Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Doctrine of Temple Work (Mormonism - Open)
Ensign ^ | October 2003 | Elder David E. Sorensen

Posted on 10/26/2010 5:17:20 AM PDT by Colofornian

Snip

...Joseph Smith warned of the consequences when we fail to use the temples available to us: “Those Saints who neglect [temple work] in behalf of their deceased relatives, do it at the peril of their own salvation.”

Snip

A key function of temples is to perform ordinance work for our deceased ancestors. When we think of temple ordinances and the necessity to do them perfectly, without error...

“… For their salvation is necessary and essential to our salvation...they without us cannot be made perfect—neither can we without our dead be made perfect” (D&C 128:5, 15;...).

Consider the...vision of President Joseph F. Smith...:

“Thus was the gospel preached to those who had died in their sins...having rejected the prophets.

Snip

The Lord revealed through... Joseph: “All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, … through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power … are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead” (D&C 132:7).

Snip

...One of the great privileges we have is the wearing of the garment...

...The garment, … when properly worn, will serve as a protection against temptation and evil.

“It is expected that members will wear the garment both night and day...Members should not adjust the garment or wear it contrary to instructions in order to accommodate different styles of clothing...The garment should not be removed for activities which might reasonably be done with the garment worn beneath the clothing...

(Excerpt) Read more at new.lds.org ...


TOPICS: History; Other Christian; Religion & Culture; Theology
KEYWORDS: baptismofthedead; inman; lds; mormons; prayforthoseincults; temple
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350351-381 next last
To: Logophile; Paragon Defender
Hey guy's I've some questions:

How did the French word “adieu” get into the Book of Mormon? (Jacob 7:27)

Brigham Young said, “The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy”. (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, page 269) Why did the Mormons yield to the pressure of the government and stop practicing polygamy?

If the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, why have the Mormons changed it? (There have been over 3,000 changes in the Book of Mormon, exclusive of punctuation changes)

Why is it that no other writings have been found in the language of “Reformed Egyptian”, the supposed language of the Book of Mormon plates? Is there evidence that such a language really existed?

251 posted on 10/28/2010 3:26:57 PM PDT by Osage Orange (MOLON LABE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: Logophile
Let's look at Romans 8, since you wish to avoid the race analogy. I will confine my editorializing to italics, for clarity:

Romans 8:1-17 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. [That is now, not in some future exchange, now no condemnation to them who walk not after the flesh, trying to resist the flesh's influence like Mormonism teaches as a condition for receiving the Grace of God in Christ.] For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. [Surely you see that Paul is pointing to the weakness/impossibility of legalism--like Mormonism teaches as pre-condition to receiving--to receive the Grace. If you could keep the law to be righteous, the cross would be superfluous. If you cannot see that meaning, I have other passages which will make it clear for you, but Paul interates the meaning in the following.]

For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. [Paul is telling Mormons that to seek salvation 'after all that you can do'--that is governing oneself by the carnal mind--is to be subject to the law of sin and death, that Jesus ended that impossible task with His own blood as the perfect sacrifice. In the Jewish tradition, the sacrifice was given to cancel the sins of the past year, or to cancel the sins which would yet occur in the coming year? ... The blood was to cancel the sins already committed, then the blood would have to be applied again in a years time. But Jesus offered His own blood, that, once for all sins, so you can walk after the spirit from the day you are born again, all the rest of your life because your sins, all your sins, have been blotted out.]

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. [The Spirit, God's Spirit, The Spirit of Christ is to dwell in you from the moment you are born again. To ignore that precious truth is to spit in God's face.] And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. [Notice, again Paul emphasizes the Spirit of Christ, The Holy Spirit dwells in you.]

Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. [Notice again, this is cast in the present tense, not a pie in the sky right before you die transaction as Mormonism teaches.]

For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

'But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.' ... If a Mormon insists on 'after all that he or she can do then to receive the Grace and Spirit of God, that person is not now a Christian, because they are walking after the flesh, with the carnal mind battling daily to defeat sin and conquer death. BUT if that Mormon receives the Spirit and walks after the spirit, not waiting to receive the Grace of God in Christ into them after all that they can do to earn the Grace, then that Mormon is a Christian. That is what Paul teaches is the action of faith, faithing, walking after the Spirit relying on the Promise of God.

The sequence is 'be born again, receive into your spirit the Spirit of Christ, walk in the spirit and God will defeat the power of sin and death in you for the rest of your life'. Sure, you'll slip and fall, but there is now no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus. You cannot lose His promised Salvation, for if you could then you would have to crucify again the Son of God to obtain cleansing. [I'm sure you know to which passage in Paul's letters that comes from.] Do you believe God would entrust His precious Grace to your care, you who has been defeated by the law of sin and death and needing the only remedy, the Blood fo Christ?

252 posted on 10/28/2010 3:40:52 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Some, believing they can't be deceived, it's nigh impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: Logophile; colorcountry
Is it not possible that both are telling the truth as they understand it?

There cannot be two conflicting 'truths' - there is only one truth. The ball will either fall to the ground when you drop it or go the the sky. Truth is that it goes to the ground. The other is fantasy.

253 posted on 10/28/2010 3:42:30 PM PDT by Godzilla (3-7-77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: Logophile

“But how do you verify?”

I go to the Bible and compare what mormonism teaches to
what God says. Mormonism always comes up short, sucking
wind and promoting a condemned heresy.

“If a Mormon and a non-Mormon (or ex-Mormon) disagree about some aspect of Mormonism, how do you decide who is telling the truth and who is lying?”

The mormon has been taught to be deceitful, by “lying for
the Lord” - ie. withholding the full truth under the
justification that people are “not ready for meat”. I
believe the person who was a 5th generation mormon and has
lived the mormon lies and then comes to realize they
were deceived. They can recount their exact experience
blow for blow. There are tens of thousands who are willing
to discuss their experience. A picture emerges that
mormonism tries to hide. When what they say is backed up
by your official writings, of course I believe that person.

The problem your cult has - other than the fact it is a
heresy - is that it does not want to be forthright and
honest about what it believes. It is too bizarre and not
even close to Christianity. You wear magic underwear, for
crying out loud. So your members come of FR and refuse to
confirm what your group teaches, because they know it is
so far out of Christianity.

“Do you ever consider that two people can have an honest disagreement?”

Sure. But if by that you mean that we can look at the Bible
and you can say there can exist an infinite number of gods
and I read God’s specific statement that there is ONE God and no other God but Him, then we do not have an honest
disagreement. We have a heresy on your side.

There is not moral or spiritual equivalence there at all,
so it is more than an honest disagreement.

Best,
ampu


254 posted on 10/28/2010 4:01:35 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: Logophile; Godzilla
Is it not possible that both are telling the truth as they understand it?

It means someone doesn't understand. Then we must look at the evidence and come to a conclusion.

255 posted on 10/28/2010 4:20:33 PM PDT by colorcountry ("The power of facts is much greater than the power of argument.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: Osage Orange
How did the French word “adieu” get into the Book of Mormon? (Jacob 7:27)

Actually, adieu has been an English word since the 14th century. And it got into the Book of Mormon the same way all the other English words did: The book is a translation.

Brigham Young said, “The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy”. (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, page 269)

In the same talk, Brigham Young said,

It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained.
In context, President Young seems to be saying that LDS must accept the doctrine even if they did not practice polygamy themselves.

Why did the Mormons yield to the pressure of the government and stop practicing polygamy?

The Lord told them to.

If the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, why have the Mormons changed it? (There have been over 3,000 changes in the Book of Mormon, exclusive of punctuation changes)

I thought it was over 4000 changes. No matter. We are not scriptural inerrantists. As Robert J. Matthews observes,

During [Joseph Smith's] lifetime, three editions of the Book of Mormon were printed. Each time, he amended the text in a few places to more correctly convey the intended meaning of his translation. Other changes in these and successive editions were made to correct typographical errors, improper spelling, and inaccurate or missing punctuation and to improve grammar and sentence structure to eliminate ambiguity. None of these changes, individually or collectively, alter the message of the Book of Mormon. (Why have changes been made in the printed editions of the Book of Mormon? Ensign, March 1987)

Why is it that no other writings have been found in the language of “Reformed Egyptian”, the supposed language of the Book of Mormon plates? Is there evidence that such a language really existed?

To be precise, "the reformed Egyptian" is not a language, but the term used by the Nephites for characters based on Egyptian writing. (See Mormon 9:32.)

Since we do not know exactly what this reformed Egyptian was, we cannot say whether it was used to record texts other than the Book of Mormon.

256 posted on 10/28/2010 4:37:19 PM PDT by Logophile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: Logophile
Why did the Mormons yield to the pressure of the government and stop practicing polygamy?

The Lord told them to.

Well good try....but the Federal Government did. Don't be silly!!

I'm off to go eat some food...with some fellow Christians...

I will get back to you....

257 posted on 10/28/2010 4:42:19 PM PDT by Osage Orange (MOLON LABE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Are you having reading problems today, or just trying to be deceitful?

Maybe I am just confused, as you suggested before.

I wrote 'IF' that passage ... because I believe your so-called scriptures (the book of Mormon) are nothing more than a poorly written novel patterned after the Bible, containing many quotes from the King James Bible and long passages the flow of which are straight out of OT stories.

The "If" comes from Paul, not the Book of Mormon. So your opinion of the Book of Mormon, while no doubt sincere, is irrelevant here.

I did not quote from Romans, I pointed to the passage from Paul which supports the concept of 'first you get saved, then you run the race, and after running the race you get the rewards for your performance'.

Well, I did quote from Romans. The other passages are good too. It seems perfectly clear to me that what we teach agrees with what Paul taught.

Sorry, Logo, that is blasphemous heresy. That you do not realize it contradicts what the Bible teaches is yet another sign of being under the influence of a demonic cult.

As the old saying goes, one man's heresy is another man's orthodoxy.

258 posted on 10/28/2010 4:54:31 PM PDT by Logophile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Are you having reading problems today, or just trying to be deceitful?

Maybe I am just confused, as you suggested before.

I wrote 'IF' that passage ... because I believe your so-called scriptures (the book of Mormon) are nothing more than a poorly written novel patterned after the Bible, containing many quotes from the King James Bible and long passages the flow of which are straight out of OT stories.

The "If" comes from Paul, not the Book of Mormon. So your opinion of the Book of Mormon, while no doubt sincere, is irrelevant here.

I did not quote from Romans, I pointed to the passage from Paul which supports the concept of 'first you get saved, then you run the race, and after running the race you get the rewards for your performance'.

Well, I did quote from Romans. The other passages are good too. It seems perfectly clear to me that what we teach agrees with what Paul taught.

Sorry, Logo, that is blasphemous heresy. That you do not realize it contradicts what the Bible teaches is yet another sign of being under the influence of a demonic cult.

As the old saying goes, one man's heresy is another man's orthodoxy.

259 posted on 10/28/2010 4:54:37 PM PDT by Logophile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Let's look at Romans 8, since you wish to avoid the race analogy.

No, I am perfectly happy with the race analogy. I was being overly pedantic by pointing that Paul writes about running the race in 1 Corinthians 9 and Hebrews 12, not Romans 8. Forgive me for showing off.

260 posted on 10/28/2010 4:56:06 PM PDT by Logophile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: Logophile; Osage Orange
Actually, adieu has been an English word since the 14th century. And it got into the Book of Mormon the same way all the other English words did: The book is a translation.

Really!! Joseph Smith could READ and understood Reformed Egyptian, a language that no one but him has ever seen? Was he reading off the gold plates, or did he read it off the rock in the hat?

261 posted on 10/28/2010 4:57:32 PM PDT by colorcountry ("The power of facts is much greater than the power of argument.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: colorcountry

The Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, who of course knows all languages.


262 posted on 10/28/2010 5:00:06 PM PDT by Normandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: Logophile
From your quote: "None of these changes, individually or collectively, alter the message of the Book of Mormon." Logo, that is some more deception! Here are a few changes from the pre-1837 and 1837 editions. These are significant changes which change the meaning of the message:

1Nephi changes:

Prior to 1837

After 1837 changes …

11:18 And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of God, after the manner of flesh.

And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.

11:21 And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father! Knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw?

And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father! Knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw?

11:32 And it came to pass that the angel spake unto me again, saying, look! And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Everlasting God, was judged of the world; and I saw and bear record.

And it came to pass that the angel spake unto me again, saying: Look! And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Son of the everlasting God was judged of the world; and I saw and bear record.

13:40 And the angel spake unto me, saying: These last records which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first, which is of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, and shall make known the plain and precious things which have been taken away from them; and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Saviour of the world; and that all men must come unto Him, or they cannot be saved;

And the angel spake unto me, saying: These last records, which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first, which are of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, and shall make known the plain and precious things which have been taken away from them; and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the world; and that all men must come unto him, or they cannot be saved.

Logo, researchers have poured over these changes and aligned them with the evolving assertions of Joseph Smith. It looks like his changes in the 1837 edition were made to support the changes to his claimed first vision. Yet he was lazy, because later in the BofM he failed to change the same sort of passages which support the trinity. Your peepstone prophet was a charlatan.

I would be interested in reading what the official excuse is for the inclusion of the Latin name 'Lucifer' in a BofM supposed quote from Isaiah circa 600BC. This should be interesting, if you have yet been fed the answer.

263 posted on 10/28/2010 5:08:34 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Some, believing they can't be deceived, it's nigh impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: Normandy
The Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, who of course knows all languages.

Exactly.

264 posted on 10/28/2010 5:14:27 PM PDT by Logophile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: Normandy; Logophile; greyfoxx39
The Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, who of course knows all languages.

Well isn't that nice?

So you are saying that Joseph Smith didn't translate the golden plates, er.., I mean rock in the hat, er.. I mean Book of Mormon, but that he transmitted the words that your god put into his head when he looked at the rock in the hat? And that your god told him a French word instead of an English word. Yet your god didn't know an proper English word to express 'curelom' or 'cumom.' And he didn't know how to tell us about blades chipped from rock but called them steel instead?

Is that what you're saying?

265 posted on 10/28/2010 5:15:36 PM PDT by colorcountry ("The power of facts is much greater than the power of argument.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: Logophile
It appears you are dodging my question, in order to allow a purposed confusion. So I will again post:

Let's un-parse your assertion:
"... I agree that one must be born again, that one must run patiently the race set before us, and that one must endure to the end. I also agree that one cannot do any of these things on his own merits." Logophile

Do you believe that one must FIRST be born again, THEN run the race set before us? Do you believe that 'endure to the end' refers to running the race AFTER being born again? I posted the passages from Romans 8 because you seem confused. Can you answer the above questions directly?

266 posted on 10/28/2010 5:17:19 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Some, believing they can't be deceived, it's nigh impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: colorcountry
Is that what you're saying?

I have never said any of those things.

267 posted on 10/28/2010 5:18:54 PM PDT by Logophile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Logo, that is some more deception!

No, that is an opinion.

268 posted on 10/28/2010 5:20:12 PM PDT by Logophile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: colorcountry

Some Mormons will repeat/promote any foolishness so long as it keeps the hive from being shaken. Sad thing is, nether of these posters comprehends why the lie they’re promoting is so damnable to their religion. But you did focus a laser beam on the foolishness of that assertion that a peepstone false prophet was translating by the power of God.


269 posted on 10/28/2010 5:21:53 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Some, believing they can't be deceived, it's nigh impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: Godzilla
There cannot be two conflicting 'truths' - there is only one truth.

Yet humans, being imperfect and limited in our understanding, often differ on what is true. All one has to do is consider how many different ways Christians interpret the Bible.

The ball will either fall to the ground when you drop it or go the the sky. Truth is that it goes to the ground. The other is fantasy.

Yes, the ball falls. But why? Aristotle, Newton, and Einstein each offered explanations for the phenomena. Which one was right?

270 posted on 10/28/2010 5:25:19 PM PDT by Logophile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: Logophile

You are correct, you stated an opinion, a steeped-in-Mormonism opinion. I apologize. You would have to not believe what you said and yet say what you asserted for it to be deception. But I was actually referring to the man whom you quoted, whom it is my opinion knows full well that the Christian world sees such changes as I offered in a follow-up post as very significant.


271 posted on 10/28/2010 5:26:19 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Some, believing they can't be deceived, it's nigh impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: Logophile
I have never said any of those things.

You're correct. You never did. What you don't say is often of more importance.

That you can't/don't/won't discuss the obvious discrepancies about your tales, inaccuracies, words that don't exist, might have been known in 14th century England, but doesn't seem to know, and of a book "translated by the gift and power of God, who of course knows all languages....." is very telling in and of itself.

Lurkers see it, even if you don't.

272 posted on 10/28/2010 5:27:40 PM PDT by colorcountry ("The power of facts is much greater than the power of argument.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN; colorcountry; Osage Orange
The really NEAT thing about mormonism is...any time there is a doctrinal or historical or just plain logical question that can't be answered by going to the true Scriptures, the Bible, the "God told me so" card can be played.

How handy is THAT? The Christian is stuck with the actual written Word of God.

273 posted on 10/28/2010 5:29:57 PM PDT by greyfoxx39 (Pray for Obama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: Godzilla; Logophile

Well, it took a while but you finally pulled Logo’s covers with a very simple question. When someone has to go to the extreme Logo has chosen, to try and fabricate room for the heresies of Mormonism to be ‘just as reasonable as the Bible assertions which Mormonism contradicts’, then that one has run to hide behind parsing papa. [BTW, both Newton and Einstein are correct, but Albert’s mathematical explanation is more detailed in general relativity than Newtonian mathematics. Richard Feynman was fond of the geometric proof of gravitational planetary motions, using triangles within the ellipse of a planetary orbit.]


274 posted on 10/28/2010 5:33:38 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Some, believing they can't be deceived, it's nigh impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Do you believe that one must FIRST be born again, THEN run the race set before us? Do you believe that 'endure to the end' refers to running the race AFTER being born again?

Yes.

275 posted on 10/28/2010 6:06:06 PM PDT by Logophile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: colorcountry
That you can't/don't/won't discuss the obvious discrepancies about your tales, inaccuracies, words that don't exist, might have been known in 14th century England, but doesn't seem to know, and of a book "translated by the gift and power of God, who of course knows all languages....." is very telling in and of itself.

Your post doesn't make sense. Haven't we been discussing those things? And haven't we done so many times before?

276 posted on 10/28/2010 6:12:44 PM PDT by Logophile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: Logophile

Then you are a Christian, so why are you stuck in Mormonism which contradicts those points, turning the syllogism around to make doing all that you can do to earn Grace the center of Mormonism?


277 posted on 10/28/2010 6:13:29 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Some, believing they can't be deceived, it's nigh impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: Logophile
Yet humans, being imperfect and limited in our understanding, often differ on what is true.

Is the earth round or flat? Some are split on what is considered true on this point. Therefore, what some consider 'true' or truth is not.

Aristotle, Newton, and Einstein each offered explanations for the phenomena. Which one was right?

Truth - the ball falls. Aristotle, Newton and Einstein had differing views as to why - each with greater knowledge - yet the truth was still the ball falls.

278 posted on 10/28/2010 6:14:20 PM PDT by Godzilla (3-7-77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN; Logophile; colorcountry

CC was correct. One is incorrect in their assessment and the fundamentals should be more closely examined.

This requires objective evaluations - not subjective ones based upon feelings or impressions.


279 posted on 10/28/2010 6:18:48 PM PDT by Godzilla (3-7-77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Then you are a Christian, . . .

At last we agree on something.

. . . so why are you stuck in Mormonism which contradicts those points, turning the syllogism around to make doing all that you can do to earn Grace the center of Mormonism?

We will have to agree to disagree on what Mormonism teaches.

280 posted on 10/28/2010 6:20:51 PM PDT by Logophile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: Logophile
Why is it that no other writings have been found in the language of “Reformed Egyptian”, the supposed language of the Book of Mormon plates? Is there evidence that such a language really existed?

To be precise, "the reformed Egyptian" is not a language, but the term used by the Nephites for characters based on Egyptian writing. (See Mormon 9:32.)

Since we do not know exactly what this reformed Egyptian was, we cannot say whether it was used to record texts other than the Book of Mormon.

Really? You send "Dear Reader's" to Mormon 9:32??? To get the truth??? Are you kidding me? Nephites??? Who are these guy's?

That's the official answer? LDS, Inc. must be stuck here. Changing the BOM...has been easy for you all...but this little part ain't so easy is it.

Unbelievable....

281 posted on 10/28/2010 6:27:51 PM PDT by Osage Orange (MOLON LABE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: Logophile

Oh really? You would have to explain the ‘after all that you can do’ teaching if we go any further. I’m sure that during Paul’s time there were many gentile Christians who had strange concepts somehow mixed in with their past pagan beliefs. In fact we know this to be true because Paul qwrote his letters to try and correct many of these incorrect notions. But his teaching is very explicit in Romans 8 and to the Galatians and Corinthians and Ephesians. What James concluded in that interesting council in Jerusalem regarding what not to hang about the necks of gentile Christians is also very interesting to note. Confusion God can excuse. Contradiction He will coreect. Deceit He will not countenance. Ignoring His Grace He will condemn.


282 posted on 10/28/2010 6:28:43 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Some, believing they can't be deceived, it's nigh impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: Normandy

“The Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, who of course knows all languages.”

Normandy, you have made two claims here that are unsupported
by any:

... Facts
... Evidence
... Logical Arguments

You have simply made a wild claim. It remains unsupported,
and as such, simply a personal opinion.

What support do you have for such a wild claim?

Best as always to you,
ampu


283 posted on 10/28/2010 6:29:31 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

That last should read ‘Ignoring His Grace He has already condemned.’


284 posted on 10/28/2010 6:31:04 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Some, believing they can't be deceived, it's nigh impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: Godzilla
This requires objective evaluations - not subjective ones based upon feelings or impressions.

Have I cited my feelings in support of anything?

285 posted on 10/28/2010 6:42:23 PM PDT by Logophile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Oh really?

Oh really what?

286 posted on 10/28/2010 6:43:55 PM PDT by Logophile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: Osage Orange
Really? You send "Dear Reader's" to Mormon 9:32??? To get the truth??? Are you kidding me? Nephites??? Who are these guy's?

To find out what the Book of Mormon says, it is not unusual or unreasonable to read the Book of Mormon itself.

287 posted on 10/28/2010 6:46:03 PM PDT by Logophile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Hi Ampu

A quick response:

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/search?search=Moroni+10%3A3-5

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/thrwtnss

Regards,

Normandy


288 posted on 10/28/2010 6:46:44 PM PDT by Normandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: Godzilla
Truth - the ball falls. Aristotle, Newton and Einstein had differing views as to why - each with greater knowledge - yet the truth was still the ball falls.

Yes, the ball falls. We can at least agree on that truth, however trivial it may be.

289 posted on 10/28/2010 6:49:39 PM PDT by Logophile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion; MHGinTN

Sorry folks,

I responded to the wrong person. See #288, Ampu


290 posted on 10/28/2010 6:52:24 PM PDT by Normandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion
PS - Summary of mormons: They lie. They lie regulary. They distort the truth. They avoid the truth. They tell half truths.

The mormon has been taught to be deceitful, by “lying for the Lord” - ie. withholding the full truth under the justification that people are “not ready for meat”.

The problem your cult has - other than the fact it is a heresy - is that it does not want to be forthright and honest about what it believes.

then we do not have an honest disagreement. We have a heresy on your side.

You have provided some excellent examples of the logical fallacy called "poisoning the well." Thanks.

291 posted on 10/28/2010 7:01:06 PM PDT by Logophile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: Normandy

Normandy,

I’m so sorry, but you have mistaken mormon scriptures
for objective truth. In short, they are simply another
claim without any factual, evidential or logical support
for their claims.

Best,
ampu


292 posted on 10/28/2010 7:10:46 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: Logophile

Logo,

Actually, I stated facts, based on real posts on FR, videos
on YouTube of YOUR leaders teaching missionaries, and my
personal conversations with mormons, including in SLC.

All facts.

ampu


293 posted on 10/28/2010 7:12:45 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion

You seem to discount the possibility, Ampu, that God can communicate truth and knowledge directly to human beings.

How did Peter receive his testimony of Jesus’ divinity?

“And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven” (Matt 16, 16-17)

How did Paul know that we are children of God?

“The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God” (Romans 8:16)

How did any of the revelations come to any of the apostles and prophets? Directly from God.


294 posted on 10/28/2010 8:24:57 PM PDT by Normandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion
All facts.

No, your assertions are too sloppy to be called facts. Consider your "summary of mormons [sic]":

PS - Summary of mormons: They lie. They lie regulary. They distort the truth. They avoid the truth. They tell half truths.

You need to be more specific and objective. Do all Mormons lie or just some of us? How often do we lie? How often do we distort or avoid the truth? How do you know when we are lying? (Perhaps we are deluded or mistaken. Or perhaps you are.)

In short, do you have any real data confirming that Mormons tend to be less truthful than other people?

BTW, you might want to look up "hasty generalization," another logical fallacy.

295 posted on 10/28/2010 8:28:24 PM PDT by Logophile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: Logophile

Mormons lie, not tell the truth, distort the truth, tell half truths, avoid the truth- here on fr, door to door and instruct their missionaries to do exactly that. All facts. Some recorded on YouTube.

I didn’t say that every single Mormon lies every time - talk about your logical fallacies!


296 posted on 10/28/2010 8:37:06 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: Logophile
Since we do not know exactly what this reformed Egyptian was, we cannot say whether it was used to record texts other than the Book of Mormon.

Actually we do.


297 posted on 10/28/2010 8:40:51 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: Logophile
Have I cited my feelings in support of anything?

Not yet - are you going to invoke feelings to support your positions?

298 posted on 10/28/2010 8:44:31 PM PDT by Godzilla (3-7-77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion
Mormons lie, not tell the truth, distort the truth, tell half truths, avoid the truth- here on fr, door to door and instruct their missionaries to do exactly that. All facts. Some recorded on YouTube.

You are just repeating yourself without adding anything of value to the conversation.

I didn’t say that every single Mormon lies every time - talk about your logical fallacies!

I didn't say you did — talk about your red herrings!

Look, I asked for some real data to support your accusations against Mormons. When you have some, let's talk. Until then, good night.

299 posted on 10/28/2010 9:12:50 PM PDT by Logophile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]

To: Saundra Duffy

But, consider the LDS claim of being the ‘restored’ church. (the Proddies and RCs each claim accuracy in all things as well)

restore: to bring back to original condition.

The key word there is ‘original’.

A restored Model T Ford will look, AND function exactly like it did when it was new.

In the OT history of the Jewish kings, we see where once in a while a king tries to restore the proper administration of Law, and worship of God. As long as they had the written instructions, and the desire to follow it to the ‘t’, restoration was the result.

Jesus Christ told Peter that he had correctly identified who he (Christ) was. He told him it was a revelation from God, and not from flesh and blood. The Lord went on to make it clear that this revelation was what he would build his church on.

The ‘new testament’ did not begin until after the crucifiction (For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth”. Heb. 9:17). The Holy Ghost was not poured out until the Lord had left this earth.

The beginning of the church is found in Acts. The first (original) sermon preached to the lost, just minutes after the initial outpouring of the Holy Ghost, was delivered by Peter, who had the revelation of the Lord. So, when the lost souls asked what to do, Peter said unto them, “Repent, and be baptized EVERY ONE of YOU in the NAME of JESUS CHRIST for the REMISSION of SINS, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” Acts 2:38

In Acts, there are several instances where the born again instructions are followed. The apostles all taught the same thing.

The epistles, Romans through Revelation, were written to souls that had already been born again, hence the rebirth process is only alluded to here and there.

As a former Protestant, I’m well acquainted with the (man-made) ‘trinity’ concept, and have studied the LDS version enough to see it to be man-made as well. Over 28 years ago, I believed I was saved, but it was man-made tradition: “accept the Lord as your personal savior”. The blind leaders I was led by were very sincere, but sincerely lost. The Lord commanded that “Ye must be born again”. I wasn’t taught the biblical rebirth method found in Acts 2:38.(speaking with other tongues when being filled with the Holy Ghost)

After reading some of the LDS doctrines from their own sources, I am positively convinced that the LDS church, though loaded with sincere people, is not ‘restored’ at all, but re-invented.

Thank you for your time.

I pray that the Lord guide you into ALL truth.


300 posted on 10/28/2010 9:25:15 PM PDT by Zuriel (Acts 2:38,39....nearly 2,000 years and still working today!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350351-381 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson