The Truth about Mormons

[Truthspeaker]

Dear Truth I appreciate you also for how you started and conduct this thread in the spirit of truth, and correction with forgiveness. I believe you will succeed in sharing and establishing truth because of your pure motivations.

As for your specific qualifications on sins against the Holy Spirit, given that Jesus and the Bible are for all people, I find this is "too limited" unless you interpret what you provided more universally to apply to the "spiritual state" that is causing the unforgiveness.

If you pinpoint just one specific application, instead of the general condition and causes behind what you presented, then people would go around targeting THOSE particular cases or people, and we would no longer be equal in God's eyes. The interpretation, even of what you state, should be able to apply to any and all people equally, so we are equally at fault when we threaten to go into that state of unforgiveness which causes such rebellion and retribution; basically being so jealous or resentful of God's ways being supreme that we would seek to sabotage what is good and healed -- any action like that must STILL come from "unforgiveness". So "unforgiveness" is still the common root of the sin, and which applies to ALL people.

Now if you mean when unforgiveness causes someone else to break their faith and become unforgiving, so it causes a chain reaction, then yes, that still shows how many layers, even generations, it would take to heal the consequences of unforgiveness.

So I would also agree that makes the degree of sin multifold, and explains WHY it takes more than one world or generation before such a chain of sins is fully healed or forgiven.

So I would not agree to limit the issue of unforgiveness to just that particular literal instance, but would still look at the SPIRIT of what causes the example you gave to be such a compounding issue; and to see how other cases are on the same level of transgression, causing so much damage that it is not healed "in this world or the next."

However, by the fourth and fifth generation, even curses carried in the spirit that people in the past died without forgiving and giving to Christ; these can be given by future generations and still be brought to redemption. So there is an end to the unforgiveness.

Healing may not come in one life or the next, but once divine forgiveness in Christ is established then all truth is revealed so all are set free from the past.

From our human perspective it is NOT forgiven, since lifetimes are limited and once you die in sin that is too late to make peace. But from God's perspective, which transcends the linear limitations of human life and death, then God's love and grace conquers all over time.

I don't think this has to negate your Mormon interpretation, but just expands on it to apply the same concept of "unforgiveness" causing rebellion and vengeful destruction. I believe we agree more than disagree, because "unforgiveness" is the common factor that would cause such problems and consequences.

I think that is the better focus because the warning would be general and apply to ALL people in ALL things we do. Anything we do out of "unforgiveness" especially for those who do not forgive God and do self-destructive things to hurt themselves or others out of anger, can be seen as falling under that level of abuse with lifetimes of repercussions. Such a negative chain reaction has the SAME effect you mention of causing others to fall away or reject or lose faith, by spreading unforgiving destruction. But it does not have to be literal "teaching" as a formal minister. It can be teaching indirectly by example.

So I would just interpret it more generally, in keeping with the SPIRIT of why the case you present is so critical, but not necessarily just a literal case that would not apply to all people.

Yours truly,
Emily

Emily,
Though I may not agree with everything you say regarding the root of all evil, we can agree on this statement by God:

"I the Lord will forgive whom I will forgive. But for you it is required to forgive all man. For verily vengeance is mine. And I will repay."

The root of all evil is actually a lack of love for God and your fellow man. These two virtues when absent result in entirely selfish behavior and the man's deeds/crimes are limited only by his imagination.

Truthspeaker

 

[JakeStarkey]

Of course not, because traditional Christianity does not have any writings in the Bible about the unpardonable sin. We have more revelation on the subject.

I agree that you have plenty of opinion and statements. Revelation? No.

Well you say NO and I say SO. But we have the only writings on the subject of Unpardonable Sin. Take them for what they're worth.

I am fully aware of what they are worth, but hang on to them if it makes you happy.

 

[Skeptik]

But simply let me remind all that traditional and historical Christianity does not interpret the "unpardonable sin" as does the opinion of Mormon theology.

Of course not, because traditional Christianity does not have any writings in the Bible about the unpardonable sin. We have more revelation on the subject.

I agree that you have plenty of opinion and statements. Revelation? No.

Do you believe that real Christianity could have been restored after the Middle Ages by any means other than revelation?

 

[Liability]

The Mormon bump du jour!

The bump used to be a dance (or at least a dance move).

Do actual adherents of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints engage in such frivolity?

 

[Truthspeaker]

The Mormon bump du jour!

The bump used to be a dance (or at least a dance move).

Do actual adherents of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints engage in such frivolity?

You should see me on the dance floor. I got moves

 

[Truthspeaker]

Of course not, because traditional Christianity does not have any writings in the Bible about the unpardonable sin. We have more revelation on the subject.

I agree that you have plenty of opinion and statements. Revelation? No.

Do you believe that real Christianity could have been restored after the Middle Ages by any means other than revelation?

Perhaps Jake feels that Christianity never apostatized? Perhaps he feels that Christianity was false all along? I wonder which?

 

[Skeptik]

I agree that you have plenty of opinion and statements. Revelation? No.

Do you believe that real Christianity could have been restored after the Middle Ages by any means other than revelation?

Perhaps Jake feels that Christianity never apostatized? Perhaps he feels that Christianity was false all along? I wonder which?

I don't see how anyone could study the history of Christianity and not see that the teachings of Christ totally corrupted during the Middle Ages. The choices are: Christianity was false all along, or the Christian church had to be restored through prophecy.

The only way Christianity can be right, and Mormonism wrong, is if the prophet is yet to be born.

BTW, in your never give up av, are you the frog, or the heron? It looks to me like the frog might as well give it up.

 

[Truthspeaker]

Do you believe that real Christianity could have been restored after the Middle Ages by any means other than revelation?

Perhaps Jake feels that Christianity never apostatized? Perhaps he feels that Christianity was false all along? I wonder which?

I don't see how anyone could study the history of Christianity and not see that the teachings of Christ totally corrupted during the Middle Ages. The choices are: Christianity was false all along, or the Christian church had to be restored through prophecy.

The only way Christianity can be right, and Mormonism wrong, is if the prophet is yet to be born.

BTW, in your never give up av, are you the frog, or the heron? It looks to me like the frog might as well give it up.

I'm definitely the frog!

The heron definitely looks surprised but if he just bites down harder he should break those little frog arms but if he panicks the the frog may have earned another two weeks of life by getting spit out.

But I agree with your statement completely.

 

[JakeStarkey]

How ignorant you are of scripture and history. There was no Christian wide apostasy in the 2nd or 4th or 16th century. Any who believe that refuse to recognize the majesty of Christ the King who rules over us all.

Let you in on a secret, gang. The Lord Christ does not your advice.

 

[Skeptik]

How ignorant you are of scripture and history. There was no Christian wide apostasy in the 2nd or 4th or 16th century. Any who believe that refuse to recognize the majesty of Christ the King who rules over us all.

Let you in on a secret, gang. The Lord Christ does not your advice.

I'm sure Christ was very proud of his church when Torqumada was torturing the Jews and when the Crusaders were trying to take Jerusalem back from the Muslims.

 

[Liability]

How ignorant you are of scripture and history. There was no Christian wide apostasy in the 2nd or 4th or 16th century. Any who believe that refuse to recognize the majesty of Christ the King who rules over us all.

Let you in on a secret, gang. The Lord Christ does not your advice.

I'm sure Christ was very proud of his church when [Torquemada] was torturing the Jews and when the Crusaders were trying to take Jerusalem back from the Muslims.

Far be it from me to take up for Jake, but --

Jesus Christ taught non-violence. It is a fallacy to ascribe to Jesus or His teachings the actions of Torquemada.

It is a similar fallacy to ascribe to Jesus Christ or His teachings or the Church any of the actions of the Crusaders -- justifiable or not.

There IS a difference between the pure teachings of Jesus and the historical interpretation of those teachings later by the Church.

 

[Truthspeaker]

How ignorant you are of scripture and history. There was no Christian wide apostasy in the 2nd or 4th or 16th century. Any who believe that refuse to recognize the majesty of Christ the King who rules over us all.

Let you in on a secret, gang. The Lord Christ does not your advice.

I'm sure Christ was very proud of his church when [Torquemada] was torturing the Jews and when the Crusaders were trying to take Jerusalem back from the Muslims.

Far be it from me to take up for Jake, but --

Jesus Christ taught non-violence. It is a fallacy to ascribe to Jesus or His teachings the actions of Torquemada.

It is a similar fallacy to ascribe to Jesus Christ or His teachings or the Church any of the actions of the Crusaders -- justifiable or not.

There IS a difference between the pure teachings of Jesus and the historical interpretation of those teachings later by the Church.

You're right but I think you missed Skeptik's sarcasm.

 

[Avatar4321]

How ignorant you are of scripture and history. There was no Christian wide apostasy in the 2nd or 4th or 16th century. Any who believe that refuse to recognize the majesty of Christ the King who rules over us all.

Let you in on a secret, gang. The Lord Christ does not your advice.

Which, of course, is why Paul stated that Christ would not return until after there was an Apostasy. And why John saw that the Saints were overcome by the adversary until the Lord sent an Angel carrying the Everlasting Gospel to the people to prepare them for the judgments of God. Or Amons prophecied there would be a Famine of the Word and God and man would travel throughout the land and be unable to find it. Or why Isaiah prophecied that men would break the everlasting covenant and change the ordinances.

Or why there are thousands of different Christian Churches teaching different doctrines. Or why there ceased to be scripture and revelation. It must be because God has changed rather than because of man turning from Him.

Quite frankly, I dont buy it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Or when Parley Pratt tried to kill an injured captive in Missouri, or when Bill Hickman or Orrin Rockwell was on the loose, or at Mountain Meadows. Or when Joseph Smith broke his wife's heart. I agree that God sheds tears over all his children's misdeeds in a church's cause.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Church fathers, doctors, theologians, etc. among the historical churches clearly teach that such teaching involved local audiences with local concerns. Thus a teaching on a sin about adultery is obviously for all Christians, but a teaching about apostasy is a local concern, not a prophesy that a church wide apostasy was coming.

To think you have the only path to the Father and the Son is rather hubristic. Narrow is the gate. Look to your own character and soul, and find your rest and comfort in Christ.

 

[Truthspeaker]

Or when Parley Pratt tried to kill an injured captive in Missouri, or when Bill Hickman or Orrin Rockwell was on the loose, or at Mountain Meadows. Or when Joseph Smith broke his wife's heart. I agree that God sheds tears over all his children's misdeeds in a church's cause.

You're missing the mark. Even though the cases you brought up are quite questionable it remains irrelevant to the doctrine. The mere pointing out of the sins of an individual in a church who goes against the teachings of his religion does not damage the religion itself. It only leaves a poor reputation for the person committing the crime.

Everyone commits sins. Don't blame the doctrine. The doctrine doesn't teach anyone to commit sins.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The inquisition, by your facile reasoning, then is exculpated for the Catholic Church. The acts of Pratt, or Smith, or Young do reflect on the integrity of your church: don't every pretend they don't. And the acts are not questionable. They happened. And your leaders were unrighteous.

 

[Truthspeaker]

Church fathers, doctors, theologians, etc. among the historical churches clearly teach that such teaching involved local audiences with local concerns.

What does that mean? Who cares what they said. Amos in the Bible prophecied of the "falling away" that would come before the "great and dreadful day of the Lord."

Thus a teaching on a sin about adultery is obviously for all Christians, but a teaching about apostasy is a local concern, not a prophesy that a church wide apostasy was coming.

That's quite an opinion but this is the good ol' USA.

To think you have the only path to the Father and the Son is rather hubristic.

Says the man who oozes hubrisity not unlike the character glorified by his avatar. At least at times. But thanks for the runaway word of the day.

Narrow is the gate.

Yeah. The gate IS narrow. That seems very contradictory of you to say, especially on the heels of blaming us for claiming we have the only true way. That would make the way pretty narrow.

Look to your own character and soul, and find your rest and comfort in Christ

We can agree on this

 

[Truthspeaker]

The inquisition, by your facile reasoning, then is exculpated for the Catholic Church. The acts of Pratt, or Smith, or Young do reflect on the integrity of your church: don't every pretend they don't. And the acts are not questionable. They happened. And your leaders were unrighteous.

Just because you insist something doesn't somehow make it true. Let's go incident by incident then if we have to.
What act perpetrated by our leaders changes our doctrine? Remember, since the church is founded on Christ and not our leaders, even the prophet can be in breach of his own teachings and yet the church itself remains intact.
But I maintain that our leaders were righteous men to begin with.

 

[Liability]

Somewhere it is already after midnight.

Thus, in a way, this is an early Mormon Bump.

Good Mormon!

Touch me in the Mormon
Then just walk away
We don't have tomorrow
But we had yesterday