[Higher_Desire]

Quote: (Originally Posted by 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.

OK.

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

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.

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

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.

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

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.

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

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.

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

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