealed book.”
2) Numbers 11:6 – “And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.”
God and Jesus did appear to Joseph in a vision, and there are accounts of dreams of Joseph that reference seeing God and/or Jesus again.
3) Revelation 2:17 – “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that recieveth it.”
I found this verse the other day, and believe it has to do with the Book of Mormon (aka “hidden manna”) and the stone box that Joseph Smith found the plates in, what he overcame, and that no one knows of it’s truth except those who read it.

There are some others I can’t find right now.

As it says in the Book of Mormon in Moroni 10:4 – “And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.”

Lastly, I would like to thank you for the respectful way you post your questions. It is much better for me to answer sincere questions of asking instead of questions phrased and worded as accusations.

If there is anything at all you would like to discuss, feel free to let me know.


H-D :pimp:

[creedsister]

interesting....

[uncertaindrumer]

Actually, not to set off a bomb here, but Revelation WAS the last book written. Historical data supports this.

But honestly that does not MATTER to me. I don't care when the books of the Bible were written (at least, in relation to each other), that has no impact on me at all. I would like to say though, that if Mormons believe in the Bible, how on Earth can you say Jesus was created? That is just downright unthinkable if you believe in the Bible. And also, when did your church START? Not to bash you or anything, but I believe it was in the nineteenth century... Don't you think that's a LITTLE bit late of a start for a church that claims to be the "Church of Jesus Christ..."?

And yes, I know you are going to tell me about the great apostasy, but I dare you to come up with any evidence of it. Or is this not a topic for general Mormon discussion/debates? If not, forget everything I said, lol

[Higher_Desire]

Actually, not to set off a bomb here, but Revelation WAS the last book written. Historical data supports this.
No, data supports that it was written around the same time as the Gospels (Matthew through John).
But honestly that does not MATTER to me. I don't care when the books of the Bible were written (at least, in relation to each other), that has no impact on me at all. I would like to say though, that if Mormons believe in the Bible, how on Earth can you say Jesus was created? That is just downright unthinkable if you believe in the Bible. And also, when did your church START? Not to bash you or anything, but I believe it was in the nineteenth century... Don't you think that's a LITTLE bit late of a start for a church that claims to be the "Church of Jesus Christ..."?
Jesus was created, because he was created by God, as we all were as spirits. God is Jesus' father. In my opinion, if one hadn't created each other, they both would have been since the beginning, therefore we would have two gods. I could be wrong about that, but it makes sense to me. Jesus was a spirit, created by God, and born of the virgin Mary. Tell me where in the Bible it says that Jesus was not created.

Here's a brief timeline of the beginning of the church:
Dec 24, 1805 - Joseph Smith is born
Early Spring, 1820 - The First Vision
September 21-22, 1823 - J.S. told of the Gold Plates
September 22, 1827 - J.S. obtains the plates and begins translation
June, 1829 - Translation completed
April 6, 1830 - Organization of the church in Fayette Township, New York
April 26, 1838 - Name of the church specified
June 27, 1844 - Martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith at Carthage Jail in Carthage Illinois.

There's a bunch of other stuff in there I skipped, but this is all that's really revelant to this topic.

So the technical "beginning" you're referring to came on April 6, 1830, which was 175 years ago a little over a month ago. How do you mean it's "too late to claim to be the church of Jesus Christ?" I do understand how one can argue that since it is so young, but when is it too late to glorify Christ? Also, take a look at the new churches that spring up all the time claiming to be the truth.

And yes, I know you are going to tell me about the great apostasy, but I dare you to come up with any evidence of it. Or is this not a topic for general Mormon discussion/debates? If not, forget everything I said, lol
Yes, I will talk about the apostacy. As for evidence, you can look in school textbooks (I would suggest college texts based premodern civilization). Through them, one can see that there was a falling away of major religion, and areas that had no religion at all. Between the time of the death of Christ, up until the Roman empire, there is little to no evidence of the exsistance of religion. When religion started to be revived, it was done with writings that had been done on religion in years prior, and many of the truths that were once believed (truths we see evidence of through archeology and other manuscrips that were kept) were lost or deemed as unimportant. In the area of the "dark ages" there is practically no record of even so much as mortal life as we know it. You can read in the Bible of the "grafting of the olive branch", the "tree of life", and the grafting of the branches to the tree to restore it. Look at it like this: The tree = the church. The branches = all of us. We (the branches) need to be "brought back" to the church (the tree) and will be made a part of it. The tree was kept alive because of the roots (the people who kept religion going in secret in the early days), yet as the Bible also says, the roots had become corrupted over time by those who teach their own doctrine instead of the doctrine of the Lord.


And, yes, this is (or, can be) a thread for Mormon discussion. I'd rather have only one thread where stuff like this can be talked about instead of having a hundred accusation threads pop up in here. So keep the brain-busters coming. So far, everything that we've talked about on this board, I have been able to correct, and set straight our beliefs to those who claim to understand them, yet have no idea whatsoever of how confused they are on the subject.


H-D :pimp:

[uncertaindrumer]

First off, I am just letting you know that I know VERY LITTLE about Mormons, so unlike my debates with Protestantism where I can come out guns blazing, I am just trying to figure out what you believe, so don't take anything as acrimonious.

Second, what evidence have you to suggest that Revelation was written the same time as the Gospels? All the evidence I have seen and read points toward it being the last of the writings, towards the end of John's life.

Clearly, the Trinity is a difficult subject. We CAN'T understand it fully. But the Bible NEVER claims Jesus was created, and he always claims to be God, and yet at the same time that there is only one God. The only real explanation for this is the Trinity. Even if as humans we can't fully understand it, that doesn't make it impossible.

As for the beginning thing. Jesus founded a CHURCH. He says in Matthew that peter is the rock upon which he will build his "church". The epistles constantly refer to the "church". There was a CHURCH directly after Jesus ascended into heaven. Now, I do not know much about Mormonism, but are you claiming that was a Mormon church? Because if it was, the writings, letters, and books written by men of the early church should be mormon, and I can show you that they aren't.

Also, all the "churches" springing up around now are not Jesus' one true church. How could Jesus found a church that doesn't begin until 1900 years after his existance? Did he leave his followers helpless for so long? I would say no. Also, there most certainly WAS religion during the Roman era, I have no idea what you are reading. Nero's persecution is well documented, and yet you would have us say there is no church? (once again, I reiterate, I am not attacking your position, I am trying to understand it). Various Church Fathers wrote scores of material, including (but not limited to) Clement, Irenaus, Ignatius of Antioch, etc. I can point you toward MANY early church documents, all of which, by the way, support the Trinity, Jesus being the Son of God yet not created, and various other doctrines.

Either way, this has been enlightening, I hope no on takes my questions as personl attacks or anything like that. Cheers.

[Higher_Desire]

First off, I am just letting you know that I know VERY LITTLE about Mormons, so unlike my debates with Protestantism where I can come out guns blazing, I am just trying to figure out what you believe, so don't take anything as acrimonious.
OK.
Second, what evidence have you to suggest that Revelation was written the same time as the Gospels? All the evidence I have seen and read points toward it being the last of the writings, towards the end of John's life.
All I know about is studies that have been done. However, depending on who did the tests, how they were conducted, etc. different results can be found. There have been people who tested the validity of the Book of Mormon, for example, (both members and nonmenbers) who can find that it is 100% accurate, and others who find it to be 10% wrong based upon travels and whatnot of the people written about it. I'll try to look up more on the subject.
Clearly, the Trinity is a difficult subject. We CAN'T understand it fully. But the Bible NEVER claims Jesus was created, and he always claims to be God, and yet at the same time that there is only one God. The only real explanation for this is the Trinity. Even if as humans we can't fully understand it, that doesn't make it impossible.
True. I look at verses like Acts 7:55, which states that "But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God." Though, there are also things that claim that Jesus created the earth under the direction of God, so it's a really tough topic to figure out exactly what's going on. Of course, there are also references (ex: John, Hebrews, 1st John, etc) that refer to Jesus as "the only begotten of the Father" which could say that Jesus was the first spirit created.
As for the beginning thing. Jesus founded a CHURCH. He says in Matthew that peter is the rock upon which he will build his "church". The epistles constantly refer to the "church". There was a CHURCH directly after Jesus ascended into heaven. Now, I do not know much about Mormonism, but are you claiming that was a Mormon church? Because if it was, the writings, letters, and books written by men of the early church should be mormon, and I can show you that they aren't.
It wasn't a "Mormon Church" as we know it now, exactly. It was THE Church of Jesus Christ. It was taught and organized by him, and was the origianal Christian church. It didn't become the "mormon" church (as discussed here) until Joseph Smith organized the church in 1830. After Jesus died and ascended into heaven after his resurrection, things were kept going. Like everything with time, it changed. We do believe, however, that our church most closely eminates what the church was like in the time of Christ. It's not 100% the same, and no church ever will be 100% identical.
Also, all the "churches" springing up around now are not Jesus' one true church. How could Jesus found a church that doesn't begin until 1900 years after his existance? Did he leave his followers helpless for so long? I would say no. Also, there most certainly WAS religion during the Roman era, I have no idea what you are reading. Nero's persecution is well documented, and yet you would have us say there is no church? (once again, I reiterate, I am not attacking your position, I am trying to understand it). Various Church Fathers wrote scores of material, including (but not limited to) Clement, Irenaus, Ignatius of Antioch, etc. I can point you toward MANY early church documents, all of which, by the way, support the Trinity, Jesus being the Son of God yet not created, and various other doctrines.
Don't be so fast to judge new churches as not the truth. Take Lutheranism, for example. It was one of those churches once, when Martin Luther chose to reform the church, it became an offshoot, and eventually grew. Or that guy (I can't remember his name right now) who started the Methodist church. They both, at one time, were very minor and had only a few followers, yet grew with time. I really can't think of any religion (or religious sect) that was not minor and "wrong" at the time they were formed.

If you read in the bible, you can see of periods of time when there was no prophets for an extended period of time. God always guided his church, and sent prophets when they were ready; the willing men and women who desired to serve. We've always had the guide of the Bible during that time, and there was religion on earth that was good, but not exactly what there should have been. People have always been doing the work of God. There a verse (I don't remember where) that says something about making secrets of God known when the world is ready for them. I'll see if I can find it. Or, as it says in Amos 3:7 "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." I believe that from even before the birth of Christ in the New Testament through today and tomorrow that God leads the truth and reveals his secrets.

If you read exactly what I said, it was "up until the time of the Roman empire." The Roman Empire is one of the first big religious revivals that we see where they try to bring back many old beliefs, traditions, and customs. There were previous attempts before that as well, but that is where they really start to stick around.
Either way, this has been enlightening, I hope no on takes my questions as personl attacks or anything like that. Cheers.
I agree. You have many good positions on your understanding of religion. A lot moreso than some of the people in here.


H-D :pimp:

[Mulletman]

Hmmm... I dont like where this is headed.

[uncertaindrumer]

OK.

All I know about is studies that have been done. However, depending on who did the tests, how they were conducted, etc. different results can be found. There have been people who tested the validity of the Book of Mormon, for example, (both members and nonmenbers) who can find that it is 100% accurate, and others who find it to be 10% wrong based upon travels and whatnot of the people written about it. I'll try to look up more on the subject.

True. I look at verses like Acts 7:55, which states that "But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God." Though, there are also things that claim that Jesus created the earth under the direction of God, so it's a really tough topic to figure out exactly what's going on. Of course, there are also references (ex: John, Hebrews, 1st John, etc) that refer to Jesus as "the only begotten of the Father" which could say that Jesus was the first spirit created.

It wasn't a "Mormon Church" as we know it now, exactly. It was THE Church of Jesus Christ. It was taught and organized by him, and was the origianal Christian church. It didn't become the "mormon" church (as discussed here) until Joseph Smith organized the church in 1830. After Jesus died and ascended into heaven after his resurrection, things were kept going. Like everything with time, it changed. We do believe, however, that our church most closely eminates what the church was like in the time of Christ. It's not 100% the same, and no church ever will be 100% identical.

Don't be so fast to judge new churches as not the truth. Take Lutheranism, for example. It was one of those churches once, when Martin Luther chose to reform the church, it became an offshoot, and eventually grew. Or that guy (I can't remember his name right now) who started the Methodist church. They both, at one time, were very minor and had only a few followers, yet grew with time. I really can't think of any religion (or religious sect) that was not minor and "wrong" at the time they were formed.

If you read in the bible, you can see of periods of time when there was no prophets for an extended period of time. God always guided his church, and sent prophets when they were ready; the willing men and women who desired to serve. We've always had the guide of the Bible during that time, and there was religion on earth that was good, but not exactly what there should have been. People have always been doing the work of God. There a verse (I don't remember where) that says something about making secrets of God known when the world is ready for them. I'll see if I can find it. Or, as it says in Amos 3:7 "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." I believe that from even before the birth of Christ in the New Testament through today and tomorrow that God leads the truth and reveals his secrets.

If you read exactly what I said, it was "up until the time of the Roman empire." The Roman Empire is one of the first big religious revivals that we see where they try to bring back many old beliefs, traditions, and customs. There were previous attempts before that as well, but that is where they really start to stick around.

I agree. You have many good positions on your understanding of religion. A lot moreso than some of the people in here.


H-D :pimp:

"Begotten" does not mean created. In fact, the Nicene Creed clearly states Jesus as the eternally begotten of the Father, and yet all Christians who recite the Nicene Creed would definitely say Jesus is not created.

Alright, the Church issue is interesting. You say NO church of today is exactly what Jesus intended? NONE? How is that possible, if you believe his words "the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it"? I definitely believe there is a Church today that Jesus founded two thousand years ago, and I believe I am in it.

I certainly don't believe Lutheranism is the true church, so your example of new churches is faulty, as far as I am concerned. (I'm Catholic by the way, in case you wonder where I am coming from). I believe Jesus established ONE Church meant to live for all time. The Gates of Hell were not going to prevail against it, and it was not going to "change".

Let me explain something: in the Bible, Jesus clearly founds a Church. He also says it will prevail even against the Gates of Hell, AND he says you are either "with Him or against Him". (I don't have the exact scripture quotations but I can find them if need be). So basically, I don't see how you can say that no church today is the exact same as Jesus Church. He founded a Church, and then he let it fall apart or mutate? And by the way, when exactly do you think it fell apart? Because if I know that, I can explain somewhat more effectively.

If you are not in the one church, you are in the wrong church--clearly stated by His "with Him or agaisnt Him". So either you believe the Mormon Church is the only true church or you don't. Assuming, of course, that you do, wouldn't you believe it is the SAME Church that Jesus founded? If not, how can it be the true church?

As for the Trinity, I will give my case for that later, I am running out of time. But I definitely am enjoying this.

[dario]

A few months ago a couple of Mormons came to my door and started telling me about the Mormon religion. The conversation we had lasted close to an hour. Now a lot of things that the Mormons told me sounded very controversial, but the main one they talked about was the Trinity. They told me that they do not believe that Jesus and God are one. They believed that Jesus and God are separate beings. Is this a mistake or is this really a belief in the Mormon religion?



"Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who had blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ."

[uncertaindrumer]

A few months ago a couple of Mormons came to my door and started telling me about the Mormon religion. The conversation we had lasted close to an hour. Now a lot of things that the Mormons told me sounded very controversial, but the main one they talked about was the Trinity. They told me that they do not believe that Jesus and God are one. They believed that Jesus and God are separate beings. Is this a mistake or is this really a belief in the Mormon religion?



"Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who had blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ."

I'm not sure about this but I believe Mormosn think Jesus is created, and hence, not God, and hence, can't be ONE with God. I'm sure higher desire will clear that up for you. In relation to the Trinity, I don't see how one could NOT believe in it after reading the following passages:

Matthew 28: 18-19
Matthew 3: 16
Luke 1: 30-35
John 10: 38, 14: 9, 17: 10
2 Corinthians 13:13
Ephesians 2:18, 4: 6
1 Timothy 2: 5
1 Peter 1: 12
1 John 5: 7-8

Also, there are numerous references in the Bible of God being the only God.

Deuteronomy 6: 4-9
Isaiah 40: 25-28, 41: 43: 10-13, 44: 6-8
1 Chronicles 17: 20
Mark 12: 29
1 Corinthians 8: 4-6

So, seeing as the Bible says there is only ONE God, and that Jesus IS God, then the only acceptable explenation is the Trinity.

[dario]

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer) Actually, not to set off a bomb here, but Revelation WAS the last book written. Historical data supports this.

No, data supports that it was written around the same time as the Gospels (Matthew through John).

Here is my data from a Life Application Bible New International Version.
Matthew: written between A.D. 60-65.
Mark: written between A.D. 55-65.
Luke: written A.D. 60
John: written A.D 85-90 before his exile to Patmos

I just wanted to post real quick the dates that Revelation and the gospels were written. Revelation was written in A.D. 95 from Patmos. I know that we've all been saying, "studies show it was written then and at this time." Find these "studies" and post them so that we can get the facts instead of the rumors.

[uncertaindrumer]

Well actually, I was thinkingthat Revelation WAS written sometime around 95 A.D. If it was written around 95 A.D., though, that would make it highly likely that it was the last book written, since John, the last living Apostle, died soon thereafter.

Once again, though, the timeline of the books does not have too much influence on the current discussion.

[Higher_Desire]

"Begotten" does not mean created. In fact, the Nicene Creed clearly states Jesus as the eternally begotten of the Father, and yet all Christians who recite the Nicene Creed would definitely say Jesus is not created.
I never said that "bogotten" meant created. I know that it means that he was selected by God in the beginning as "the one." The bible states that he was the first chosen.
Alright, the Church issue is interesting. You say NO church of today is exactly what Jesus intended? NONE? How is that possible, if you believe his words "the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it"? I definitely believe there is a Church today that Jesus founded two thousand years ago, and I believe I am in it.
Well, I believe that I'm in the right one. Other people believe they're in the right one as well. Who's right? Do only members of one particular religion go to heaven?
I certainly don't believe Lutheranism is the true church, so your example of new churches is faulty, as far as I am concerned. (I'm Catholic by the way, in case you wonder where I am coming from). I believe Jesus established ONE Church meant to live for all time. The Gates of Hell were not going to prevail against it, and it was not going to "change".
Just because I used it as an example does not make it useless. I know you don't believe it, and I don't either, but my point was that what were one time considered as these apostate-type offshoots and untrue, have come to be widely accepted religions and religious sects.
Let me explain something: in the Bible, Jesus clearly founds a Church. He also says it will prevail even against the Gates of Hell, AND he says you are either "with Him or against Him". (I don't have the exact scripture quotations but I can find them if need be). So basically, I don't see how you can say that no church today is the exact same as Jesus Church. He founded a Church, and then he let it fall apart or mutate? And by the way, when exactly do you think it fell apart? Because if I know that, I can explain somewhat more effectively.
Firstly, I absolutely agree that he founded a church and one who isn't with him is against him. I believe I said something similar earlier. However, HE didn't let it fall apart or mutate, as you say. It was corrupted by men (examples: Acts 8:3, Matt 21/Mark 11/Luke 19). Just because God tells them how it should be ran, doesn't mean they're going to do it. You can see in the bible how Christ's church changed after his crucifixion.
If you are not in the one church, you are in the wrong church--clearly stated by His "with Him or agaisnt Him". So either you believe the Mormon Church is the only true church or you don't. Assuming, of course, that you do, wouldn't you believe it is the SAME Church that Jesus founded? If not, how can it be the true church?
But does the word "church" as used in the bible exactly the same as we use it today? Oftentimes in the bible, where the church is referenced, it is used as "the believers." I do believe that the mormon church is the MOST correct. I believe there is more truth in it than any other church, even though all churches that teach the love of God, Christ-like works, God's saving grace, love of your neighbor, biblical teachings, etc. are good and legit churches. Just out of curiosity, do you know about Gematria?

Let me talk about the verses you posted now:
Matthew 28: 18-19
- All power was given to God in the beginning. As I've said, he is the only begotten of the Father.
- Why would Jesus tell them to baptize them in his name, his name, and his name if he is all three? He says "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

Matthew 3: 16
- Did Christ open the heavens, and make his own spirit decend upon him, and call his voice from heaven?

Luke 1: 30-35
- "Son of the highest"
- "Son of God"

John 10: 38, 14: 9, 17: 10
- The father is in him, just like my father is in me, as I am his son and have learned from him, and I am in him because he raised me. Christ was teaching what God wanted taught. Read the two verses before 38. He mentions "Son of God" and "My Father".

2 Corinthians 13:13
- I don't see what this verse has to do with anything. It just says "All the saints salute you."

Ephesians 2:18, 4: 6
- It is referencing "the Spirit" as the Holy Spirit, by which we all can commune with the father.

1 Timothy 2: 5
- This is a good one. "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." Personally, I think that supports my side of the argument.

1 Peter 1: 12
- Again, the spirit is on earth, as we rely on it and reference it always. It decended upon Christ at his baptism, and leads us today as we follow God's word.

1 John 5: 7-8
- This is good to your side. v 7 does say "the three that bear record in heaven, the father, the word, and the holy ghost: and these three are one." but then the next verse says "...bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." Last time I checked, spirit, blood, and water were all different. Have you ever heard the statement "Working as a team you work as one"? I think that also works for this.


Well, I've been on here for a bit long, and I have to go to an art show opening, but I'll post about the "Trinity vs. Godhead" thing and our stance on it later, as dario requested. (about an hour or so).


-D :pimp:

[Higher_Desire]

A few months ago a couple of Mormons came to my door and started telling me about the Mormon religion. The conversation we had lasted close to an hour. Now a lot of things that the Mormons told me sounded very controversial, but the main one they talked about was the Trinity. They told me that they do not believe that Jesus and God are one. They believed that Jesus and God are separate beings. Is this a mistake or is this really a belief in the Mormon religion?



"Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who had blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ."
It is a belief that they are three seperate beings, yet they work together with one purpose.
Romans 8:38 says "Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."
Also Acts 7:55-56 says "But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God."


Here's what I've found on Revelation:
There are many conflicting sources. What is basically believed by historians, archeologist, etc. is that it could have been written either around 60 AD under Nero, or between about 90 and 92 AD under Domition. Long story short, it is primarily believed to be either during the same time, or just after, yet still before many of the other books.


-D :pimp:

[Higher_Desire]

Here's a couple more you can look up on "Godhead or Trinity":
Genesis 1:26
Genesis 3:22
Matthew 3:17
Matthew 20:23
Matthew 26:39
John 5:19
John 8:18
John 14:28
John 20:17
2 Corinthians 4:4
Ephesians 3:14


H-D :pimp:

[Ivan_Creed]

Some people should write shorter, and conclude that they should really get their own planet, that would be later invaded by the Empire, and turned into slaves that work in mines extracting an unknown mineral used for photon torpedoes... :dorky:
Then Dave Chapell came.. :D

:alien:

[uncertaindrumer]

You say that God didn't corrupt the Church, and that MEN did. Yet, you have not dealt with how that is possible if Jesus promised NOT to let the Church be corrupted.

By the way, when you dealt with the verses, you dealt with them individually. Here is my point: it is obvious that there are both God, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and yet the Bible also says that there is only one God! I do not see how you can then say that there are three gods working in unison. It just makes no sense.

Also, I still didn't catch WHEN you think the Church was corrupted? Most mormons seem to think it was in the reign of Constantine, but I do not know if that is a Mormon belief or jsut hte personal opinion of ones I talked to, please enlighten me.

[Higher_Desire]

Some people should write shorter, and conclude that they should really get their own planet, that would be later invaded by the Empire, and turned into slaves that work in mines extracting an unknown mineral used for photon torpedoes... :dorky:
Then Dave Chapell came.. :D

:alien:
WTH does that have to do with anything???

You say that God didn't corrupt the Church, and that MEN did. Yet, you have not dealt with how that is possible if Jesus promised NOT to let the Church be corrupted.
Jesus didn't promise not to let the church get corrupted. Once he wasn't on earth anymore, it wasn't up to him, because he wasn't physically leading it. Men were leading it under his direction, but they still have the ability to construe the teachings (just as we do).
By the way, when you dealt with the verses, you dealt with them individually. Here is my point: it is obvious that there are both God, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and yet the Bible also says that there is only one God! I do not see how you can then say that there are three gods working in unison. It just makes no sense.
What's wrong with dealing with them individually? Looking at them as a whole still supports (at least to me) that they are seperate. Also, I NEVER SAID that they are three gods. They are three people, ONE GOD. Along with the one God, is one son, and one spirit. They are one in purpose (ie, the work of God, bringing souls unto Christ, etc.)
Also, I still didn't catch WHEN you think the Church was corrupted? Most mormons seem to think it was in the reign of Constantine, but I do not know if that is a Mormon belief or jsut hte personal opinion of ones I talked to, please enlighten me.
I don't believe you can put an exact time on when the church was corrupted. It has never been taught (that is to say, it is not doctrine) that it happened during the reign of Constantine. It's possible, but not definate. In the bible, you can see evidence of the church already beginning to change when Christ was crucified. Also, one thing I could point out, is that not only did it change, but it has not stopped changing. Churches spring up all over the place today that claim to be the full truth, and try to go back to exactly how the church was organized in the new testament, and follow practices of the old testament. Still today people change things and teach their own interpretations.


H-D :pimp:

[uncertaindrumer]

Maybe "churches" change and spring up all over the place, but I don't think Christ's church was meant to morph into something else. And yes, Christ DID promise the Church would last, "The Gates of Hell will not prevail agaisnt you".

And if you believe there is only one God and yet three persons in God, how is that Different from the Trinity?

Finally, The reason I ask for the time you think the Church started to go sour is because early Church Father writings all back up Catholic doctinres. We see evidence of the Eucharist, the Trinity, superiority of the Bishops, etc. etc. Yet if the early Church was Mormon, we wouldn't see those things, would we? For instance, writing in the first or second decade of the second century, St. Irenaus writes in his "Against Heresies" (speaking about a certain group of heretics):

"...For they do not confess the Eucharist to be the Body and Blood of Christ"--not an exact quotation.

Please continue though, this has been very interesting.

[Chase]

I'm down to join a cult and get my own planet some day.

[uncertaindrumer]

I'm down to join a cult and get my own planet some day.

Oh, you are really contributing to the discussion. :rolleyes:

[Chase]

It's called sarcasm, Chief.

[uncertaindrumer]

I know, but how would you like it if someone sarcastically made fun of your religion? Whether it is ridiculous or not, a religion is not something to be made fun of, at least when someone is charitably explaining it to everyone.

I mean, I don't care. But I can't imagine it was the greatest thing to say to a mormon.

[Higher_Desire]

I'm down to join a cult and get my own planet some day.
You're an idiot. Mormonism is NOT a cult, and NO ONE gets their own planet. Have you even read the beginning of this thread? Maybe you should.

Now onto the more important stuff...

Maybe "churches" change and spring up all over the place, but I don't think Christ's church was meant to morph into something else. And yes, Christ DID promise the Church would last, "The Gates of Hell will not prevail agaisnt you".
The gates of hell will not prevail against the true church because it is the truth. The "true church" will not be brought down by evil.

Let me put it like this (how I believe it): Everyone in the world has the free agency to choose what they want to do, and everyone who ever has lived also had this. God does not force anyone to do anything. One person can construe the teachings. That is why the truth needed to be restored in it's fullness. Hence, it prevails. Look at it like this: in a boxing match, one of the contestants is not always winning, yet, in the end, one wins. This is the same. There has been a constant battle and evil does bring down truth, but truth will win out.
And if you believe there is only one God and yet three persons in God, how is that Different from the Trinity?
I never said I believe they're three people in God. Maybe you need to read my posts a bit slower. They are one in PURPOSE. Meaning, they teach the will of God, love, charity, kindness, compassion, etc.

Let's try it like this. Scott Stapp, Mark Tremonti, and Scott Phillips are three seperate people, yet for years, they had one purpose. That being Creed. Creed is not one person. God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are not one person.
Finally, The reason I ask for the time you think the Church started to go sour is because early Church Father writings all back up Catholic doctinres. We see evidence of the Eucharist, the Trinity, superiority of the Bishops, etc. etc. Yet if the early Church was Mormon, we wouldn't see those things, would we? For instance, writing in the first or second decade of the second century, St. Irenaus writes in his "Against Heresies" (speaking about a certain group of heretics):

"...For they do not confess the Eucharist to be the Body and Blood of Christ"--not an exact quotation.

Please continue though, this has been very interesting.
Catholicism is the same as Christianity. The only reason they're referred to as different is because of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches excommunicating each other because of fighting over doctrine, some of which had been changed. Mormonism, which is a sect of Christianity, also backs up teachings of early churches. That is to say, the correct things. Doctrines we also see in the Bible. They're aren't "mormon" writings from then because "mormonism" didn't exist as we know it today. Back then it was Christ's church. And don't you dare try to tell me that the Catholic doctrine has never changed.

And while we're on it... it is not the Mormon church. To refer to it, it is the LDS church. Mormon is a man who wrote part of the Book of Mormon, and was the main record keeper for a long period of time. It was passed through his family for the record to be kept. To call the church the Mormon church, is inaccurate.


H-D :pimp:

[Chase]

Don't call me an "idiot." I said I was being sarcastic kiddo. Mormonism isn't accepted by Protestants, Catholics, or Eastern Orthodox churches as being legitimate bodies of Christ. In the United States, Mormonism has had an infamous reputation of being anything BUT Christian. It is safe to say that it has reach cult status to many Christian denominations around the world.

It's a congregation that is NOT in sync with the teachings of Christ.

Everytime a Mormon approaches me trying to attempt to convert me... they ALWAYS have trouble defending the true notions of their "church." Now why is it that?

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one in the same.

[uncertaindrumer]

You're an idiot. Mormonism is NOT a cult, and NO ONE gets their own planet. Have you even read the beginning of this thread? Maybe you should.

Now onto the more important stuff...


The gates of hell will not prevail against the true church because it is the truth. The "true church" will not be brought down by evil.

Let me put it like this (how I believe it): Everyone in the world has the free agency to choose what they want to do, and everyone who ever has lived also had this. God does not force anyone to do anything. One person can construe the teachings. That is why the truth needed to be restored in it's fullness. Hence, it prevails. Look at it like this: in a boxing match, one of the contestants is not always winning, yet, in the end, one wins. This is the same. There has been a constant battle and evil does bring down truth, but truth will win out.

So, for the 1500 years from the third century until the nineteenth century, there was no true CHURCH? God let His children go without dircetion for 1500 years?! I simply will not accept that.

I never said I believe they're three people in God. Maybe you need to read my posts a bit slower. They are one in PURPOSE. Meaning, they teach the will of God, love, charity, kindness, compassion, etc.

Let's try it like this. Scott Stapp, Mark Tremonti, and Scott Phillips are three seperate people, yet for years, they had one purpose. That being Creed. Creed is not one person. God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are not one person.

Then how do you explain the constant Bible passages claiming there is only one God?

Catholicism is the same as Christianity. The only reason they're referred to as different is because of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches excommunicating each other because of fighting over doctrine, some of which had been changed. Mormonism, which is a sect of Christianity, also backs up teachings of early churches. That is to say, the correct things. Doctrines we also see in the Bible. They're aren't "mormon" writings from then because "mormonism" didn't exist as we know it today. Back then it was Christ's church. And don't you dare try to tell me that the Catholic doctrine has never changed.

Catholic doctrine HASN'T changed. It has developed, but not CHANGED. For instance, Papal infallibilty wasn't always taught in the exact form as it is now, but it has always been believed. I would dare you to find one doctrine of the Church which has "changed".

By the way, saying "we only believe in early church teachings if we see them in the Bible" is a little silly. Obviously, if ALL THESE CHURCH FATHERS believed doctrines (doctrines which you don't believe in by the way) then they must have found them in the Bible, or from the teaching of the Apostles. The entire early church (which you keep referring to as "Christ's church) cannot be wrong, can it? If so, it really isn't
Christ's church and there must never have BEEN Christ's church until the Mormons came along, and that jsut doesn't make any sense for Jesus to come to Earth and then wait 1800 years to establish His church.

And while we're on it... it is not the Mormon church. To refer to it, it is the LDS church. Mormon is a man who wrote part of the Book of Mormon, and was the main record keeper for a long period of time. It was passed through his family for the record to be kept. To call the church the Mormon church, is inaccurate.


H-D :pimp:

Well whatever. It does not make a difference to me.

[uncertaindrumer]

Don't call me an "idiot." I said I was being sarcastic kiddo. Mormonism isn't accepted by Protestants, Catholics, or Eastern Orthodox churches as being legitimate bodies of Christ. In the United States, Mormonism has had an infamous reputation of being anything BUT Christian. It is safe to say that it has reach cult status to many Christian denominations around the world.

It's a congregation that is NOT in sync with the teachings of Christ.

Everytime a Mormon approaches me trying to attempt to convert me... they ALWAYS have trouble defending the true notions of their "church." Now why is it that?

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one in the same.

Look, I don't accept the LDS church (happy, HD? lol) as a true Christian Church either, becasue they don't even believe in Christ's divinity, so how can they be a Christian Church. But really, if you want to convert Mormons, I DON'T think insulting them is the best way to do it.

[Higher_Desire]

Don't call me an "idiot." I said I was being sarcastic kiddo. Mormonism isn't accepted by Protestants, Catholics, or Eastern Orthodox churches as being legitimate bodies of Christ. In the United States, Mormonism has had an infamous reputation of being anything BUT Christian. It is safe to say that it has reach cult status to many Christian denominations around the world.

It's a congregation that is NOT in sync with the teachings of Christ.

Everytime a Mormon approaches me trying to attempt to convert me... they ALWAYS have trouble defending the true notions of their "church." Now why is it that?

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one in the same.
If mormonsim isn't accepted as christianity, it is because of the short-sightedness of the people looking at it. They look at it as a cult because they do not see the underlying truths contained in it. If people have trouble defending it, it is because they don't understand it. Not everyone knows the same amount about the church.

So, for the 1500 years from the third century until the nineteenth century, there was no true CHURCH? God let His children go without dircetion for 1500 years?! I simply will not accept that.
Amos 3:7 -- "For surely the Lord God doeth nothing except he reveal his secrets unto his servants the prophets." Take that as you will. I believe that there have been men on earth who have worked to keep the teachings of Christ alive. But that does not mean it was never changed.
Then how do you explain the constant Bible passages claiming there is only one God?
There IS only one God. Why do you seem to have trouble with me saying that? There is ONE God. Jesus is his SON.
Catholic doctrine HASN'T changed. It has developed, but not CHANGED. For instance, Papal infallibilty wasn't always taught in the exact form as it is now, but it has always been believed. I would dare you to find one doctrine of the Church which has "changed".

By the way, saying "we only believe in early church teachings if we see them in the Bible" is a little silly. Obviously, if ALL THESE CHURCH FATHERS believed doctrines (doctrines which you don't believe in by the way) then they must have found them in the Bible, or from the teaching of the Apostles. The entire early church (which you keep referring to as "Christ's church) cannot be wrong, can it? If so, it really isn't
Christ's church and there must never have BEEN Christ's church until the Mormons came along, and that jsut doesn't make any sense for Jesus to come to Earth and then wait 1800 years to establish His church.
Change, develop, what's the difference. Point is, it's not the same.
Show me some of the "doctrines" you're talking about that we don't belive in that are biblical.
Look, I don't accept the LDS church (happy, HD? lol) as a true Christian Church either, becasue they don't even believe in Christ's divinity, so how can they be a Christian Church. But really, if you want to convert Mormons, I DON'T think insulting them is the best way to do it.
Yes we do believe in Christ's divinity. He was sent to earth by his father, he was born of the virgin Mary in a stable in Bethlehem, he ministered to the people, worked miracles, raised the dead, was baptized and atoned for the sins of the world, was crucified on the cross, and was resurrected on the third day. Is is the son of the living God. How can you say we don't believe in his divinity? It IS a Christian church, like it or not.


H-D :pimp:

[uncertaindrumer]

So you say there is only one God in one sentence and then in the next you say that Jesus is divine? There is no in-between. Either Jesus is a creature, thus not Divine, or there are two Gods, which the Bible clearly rejects, or there are three persons in ONE GOD, the only reasonable explenation.

And there is a HUGE difference between development of doctrine and changing doctrine. For instance, every major Christian Church EXCEPT for the Catholic Church changed their stance on Contraception in the early to mid nineteenth century--did God's LAW suddenly change, or did people jsut suddenly want the conveniency of the pill?

Also, you belief that there are two gods (Jesus and God) or your belief that Jesus is created (I can't tell which one you believe, you keep changing) are unbiblical. I don't have a list of all Mormon teachings so I can't jsut go through them and pick the unbiblical ones, unfortunately...

[Higher_Desire]

So you say there is only one God in one sentence and then in the next you say that Jesus is divine? There is no in-between. Either Jesus is a creature, thus not Divine, or there are two Gods, which the Bible clearly rejects, or there are three persons in ONE GOD, the only reasonable explenation.
Divine does not mean he's God.
di·vine
adj. di·vin·er, di·vin·est
Having the nature of or being a deity.
Of, relating to, emanating from, or being the expression of a deity: sought divine guidance through meditation.
Being in the service or worship of a deity; sacred.
Superhuman; godlike.

Supremely good or beautiful; magnificent: a divine performance of the concerto.
Extremely pleasant; delightful: had a divine time at the ball.
Heavenly; perfect.

He is the divine son of God.

And there is a HUGE difference between development of doctrine and changing doctrine. For instance, every major Christian Church EXCEPT for the Catholic Church changed their stance on Contraception in the early to mid nineteenth century--did God's LAW suddenly change, or did people jsut suddenly want the conveniency of the pill?
Yeah, there's a big difference between "development" and "change." :rolleyes: Point is... it's not exactly the same. I find it hard to believe that *poof* all the churches in the world changed. I need some proof of that. But yes, God's laws can change. The Law of Moses for example. If that's still in effect, why don't we do burnt sacrifices?
Also, you belief that there are two gods (Jesus and God) or your belief that Jesus is created (I can't tell which one you believe, you keep changing) are unbiblical. I don't have a list of all Mormon teachings so I can't jsut go through them and pick the unbiblical ones, unfortunately...
I do not keep changing. I think you need to read my posts a bit slower and think about them. Now read this slowly: I believe there is only one God. I believe Jesus is the chosen son of God. Alpha and Omega, the first and the last. There may be nothing in the Bible that says "Jesus was created" but remember, there is also nothing that says he wasn't. Don't forget, you yourself said that it's a touchy subject that no one knows for sure.

Look, I believe that God and Jesus are seperate beings. I believe that even as Stephen "saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God." (Acts 7:55-57) and they also appeard to Joseph Smith as seperate. There is no possible way for you to convince me that they are the same person, and that when God chose to came to earth, he chose to do so in the body of Jesus Christ.


H-D :pimp:

[uncertaindrumer]

Well if there is NO POSSIBLE WAY to convince you that Jesus is God, why are we bothering? Are you that close-minded?

Jesus is either God, or He is NOT God. Considering how often he says He is the SAME as the Father, I would say He is gGd. I do not see how you can say He is below God when the Bible never says ANYTHING like that.

God's moral law does NOT change. Sacrifices are one thing; those are not the same as morality. Murder will NEVER be okay. In the same way, when every major Christian Church began changing their stance on contraception, it was jsut wrong. (By the way, the church's did not all change immediately in 1930, but by the sixties and seventies, every non-Catholic Christian church said condoms were okay, and before 1930 none had said so).

[Higher_Desire]

Well if there is NO POSSIBLE WAY to convince you that Jesus is God, why are we bothering? Are you that close-minded?

Jesus is either God, or He is NOT God. Considering how often he says He is the SAME as the Father, I would say He is gGd. I do not see how you can say He is below God when the Bible never says ANYTHING like that.

God's moral law does NOT change. Sacrifices are one thing; those are not the same as morality. Murder will NEVER be okay. In the same way, when every major Christian Church began changing their stance on contraception, it was jsut wrong. (By the way, the church's did not all change immediately in 1930, but by the sixties and seventies, every non-Catholic Christian church said condoms were okay, and before 1930 none had said so).
You can't convince me because it's what I believe. You're not willing to listen to me and my arguemnts, and can't seem to even acknowledge the possiblility of Jesus Christ as a created being. So don't brand me as the only close-mined one here.

When talking about contraception, don't forget that condoms haven't been around forever. The world is a changing place. Don't forget that the LDS church also believes that sex should be only during marriage and it's one of the things that is the same as in the Catholic church.


H-D :pimp:

[uncertaindrumer]

Condoms might not have been around forever but contraception has been.

Also, I am not saying I am going to change my mind: but I will if I believe you are correct. Granted, I do not believe you are correct, but I am trying to disprove you. You have not even dealt with the verses that say God and Jesus are the same. But that is your right. You don't have to change.

[Higher_Desire]

Condoms might not have been around forever but contraception has been.

Also, I am not saying I am going to change my mind: but I will if I believe you are correct. Granted, I do not believe you are correct, but I am trying to disprove you. You have not even dealt with the verses that say God and Jesus are the same. But that is your right. You don't have to change.
Oh my gosh! Do you even read your posts?! :laugh: Do you even know what contraception is? Contraception IS birth control. And no, birth control has NOT been around forever. Not condoms, not the patch, not the pill, not the ring, not the diaphram, none of it. The only method which could even be considered as being around forever is coitus-interruptus (pulling out before ejaculation). Maybe you just need a lesson in the English language, as you're trying to defend yourself but don't seem to know words like "contraception" or "divine."

I know you're trying to disprove me. I'm trying to disprove you too.

Yes I have delt with the verses. You said I don't see the whole picture because I delt with them individually. If you're referring to such verses as John 17:11 or 17:21 which basically state "be one in me even as me and my father are one." If that is literal, it means that we will be God or be Jesus Christ. The 6.5 Billion people on the world right now, as well as all that have and will live on the earth will all be in one body. I don't think it works like that. What about Ephesians 4:6, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Romans 15:6 or John 8:41 which say we have ONE God, the Father of Jesus Christ.


H-D :pimp:

[NakedSmurf]

My Brother is a converted Moron.. opps I mean. Mormon. He says that Yes a planet is obtained for a MAN and I room is obtained for a LADY. Does that make sence?????? I don't think so. Moronism is just that... People who only place eyes on the Man because after all the MAN is the only important person...


Can you tell by my sarcasism that I'm a feminist... And a second thing, if there is a MORON LADY out there that "Claims" to be a feminist... she really isn't. Thank you Mrs. Ashland from Senior HS English Class. Damn Bitch!

[Higher_Desire]

My Brother is a converted Moron.. opps I mean. Mormon. He says that Yes a planet is obtained for a MAN and I room is obtained for a LADY. Does that make sence?????? I don't think so. Moronism is just that... People who only place eyes on the Man because after all the MAN is the only important person...


Can you tell by my sarcasism that I'm a feminist... And a second thing, if there is a MORON LADY out there that "Claims" to be a feminist... she really isn't. Thank you Mrs. Ashland from Senior HS English Class. Damn Bitch!
My guess is that he hasn't been a member for very long. You should tell him to get more information from his Bishop and knowledgeable people in the church. What you posted of what he said kind of sounds like something that would be on the Internet. I, however, have been a member for over 18 years, so I think I know what's going on.

IMO, feminists are all full of quite a large amount of BS. "A mormon lady who claims to be feminist isn't" :wtf: I have no idea what you're talking about.


H-D :pimp:

[creedsister]

all i have learned from this thread HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA It Sure Must Be One HECK OF A PLANENT :D No Arguments Would Should Be All In Favor

[NakedSmurf]

Higher_desire,

First of all my brother has been a coverted mormon for the past 9 years (almost), His missionarie work took place in SLC. During his mission I vistited him and he tried to convert me (which didn't work obviously). During his mission he and his room mate would go to catholic and other churches and "take" as much literiture from the churches as they could find. Then go and meet up with other mormon missionaries and burn them for fun.

My brother, since his mission, still lives in SCL. He got married in THE Temple and IS an elder in the cult (oops I mean church) so I would say he knows what he is talking about. Also whan I was in SLC I spoke with other missionaries and they told me the same thing MEN GET PLANETS.

Now don't get me wrong some mormon people are nice and all but they tend to be very judgmental.

Now what the hell is this about marring and baptizing dead relitives to acending them in to the next level of heaven?? My brother baptized my (dead) Great-great Grandfather in to the cult (oops I mean faith) about 2 or3 years ago (creepy). So does that mean that I HAVE to put in my will that my brother can not marry or baptize me??

[Sincirr]

Man, U thought I was harsh!
I, however, have been a member for over 18 years, so I think I know what's going on.
U fricken dont though! Every other mormon on the planet (well, this one anyway) knows about this fricken stuff but you!

[uncertaindrumer]

Oh my gosh! Do you even read your posts?! :laugh: Do you even know what contraception is? Contraception IS birth control. And no, birth control has NOT been around forever. Not condoms, not the patch, not the pill, not the ring, not the diaphram, none of it. The only method which could even be considered as being around forever is coitus-interruptus (pulling out before ejaculation). Maybe you just need a lesson in the English language, as you're trying to defend yourself but don't seem to know words like "contraception" or "divine."

I know you're trying to disprove me. I'm trying to disprove you too.

Yes I have delt with the verses. You said I don't see the whole picture because I delt with them individually. If you're referring to such verses as John 17:11 or 17:21 which basically state "be one in me even as me and my father are one." If that is literal, it means that we will be God or be Jesus Christ. The 6.5 Billion people on the world right now, as well as all that have and will live on the earth will all be in one body. I don't think it works like that. What about Ephesians 4:6, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Romans 15:6 or John 8:41 which say we have ONE God, the Father of Jesus Christ.


H-D :pimp:


You are just wrong. We haven't had "the pill" but their have always been ways of getting around fertility.

Also, arguing with you has gotten pointless. I specifically show you verses where Jesus says the Father is in Me and I am in the Father, and you still refuse to acknowledge it. Not to mention the ENTIRE EARLY CHURCH believed in the trinity, and that the first MAJOR heresy, Arianism, was considered a HUGE affront to Christianity because it DENIED CHRIST BEING THE SAME AS THE FATHER.

[NakedSmurf]

Female Sexuality and the reproductive system has just been explored within the last 100 - 120 years (roughly) within the United States. Before that it was seen as dirty, etc. etc. Hell even in the Bible it has said that 7 days after a women has her period that it's unclean for her to engage in sexual activity or even to touch food (especially meat). Leviticus 19.

Now, I know about female sexuality and the reproductive system. First of all I AM a Lady and Second of all I'm currently 8 months Prego with our 2nd child.

Before the creation of Birth control there really wasn't any other method within the US other than NOT HAVING SEX. Why do you think so many women in the 70s risked there life to have abortions and in term they themselves died from infection or a "botch job". Before it was pretty much the pull out method or the rhythm method. For the longest time women who were not married thought that just by kissing a guy, they would become Prego.

Information taken from: The History of the Birth Control Movement-US Information ONLY--
"Sanger helped organize (1917) the National Birth Control League in the United States; in 1921 it became the American Birth Control League, and in 1942 the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Meanwhile, in 1918 an American judge ruled that contraceptive devices were legal as instruments for the prevention of disease, and the federal law prohibiting dissemination of contraceptive information through the mails was modified in 1936. Throughout the 1940s and 50s, birth control advocates were engaged in numerous legal suits. In 1965 the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the one remaining state law (in Connecticut) prohibiting the use of contraceptives.

The federal government began to take a more active part in the birth control movement in 1967, when 6% of the funds allotted to the Child Health Act was set aside for family planning; in 1970, the Family Planning Services and Population Act established separate funds for birth control. Birth control and sex education in schools continue to be emotional issues in the United States, where adolescent sexual activity and pregnancy rates are high and bring with them increased risks of sexually transmitted diseases and complications of pregnancy, as well as societal and personal costs."

When it comes to actual contraceptive methods ---
Information taken from: Methods of Birth Control---
"Male birth control methods include withdrawal of the male before ejaculation (the oldest contraceptive technique) and use of the condom, a rubber sheath covering the penis. The condom, because of its use as a protection against sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS, has become a frequently used birth control device.

Contraceptive methods for women include the rhythm method—abstinence around the most likely time of ovulation—and precoital insertion into the vagina of substances (creams, foams, jellies, or suppositories) containing spermicidal chemicals. The use of a diaphragm, a rubber cup-shaped device inserted before intercourse, prevents sperm from reaching the uterine cervix; it is usually used with a spermicide. Contraceptive sponges, which are impregnated with a spermicide, also are inserted into the vagina before intercourse and work primarily by acting as a barrier to the sperm. Intrauterine devices, or IUDs, are variously shaped small objects inserted by a doctor into the uterus; they apparently act by creating a uterine environment hostile either to sperm or to the fertilized egg. The birth control pill, an oral contraceptive, involves a hormonal method in which estrogen and progestins (progesteronelike substances) are taken cyclically for 21 or 84 days, followed by 7 days of inactive or no pills. The elevated levels of hormones in the blood suppress production of the pituitary hormones (luteinizing hormone and follicle-stimulating hormone) that would ordinarily cause ovulation.

Sterilization of the female, often but not always performed during a Cesarean section or shortly after childbirth, consists of cutting or tying both Fallopian tubes, the vessels that carry the egg cells from the ovaries to the uterus. In male sterilization (vasectomy) the vas deferens, the tubes that carry sperm from the testes to the penis, are interrupted. Sterilization, in most cases irreversible, involves no loss of libido or capacity for sex.

No contraceptive yet devised is at once simple, acceptable, safe, effective, and reversible. Some, such as the diaphragm, condom, and chemical and rhythm methods, require high motivation by users; the pill, which must be taken daily, sometimes induces undesirable side effects, such as nausea, headache, weight gain, and increased tendency to develop blood clots. The IUDs, although requiring no personal effort or motivation, are often not tolerated or are expelled, and they sometimes, particularly if poorly designed, cause uterine infection, septic abortion, and other problems.

New birth control techniques, some still experimental, include the use of progestins that can be given by injection every three months; progestins embedded in inert carriers and implanted under the skin to release the hormones slowly and continuously; progestins incorporated into a plastic ring that a woman could insert in the vagina and would need to change only periodically; and IUDs carrying an antifertility agent. If birth control fails (or is not used), doctors may prescribe several large doses of certain oral contraceptives as “morning after” pills; the high level of hormones can inhibit the establishment of pregnancy even if fertilization has taken place. Mifepristone, or RU-486, the so-called abortion pill, is effective within seven weeks after conception and requires close medical supervision. It was first approved in Europe and was tested in the mid-1990s in United States, where it was approved in 2000. Another experimental technique is immunization against human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG), a hormone secreted by a developing fertilized egg that stimulates production of progesterone by the ovary; the effect of the anti-HCG antibody would be to inactivate HCG and thereby induce menstruation even if fertilization occurred."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The XY Factor on the History Channell has a very good documentary on the History of Sex. It's a good watch. There is a movie that just came out with some interest to me as well. Look for a Movie called --- Kinsey (2004) it stars Liam Neeson as Alfred Kinsey. Plot Summary for Kinsey (2004)
---------------------------------------------------------
Life story of Alfred Kinsey, a man driven to uncover the most private secrets of the nation, and a journey into the mystery of human behavior. In 1948 Kinsey irrevocably changed American culture and created a media sensation with his book "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male". Using the technique of his own famous sex interviews, story recounts the scientist's extraordinary journey from obscurity to global fame. Rebelling against the rigid piety of his home life, and drawn to the world of the senses, Kinsey becomes a Harvard-educated zoologist specializing in the study of gall wasps. After being hired to teach biology at Indiana University, Kinsey meets and marries a witty, freethinking female student, Clara McMillen. In the course of his teaching he discovers an astonishing dearth of scientific data on sexual behavior. When students seek him out for advice about sexual concerns and problems, he realizes that no one has done the clinical research that would yield reliable answers to their questions. Inspired to explore the emotionally charged subject of sex from a strictly scientific point of view, Kinsey recruits a team of researchers, including Clyde Martin, Wardell Pomeroy and Paul Gebhard. Over time they refine an interviewing technique, which helps people to break through shame, fear, and guilt and speak freely about their sexual histories. When Kinsey publishes his Male study in 1948, the press compares the impact to that of the atom bomb. But as the country enters the more paranoid Cold War era of the 1950s, Kinsey's follow-up study on women is seen as an attack on basic American values. The ensuing outrage and scorn causes Kinsey's benefactors to abandon him, just as his health begins to deteriorate. At the same time, the jealousies and acrimony caused by Kinsey's attempt to create a private sexual utopia threaten to tear apart the research team and expose them to unwelcome scrutiny.
---------------------------------------------------------

[uncertaindrumer]

The whole stopping before ejaculation thing is very old INDEED, going back to the earliest periods of mankind.

That was my point. Christian Churches, except for Catholicism, all CHANGED their opinion on contraception because they bowed to political and social pressure, not because suddenly God changed his mind and decided He had been wrong to outlaw contraception.

But this has very little to do with Mormonism anyway.

[Higher_Desire]

This is idiotic. You all seem to be nitpicking about the truthfulness of the church because of one little argument. Sincirr, you say everyone knows this stuff but me. I have put in many hours of study on a ton different topics on my church. I know more about it then you could ever hope to. Uncertaindrumer, I have looked at those passages and I'm not ignoring them. I've answerd them. You just seem to ignore every one that I've posted that say they're not the same person. If "every church" changed their beliefs (which not ALL of them did) and bowed to social forces, it is because they are not the truth. We have had the same stance on the topic as always. Naked Smurf, you seem to just want to claim your brother knows everything because he was a missionary and you just take what he tells you. I don't care if he burned other churches pamplets for fun. People have fun doing different things.

If by 'the doctrine of the Trinity' one means the New Testament teaching that there is a Father, a Son, and a Holy Ghost, all three of whom are fully divine, then Latter-day Saints believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. It is as simple as that. The Latter-day Saints' first article of faith, written by Joseph Smith in 1842, states, "We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost....However, if by "the doctrine of the Trinity" one means the doctrine formulated by the councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon and elaborated upon by subsequent theologians and councils--that God is three coequal persons in one substance or essence--then Latter-day Saints do not believe it. They do not believe it, because it is not biblical. Words central to the orthodox understanding of the Trinity --words like coequal, consubstantial, and circumincession, or the word trinity itself, for that matter--are not found in scripture.

I'm annoyed with everyone in this thread saying that I'm wrong but not listening to why I'm right. At least I'm listining to your arguments. I don't care what you believe about me. I don't care what you believe about my faith. The only way to know the truth for sure is to wait for Jesus to come back to earth and see which church he selects as his. The misconception of us getting our own planet originally came from something Lorenzo Snow said when he said "As man is, God once was, and as God is, man may become" (June 1840). It has since been changed by people to mean whatever they want it to mean.

I'm sick of this thread. I'm sick of what all of you are saying and judgements you are making. I'm done with this thread. Please do not try to have a conversation with me if you're not willing to listen. If you're willing to listen and interact as adults, then I'll answer any questions you may have.

Proverbs 3:5
"Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding."


H-D :pimp:

[NakedSmurf]

Naked Smurf, you seem to just want to claim your brother knows everything because he was a missionary and you just take what he tells you. I don't care if he burned other churches pamplets for fun. People have fun doing different things.


Who cares about my brother, he is his own person and I personally think he's is an idiot. JUST MY OWN OPINION!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm just saying that this is what he has told me and Other Missionaries told me when I was in SLC visiting my brother when he was on his mission. Maybe you should stop pointing your finger and ask for why people that are doing missions for your "faith" are telling what you say are lies. Also, shouldn't you be concerned that some Mormon missionaries are burning other religious books of other faiths and calling it, "FUN!" That would concern me. :tired:

[NakedSmurf]

I'm sick of this thread. I'm sick of what all of you are saying and judgements you are making. I'm done with this thread. Please do not try to have a conversation with me if you're not willing to listen. If you're willing to listen and interact as adults, then I'll answer any questions you may have.


Now I did ask you a question in one of my posts, true there is some sarcasm in it, but it's still a real question for which I was asking.

"Now what the hell is this about marring and baptizing dead relatives to ascending them in to the next level of heaven?? My brother baptized my (dead) Great-great Grandfather in to the cult (oops I mean faith) about 2 or 3 years ago (creepy). So does that mean that I HAVE to put in my will that my brother can not marry or baptize me??"

[Jester]

Point of order here Joseph smith was an alcoholic and a convicted con-man who combined free masonry with christianity and came up with mormomism in fact the free masons had a bounty on his hear for the rest of his life. I don't know how or why people have allowed themselves to be dupped by this compleated bullshit of a cult

[uncertaindrumer]

Actually, the Trinity is the ONLY Biblical explenation for the many passages I stated, but if you don't want to believe it, fine.

[Sincirr]

Sincirr, you say everyone knows this stuff but me. I have put in many hours of study on a ton different topics on my church. I know more about it then you could ever hope to.
Look HD, there is just something wrong here. Its either that #1, U have read about the planet thing and refuse to believe what U read, #2, havent learned about it yet cos it is a secret only revealed to ones that come under elder status, or #3, U know but you are lying your ass off. You tell me to actually have a talk to one of your mormon friends and I do and STILL you are not satisfied. Why dont YOU talk to one of them!

[Sincirr]

Actually, the Trinity is the ONLY Biblical explenation for the many passages I stated, but if you don't want to believe it, fine.
:thumbsup:

[uncertaindrumer]

:thumbsup:

By the way, I love the sig.

[Sincirr]

Haha yeaaahh! I'm re-loving the chronicles again.

[Jester]

I wonder why HD hasn't replied to Nakedsmurf's or my posts ??? hmmmm I wonder

[Sincirr]

Well I have already covered most of it in a thread last year so I guess hes sick of it all.

[Jester]

bummer looks like I joined this one a bit late then huh?

[uncertaindrumer]

Yep. Slowpoke ;)

[Sincirr]

bummer looks like I joined this one a bit late then huh?
Well not this one, but last years one, which I think has been erased...thank God for that! But boy would U have had fun reading it!

[Jester]

I bet I would

I still would love to know what he would say the assertions I made about Joesph Smith (wich are true) the Free Masons DID have a bounty on his head and I think (not sure) that they may have even been the cause of his death. Wich would mean Joesph Smith died for his "faith"

[Sincirr]

...makes him more of a hero!

I dont understand, therefore, why they have changed his doctrine over the years! AND taken sections of his prophecies out of their new editions! It should all be deemed alot more sacred:eek:

[Sincirr]

But in all honesty though...I think HD is prob the coolest LDS I have come across, so though I cant get why he believes what he believes, he is definitely still down with me...somehow. Somehow I hope he does not want to axe me too!:yikes: