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:

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:

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:

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.

WTH does that have to do with anything???

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).
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.)
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:

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.

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

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

It's called sarcasm, Chief.

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.

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.
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.
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:

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.

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.


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


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.


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

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.

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.

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.
There IS only one God. Why do you seem to have trouble with me saying that? There is ONE God. Jesus is his SON.
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.
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:

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...

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.

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?
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:

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:

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:

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:

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

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??

Man, U thought I was harsh!
U fricken dont though! Every other mormon on the planet (well, this one anyway) knows about this fricken stuff but you!

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.

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.
---------------------------------------------------------

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.

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:

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:

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??"

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

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

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!

:thumbsup:

By the way, I love the sig.

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

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

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