Mormons?

[ding]

God doesn't change. Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever. One God. That's the problem with mormonism. In mormonism, there isn't One God.

I think everyone here knows I'm the last person to ever defend the Latter Day Saint Cult.

But what makes your view of God any more or less legitimate than the Mormons?

The Bible says to burn witches and kill homosexuals and to stone your daughter to death if she isn't a virgin on her wedding night. Slavery and child abuse are acceptable and good.

God didn't change his mind, so we changed ours... and we are better off for it.

Does the Bible say to burn witches? Did they stop burning witches or did they realize they weren't witches. If you believed witches really existed shouldn't they be destroyed?

 

[BS Filter]

God doesn't change. Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever. One God. That's the problem with mormonism. In mormonism, there isn't One God.

I think everyone here knows I'm the last person to ever defend the Latter Day Saint Cult.

But what makes your view of God any more or less legitimate than the Mormons?

The Bible says to burn witches and kill homosexuals and to stone your daughter to death if she isn't a virgin on her wedding night. Slavery and child abuse are acceptable and good.

God didn't change his mind, so we changed ours... and we are better off for it.

Does the Bible say to burn witches? Did they stop burning witches or did they realize they weren't witches. If you believed witches really existed shouldn't they be destroyed?

We're talking about the Word of God, not the actions of people.

 

[ding]

God doesn't change. Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever. One God. That's the problem with mormonism. In mormonism, there isn't One God.

I think everyone here knows I'm the last person to ever defend the Latter Day Saint Cult.

But what makes your view of God any more or less legitimate than the Mormons?

The Bible says to burn witches and kill homosexuals and to stone your daughter to death if she isn't a virgin on her wedding night. Slavery and child abuse are acceptable and good.

God didn't change his mind, so we changed ours... and we are better off for it.

Does the Bible say to burn witches? Did they stop burning witches or did they realize they weren't witches. If you believed witches really existed shouldn't they be destroyed?

We're talking about the Word of God, not the actions of people.

It seems that Joey believes he is talking about both.

 

[InstantOn]

My ex's cousin was intelligent and a talented string musician. She also was an only child and shy and lonely. The Mormons took her in. They gave her friends and a purpose. She went to BYU and played in their symphony orchestra. We went to hear them play once when they were on tour. Fine musicians but the music was Mormon and fairly boring. I don't know what became of her.

We spent a Christmas at her parents' house. Some Mormons came to visit and were served non-alcoholic beverages and the gingerbread cookies I had made. They hesitantly stared at the cookies. I realized what might be wrong and assured them the cookies had no caffeine in them, at which point they ate some. One of the Mormons cornered my ex who was an Egyptologist (he died in Cairo a few years ago) and started telling my ex their theories about Egypt. When he got away from him, my ex said to me, "Boy, are they ever full of sh-t."

 

[onefour1]

There are no instances of anyone in the New Testament Baptizing a proxy for the dead.

There aren't any specific baptisms mentioned, but as mentioned earlier, Paul used the practice to defend his teaching of the resurrection. He certainly did not put it down.

No, he didn't. I provided an explanation for why he mentioned it.
Question. When the Book of Mormon or Doctrines and Covenants contradicts the Bible, which one is the final authority?

It would strange to answer that question when it is God, the Eternal Father who is considered the author of both. In theory they would not contradict each other.....if we, as his fallen children, attempt to force our will on the written words we make a big mistake.

The bible is a compilation of propheitic writings across several millenia. Continued revelation through prophets would be welcomed.

God doesn't change. Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever. One God. That's the problem with mormonism. In mormonism, there isn't One God.

John 10:31-36
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, 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;
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Why would Jesus call us gods if there is only one God?

 

[Meriweather]

John 10:31-35
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, 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;
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Why would Jesus call us gods if there is only one God?

It is imperative to keep in mind that there are only about six thousand words in Hebrew, and therefore context should be taken into account, and possibly a play-on of words. The same word used to designate the Supreme Being was also used to designate powerful ones, and in the context some Psalm 82, judges. God as judge, judges who (hopefully) follow the way of the Supreme Judge (yet can be corrupt), Son of God or a son of the most powerful.

 

[MadChemist]

There are no instances of anyone in the New Testament Baptizing a proxy for the dead.

There aren't any specific baptisms mentioned, but as mentioned earlier, Paul used the practice to defend his teaching of the resurrection. He certainly did not put it down.

No, he didn't. I provided an explanation for why he mentioned it.
Question. When the Book of Mormon or Doctrines and Covenants contradicts the Bible, which one is the final authority?

It would strange to answer that question when it is God, the Eternal Father who is considered the author of both. In theory they would not contradict each other.....if we, as his fallen children, attempt to force our will on the written words we make a big mistake.

The bible is a compilation of propheitic writings across several millenia. Continued revelation through prophets would be welcomed.

God doesn't change. Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever. One God. That's the problem with mormonism. In mormonism, there isn't One God.

This is an argument that says mormonism has a "problem".

It is based on a statement from the bible, which we accept to be the word of God.

So, either the statement goes beyond what the words mean....or there is a real problem.

The principles taught by the Church of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints are not relegated to pass/fail based on what others may think or say.

I know it sounds somewhat dismissive, but you can't claim to have latter prophets similar to those described in the Old and New Testaments (and claim to be the restored church) and then submit to the judgement of others based on the limitations of the bible.

You claim there is a problem.

I say there isn't one.

In my experience, the impasse is not resolved unless the bible itself is examined for what it is.

 

[MadChemist]

There are no instances of anyone in the New Testament Baptizing a proxy for the dead.

There aren't any specific baptisms mentioned, but as mentioned earlier, Paul used the practice to defend his teaching of the resurrection. He certainly did not put it down.

No, he didn't. I provided an explanation for why he mentioned it.
Question. When the Book of Mormon or Doctrines and Covenants contradicts the Bible, which one is the final authority?

It would strange to answer that question when it is God, the Eternal Father who is considered the author of both. In theory they would not contradict each other.....if we, as his fallen children, attempt to force our will on the written words we make a big mistake.

The bible is a compilation of propheitic writings across several millenia. Continued revelation through prophets would be welcomed.

God doesn't change. Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever. One God. That's the problem with mormonism. In mormonism, there isn't One God.

John 10:31-36
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, 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;
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Why would Jesus call us gods if there is only one God?

I struggle with the idea of "logical" argument as a basis for making a decision or changing a point of view (with regards to spiritual matters). I will point out that I am not discounting logical thought...I am a chemical engineer...so I do have some training in fact based decision making.

When I was investigating the church in High School, I was given all kinds of anti-mormon literature. My mother required I speak to our pastor before joining. I was invited by friends to speak with other pastors. The entire school was caught up in what we called "the day of pentacost" and religion was an ever present topic of discussion.

I finally reached the point, where I started asking people if my salvation (or exaltation) was going to be determined based on who had the best "arguments". That really bothered me (I was good at logical argument, but it struck me strange that God would ask me to choose based on who had the most convincing tongue or who had the most knowledge.....arguments were constantly based on what they said the bible said or meant in specific circumstances).

I am not a member because of logical thought.

I am a huge fan of Alma 32 and "experimenting upon the word" to determine if brings forth good fruits....and creates testimony.

The same thing with Moroni's promise. God says to ask him if these things are true. In other words appeal to a higher power and authority for a personal conviction of truth. He does not say...read the Book Of Mormon, then dig up half of South America to gain your testimony.

I love that we can communicate with Our Father In Heaven directly. Nobody can take anything away from you in that regard.

 

[MadChemist]

God doesn't change. Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever. One God. That's the problem with mormonism. In mormonism, there isn't One God.

I think everyone here knows I'm the last person to ever defend the Latter Day Saint Cult.

But what makes your view of God any more or less legitimate than the Mormons?

The Bible says to burn witches and kill homosexuals and to stone your daughter to death if she isn't a virgin on her wedding night. Slavery and child abuse are acceptable and good.

God didn't change his mind, so we changed ours... and we are better off for it.

Does the Bible say to burn witches? Did they stop burning witches or did they realize they weren't witches. If you believed witches really existed shouldn't they be destroyed?

We're talking about the Word of God, not the actions of people.

What is the "word of God" ?

The Bible ?

 

[onefour1]

John 10:31-35
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, 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;
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Why would Jesus call us gods if there is only one God?

It is imperative to keep in mind that there are only about six thousand words in Hebrew, and therefore context should be taken into account, and possibly a play-on of words. The same word used to designate the Supreme Being was also used to designate powerful ones, and in the context some Psalm 82, judges. God as judge, judges who (hopefully) follow the way of the Supreme Judge (yet can be corrupt), Son of God or a son of the most powerful.

You are right that context is very important. So, if we substitute the word "judges" into John 10:34-35, would the context make any sense in the whole of John 10:31-36? The answer is NO! The Jews were accusing him of blaspheme because he taught that he was the very son of God. Jesus shows them that even in their law God calls the people unto whom the word of God comes, gods. If it were judges, it would not make any sense in the context of these verses. Jesus is showing them that even in their law, God himself views his children as gods. Now if you look in the law (i.e. the old testament) there is only one place where God calls his children gods. It is found in Psalms 82:6 where is says:

Psalms 82:6
6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

Here we see that God actually is calling his children gods. It is false to claim that what is meant is "judges" because Jesus refers to this verse and uses it in context as "gods". Jesus' argument in John 10:31-36 would not make any sense if the meaning were "judges". Psalms 82:6 is the only verse in the law (Old Testament) where God actually calls his children gods. It is extremely likely that this is the verse Jesus referred to in John 10:34. So taking context into account, I don't buy the old "judges" argument at all. Now we have two places where Jesus has actually called us his children, gods.

 

[onefour1]

So, again I ask, why would Jesus call us gods?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

When I was investigating the church in High School, I was given all kinds of anti-mormon literature. My mother required I speak to our pastor before joining. I was invited by friends to speak with other pastors. The entire school was caught up in what we called "the day of pentacost" and religion was an ever present topic of discussion.

I finally reached the point, where I started asking people if my salvation (or exaltation) was going to be determined based on who had the best "arguments". That really bothered me (I was good at logical argument, but it struck me strange that God would ask me to choose based on who had the most convincing tongue or who had the most knowledge.....arguments were constantly based on what they said the bible said or meant in specific circumstances).

I'm reminding of something that my wife told me of her experiences.

Surely, you've heard of a book (and a pair of movies derived therefrom) titled The God Makers? It's pretty much the definitive anti-Mormon work.

My wife credits it with sparking her curiosity and interest in the church, initially just to see if we really believed and practiced all the crazy things that The God Makers said we did. She had known a family of Mormons, and was struck at the contrast between her experience in knowing them, and what this book was trying to tell her;and even more struck by the contrast when she actually attended a few of our Sacrament Meetings, and met some other Mormons.

We met on a primitive BBS network, long before the public had access to, or generally knew about the Internet. Private messaging was particularly unreliable and spotty. During the time we were attempting to communicate over that medium, I received one message from her that she didn't think she could ever be a Mormon, that there were certain beliefs that she just couldn't accept. The next message that I received from her was that she was getting baptized in a few days. Days (perhaps weeks) later, some other messages arrived out of sequences, that would have made that second message much less startling, describing her further experiences in looking into the church.

She was baptized on 03 April 1994. Less than a week later, she took a Greyhound from her home in Reedsport, Oregon, to meet me in Santa Barbara, where we met for the first time in person on 08 April 1994; after several months of primitive online correspondence and a few very long phone calls, as well as a few old-fashioned paper letters. On 12 April 1994, we made a trip down to the grounds of the Los Angels Temple. We didn't go into the Temple that day, but spent some time wandering around on the grounds, and in the Visitors' Center, and went across the street to a small Chinese restaurant (that, alas, is no longer there. This is what came in my fortune cookie, that day; I wrote the date on the back of it…

We already had a pretty good idea, by this time, what direction things were going. It's a matter of some uncertainty whether we were engaged that day, or the following day when we went to a jewelry store, I bought an engagement, ring, and right there, in the jewelry store, having just purchased the ring, proposed to her in the more formal, traditional matter, and received the expected affirmative response.

A year later, 13 April 1995…

And this coming April will make it twenty-five years that we will have been married.

 

[MadChemist]

When I was investigating the church in High School, I was given all kinds of anti-mormon literature. My mother required I speak to our pastor before joining. I was invited by friends to speak with other pastors. The entire school was caught up in what we called "the day of pentacost" and religion was an ever present topic of discussion.

I finally reached the point, where I started asking people if my salvation (or exaltation) was going to be determined based on who had the best "arguments". That really bothered me (I was good at logical argument, but it struck me strange that God would ask me to choose based on who had the most convincing tongue or who had the most knowledge.....arguments were constantly based on what they said the bible said or meant in specific circumstances).

I'm reminding of something that my wife told me of her experiences.

Surely, you've heard of a book (and a pair of movies derived therefrom) titled The God Makers? It's pretty much the definitive anti-Mormon work.

My wife credits it with sparking her curiosity and interest in the church, initially just to see if we really believed and practiced all the crazy things that The God Makers said we did. She had known a family of Mormons, and was struck at the contrast between her experience in knowing them, and what this book was trying to tell her;and even more struck by the contrast when she actually attended a few of our Sacrament Meetings, and met some other Mormons.

We met on a primitive BBS network, long before the public had access to, or generally knew about the Internet. Private messaging was particularly unreliable and spotty. During the time we were attempting to communicate over that medium, I received one message from her that she didn't think she could ever be a Mormon, that there were certain beliefs that she just couldn't accept. The next message that I received from her was that she was getting baptized in a few days. Days (perhaps weeks) later, some other messages arrived out of sequences, that would have made that second message much less startling, describing her further experiences in looking into the church.

She was baptized on 03 April 1994. Less than a week later, she took a Greyhound from her home in Reedsport, Oregon, to meet me in Santa Barbara, where we met for the first time in person on 08 April 1994; after several months of primitive online correspondence and a few very long phone calls, as well as a few old-fashioned paper letters. On 12 April 1994, we made a trip down to the grounds of the Los Angels Temple. We didn't go into the Temple that day, but spent some time wandering around on the grounds, and in the Visitors' Center, and went across the street to a small Chinese restaurant (that, alas, is no longer there. This is what came in my fortune cookie, that day; I wrote the date on the back of it…

View attachment 420093
View attachment 420094

We already had a pretty good idea, by this time, what direction things were going. It's a matter of some uncertainty whether we were engaged that day, or the following day when we went to a jewelry store, I bought an engagement, ring, and right there, in the jewelry store, having just purchased the ring, proposed to her in the more formal, traditional matter, and received the expected affirmative response.

A year later, 13 April 1995…

View attachment 420095

And this coming April will make it twenty-five years that we will have been married.

Your story is truly uplifting.

And yes, it is not uncommon for those who hear some of the strange things about the church to then investigate, get tesimonies, and join.

Unfortunately, it is also becoming more common that lifelong members of the church who never really gain a deep understanding of it's doctrines...find something like the CES letters and leave.

 

[onefour1]

I was married on April 6, 1995. Very close to you!

 

[Meriweather]

You are right that context is very important. So, if we substitute the word "judges" into John 10:34-35, would the context make any sense in whole of John 10:31-36? The answer is NO! The Jews were accusing him of blaspheme because he taught that he was the very son of God. Jesus shows them that even in their law God calls the people unto whom the word of God comes, gods. If it were judges, it would not make any sense in the context of these verses. Jesus is showing them that even in their law, God himself views his children as gods. Now if you look in the law (i.e. the old testament) there is only one place where God calls his children gods. It is found in Psalms 82:6 where is says:

Psalms 82:6
6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

Here we see that God actually is calling his children gods. It is false to claim that what is meant is "judges" because Jesus refers to this verse and uses it in context as "gods". Jesus' argument in John 10:31-36 would not make any sense if the meaning were "judges". Psalms 82:6 is the only verse in the law (Old Testament) where God actually calls his children gods. This is extremely likely that this is the verse Jesus referred to in John 10:34. So taking context into account, I don't buy the old "judges" argument at all. Now we have two places where Jesus has actually called us his children, gods.

You missed the point. Hebrew is not modern English. The English translation does not match the original Hebrew. Next is the context of Psalm 82 itself...God (Supreme Judge) among the judges (some of whom who were corrupt). The judges of Jesus day were judging him. (In the day of Psalm 82 God among corrupt judges of that time). In the day of Jesus, (who reference himself as Son of God) among corrupt judges (called 'gods' in Hebrew also meaning powerful one, who were judging him). There is a delicious irony here when we read in context (He who will judge the world being judged by the world.) Nor did the Jews of Jesus time miss the comparison of God who is good among the corrupt--and the Son of God who is good among the corrupt. They tried to arrest him, but Jesus escaped.

Both stories are about goodness amidst the corrupt--and the corrupt attempting to lift themselves over the good. Using these verses to name ourselves gods misses the point that we should never place any goodness we do possess over the goodness of God.

 

[Meriweather]

So, again I ask, why would Jesus call us gods?

Why insist on using a modern English translation and understanding to suit the purpose of a modern American faith denomination?

 

[BS Filter]

There are no instances of anyone in the New Testament Baptizing a proxy for the dead.

There aren't any specific baptisms mentioned, but as mentioned earlier, Paul used the practice to defend his teaching of the resurrection. He certainly did not put it down.

No, he didn't. I provided an explanation for why he mentioned it.
Question. When the Book of Mormon or Doctrines and Covenants contradicts the Bible, which one is the final authority?

It would strange to answer that question when it is God, the Eternal Father who is considered the author of both. In theory they would not contradict each other.....if we, as his fallen children, attempt to force our will on the written words we make a big mistake.

The bible is a compilation of propheitic writings across several millenia. Continued revelation through prophets would be welcomed.

God doesn't change. Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever. One God. That's the problem with mormonism. In mormonism, there isn't One God.

John 10:31-36
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, 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;
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Why would Jesus call us gods if there is only one God?

Another typical Mormon doctrine. Notice the small case "g". Where is that Scripture from?

 

[BS Filter]

There are no instances of anyone in the New Testament Baptizing a proxy for the dead.

There aren't any specific baptisms mentioned, but as mentioned earlier, Paul used the practice to defend his teaching of the resurrection. He certainly did not put it down.

No, he didn't. I provided an explanation for why he mentioned it.
Question. When the Book of Mormon or Doctrines and Covenants contradicts the Bible, which one is the final authority?

It would strange to answer that question when it is God, the Eternal Father who is considered the author of both. In theory they would not contradict each other.....if we, as his fallen children, attempt to force our will on the written words we make a big mistake.

The bible is a compilation of propheitic writings across several millenia. Continued revelation through prophets would be welcomed.

God doesn't change. Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever. One God. That's the problem with mormonism. In mormonism, there isn't One God.

John 10:31-36
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, 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;
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Why would Jesus call us gods if there is only one God?

Psalm 82:6 and John 10:34: Ye are Gods – Mormonism Research Ministry

www.mrm.org

 

[BS Filter]

God doesn't change. Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever. One God. That's the problem with mormonism. In mormonism, there isn't One God.

I think everyone here knows I'm the last person to ever defend the Latter Day Saint Cult.

But what makes your view of God any more or less legitimate than the Mormons?

The Bible says to burn witches and kill homosexuals and to stone your daughter to death if she isn't a virgin on her wedding night. Slavery and child abuse are acceptable and good.

God didn't change his mind, so we changed ours... and we are better off for it.

Does the Bible say to burn witches? Did they stop burning witches or did they realize they weren't witches. If you believed witches really existed shouldn't they be destroyed?

We're talking about the Word of God, not the actions of people.

What is the "word of God" ?

The Bible ?

Yes.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

John 10:31-36
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, 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;
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Why would Jesus call us gods if there is only one God?

Another typical Mormon doctrine. Notice the small case "g". Where is that Scripture from?

That's from the same KJV Bible that you surely use. With the same use of capitals and lower case as what onefour1 quoted. I just googled to verify that it is not just our edition, but all editions of the KJV that make that use of upper and lower cases, and even at least one or two other non-KJV versions.

What is it that you are trying to dispute, here? It seems that any disagreement on your part is with the Bible itself, or at least with the KJV.