zil Posted September 28, 2016 Report Share Posted September 28, 2016 1 hour ago, Larry Cotrell said: Until then, here's 2 Timothy 3:16, another one of my favorites. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" JST: And all scripture given by inspiration of God, is profitable … Windseeker 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jane_Doe Posted September 28, 2016 Report Share Posted September 28, 2016 1 hour ago, mickydo said: Ill get to your other questions tonight after work... jane... have a good day! Mickydo An important question to answer directly: In your view, does God A) force faith and heaven on a person regardless on their consent, or B) is that decision to embrace God's gift a choice on the person's part (choice=an action)? Please answer directly A or B. Note: you are talking to a survivor of brutal childhood sexual assault. Does God force? Or does He honor choice? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted September 28, 2016 Report Share Posted September 28, 2016 1 hour ago, Larry Cotrell said: I want to take sufficient time to answer because this is a very important question. I will try to answer that tonight, as I didn't have time yesterday. Until then, here's 2 Timothy 3:16, another one of my favorites. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" The main reason that I ask the question as I have is because I am far more interested in why a person believes what they do than I am in what it is they believe. A personal lesson from my life experience and training as a mathematician is that the process is always far more important than the final conclusion. I find it so very interesting that the verse you quote in 2Timothy contains the term or idea of "All scripture" - that this text refers to is not at all (not even close) to what we humans have concluded by popular agreement among ourselves to be Biblical scripture today. There is no scripture that defines what scripture is for our modern time. One of the great lessons we learn from the Dead Sea Scriptures is that there is a very big difference in what was thought to be scripture at the time of Jesus and what we consider scripture today. It is interesting that the advice is for "all scripture" and not a specific classifications of scripture. I am very confident that what is meant by "All Scripture" when the text was created that you are quoting was in no way intended to be exclusive of what we call "The Bible" today. If you think that verse is exclusive of Biblical scripture - I am personally sure beyond any possible doubt that you believe this to be exclusive of what we have as the Bible today – that you are sadly in error. BTW – would you consider anything said or written by Jesus to be scripture? Are you aware that there is a letter claimed to have been written by Jesus – both within the text of the letter and historically by the receiver of the letter and that the letter has been carbon dated to the time of Jesus and that the material upon which it was written could have only come from the Middle East where Jesus was. And that this is the only actual original manuscript of antiquity ever found with direct reference to Jesus as the Son of G-d and Christ? The Traveler Jane_Doe 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Cotrell Posted September 28, 2016 Report Share Posted September 28, 2016 2 hours ago, Traveler said: One of the great lessons we learn from the Dead Sea Scriptures is that there is a very big difference in what was thought to be scripture at the time of Jesus and what we consider scripture today. It is interesting that the advice is for "all scripture" and not a specific classifications of scripture. I am very confident that what is meant by "All Scripture" when the text was created that you are quoting was in no way intended to be exclusive of what we call "The Bible" today. If you think that verse is exclusive of Biblical scripture - I am personally sure beyond any possible doubt that you believe this to be exclusive of what we have as the Bible today – that you are sadly in error. Galatians 1:6-12 "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." I'll start with the Old Testament, the content in the old testament is the same as the Tanakh. The books are in a different order, which doesn't change the teachings. The Jewish people have taken very good care of documents for thousands of years. Consider the Masoretes. If they made one single mistake, they would have to completely start over again. (I have been to Qumran as well as the Shrine of the Book; it's amazing and I highly recommend going if you get a chance and haven't been before) To compare the transmission of texts to the game telephone is not even close to accurate. The ancient Jews were extremely careful with the texts. The stories in the Old Testament are backed up by archaeology as well as prophetic consistency. Next is the New Testament. With the New Testament, we have manuscripts that are much closer to the time of the actual events. This moves into your other question: how do we know that the claims about Jesus are really true. One great example of this is how the empty tomb was discovered by women. Here's what people thought of a woman's testimony at the time: “But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex, nor let servants be admitted to give testimony on account of the ignobility of their soul; since it is probable that they may not speak truth, either out of hope of gain, or fear of punishment” (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 4.8.15). “Any evidence which a woman [gives] is not valid (to offer), also they are not valid to offer. This is equivalent to saying that one who is Rabbinically accounted a robber is qualified to give the same evidence as a woman” (Talmud, Rosh Hashannah 1.8). If this story had been made up, men would have been used because they would have been more credible witnesses at the time. Another example of the criterion of embarrassment is the fact the Joseph of Arimathea's tomb was used to bury Jesus. This is significant because he was a member of the Sanhedrin and early Christians were very opposed to the Sanhedrin. Again, if they had made up the story, they wouldn't have chosen to have him buried in the tomb of the Sanhedrin, whom they "hated." There are examples similar to this all throughout the gospels, and the whole Bible. As to what is not in our Bible, there are many books (some added to the Catholic Bible) that do not belong because they are pseudepigraphal. One example of this is Wisdom of Solomon, which is a great book, but was not written by Solomon. There are also many New Testament examples of this such as The Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Mary Magdalene, Gospel of Peter, and The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, just to name a few. However, none of these were written by the claimed authors. 3 hours ago, Traveler said: BTW – would you consider anything said or written by Jesus to be scripture? Are you aware that there is a letter claimed to have been written by Jesus – both within the text of the letter and historically by the receiver of the letter and that the letter has been carbon dated to the time of Jesus and that the material upon which it was written could have only come from the Middle East where Jesus was. And that this is the only actual original manuscript of antiquity ever found with direct reference to Jesus as the Son of G-d and Christ? I am aware of the letter written to Abgar V (assuming that is what you are referring to). I believe that this is pseudepigraphal as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickydo Posted September 29, 2016 Author Report Share Posted September 29, 2016 In your view, does God A) force faith and heaven on a person regardless on their consent, or B) is that decision to embrace God's gift a choice on the person's part (choice=an action)? We may have different working definitions of faith.. Most Christians use Hebrews 11:1. Is that how you all define it??? Faith is a gift and is exercised in couple ways… I do not believe God can or would cause an individual to give a false statement of faith… but I think people can and do give false statements of faith to get by, to not rock the boat, to make others happy, to just get along and to give way to peer pressure. None of that honors God whatsoever. Its just a lie.. To contrast how God does use bonefide true faith lemme say… Demonstrating our faith makes visible to others something that they could never see otherwise. God uses your faith as a witness to the world around you. For instance,… If someone close to you dies and you mourn to a lesser degree than say other members of your family who have no belief in afterlife. They see your faith in something unseen as something real. You are testifying to something unseen (afterlife in this case) by making it visible to them.. God can use that… thats the proper use of faith. I don’t think is serves God to ever force one’s exercising of faith in prophecy. Many of us believe in God’s prophecies. The prophecies will come to pass regardless of an individuals exercising faith in them or not. I cant recall any bible stories about forcing faith.. Moving on… Heaven.. Does God force heaven on a person regardless of consent? This is a difficult question because… heaven is a generic term… lemme define heaven as the Millennial reign or the messianic kingdom it’s the same thing.. Not sure if you have these… this is the 1000 year period after tribulation when Christ sets up His earthly kingdom. Christ is returning for a bride and does so in the rapture event prior to tribulation. The current church is that bride… also described as “the body of Christ”. The bride is the fathers gift to the son. I do not believe it would be made up of individuals who do not love Christ or know Christ. It cannot be made up of perfect people .. for none exist. It is made up of redeemed individuals who were bought with a price (like brides were) and have received gifts (spiritual gifts) as a down payment (like a bride receives a ring). The groom goes off to prepare a place and returns for the bride once its ready at the fathers behest. Sorry didn’t get to part b… I hope this gives you some insight into what some Christians think.. Thanks Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jane_Doe Posted September 29, 2016 Report Share Posted September 29, 2016 7 hours ago, mickydo said: In your view, does God A) force faith and heaven on a person regardless on their consent, or B) is that decision to embrace God's gift a choice on the person's part (choice=an action)? We may have different working definitions of faith.. Most Christians use Hebrews 11:1. Is that how you all define it??? Faith is a gift and is exercised in couple ways… I do not believe God can or would cause an individual to give a false statement of faith… but I think people can and do give false statements of faith to get by, to not rock the boat, to make others happy, to just get along and to give way to peer pressure. None of that honors God whatsoever. Its just a lie.. To contrast how God does use bonefide true faith lemme say… Demonstrating our faith makes visible to others something that they could never see otherwise. God uses your faith as a witness to the world around you. For instance,… If someone close to you dies and you mourn to a lesser degree than say other members of your family who have no belief in afterlife. They see your faith in something unseen as something real. You are testifying to something unseen (afterlife in this case) by making it visible to them.. God can use that… thats the proper use of faith. I don’t think is serves God to ever force one’s exercising of faith in prophecy. Many of us believe in God’s prophecies. The prophecies will come to pass regardless of an individuals exercising faith in them or not. I cant recall any bible stories about forcing faith.. Moving on… Heaven.. Does God force heaven on a person regardless of consent? This is a difficult question because… heaven is a generic term… lemme define heaven as the Millennial reign or the messianic kingdom it’s the same thing.. Not sure if you have these… this is the 1000 year period after tribulation when Christ sets up His earthly kingdom. Christ is returning for a bride and does so in the rapture event prior to tribulation. The current church is that bride… also described as “the body of Christ”. The bride is the fathers gift to the son. I do not believe it would be made up of individuals who do not love Christ or know Christ. It cannot be made up of perfect people .. for none exist. It is made up of redeemed individuals who were bought with a price (like brides were) and have received gifts (spiritual gifts) as a down payment (like a bride receives a ring). The groom goes off to prepare a place and returns for the bride once its ready at the fathers behest. Sorry didn’t get to part b… I hope this gives you some insight into what some Christians think.. Thanks Mike I thank you Mike for the effort you put into this long answer. Unfortunately it seems to get lost in the length and doesn't actually address my question-- which is why I specifically asked for a direct short answer. Why you mind answering my question directly in a single sentence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted September 30, 2016 Report Share Posted September 30, 2016 (edited) On 9/28/2016 at 4:02 AM, mickydo said: Hello Again, 1. There is the population of the earth, as a whole. God foreknows individuals Eph 1:4 "He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him." God prior to creation could have created a world in which ALL are saved.. NONE are saved or SOME are saved. We have to give God the freedom to define what kind of creation he plans on creating. Some people will not accept this fact and must have a God of there own choosing. 2. There is some subset of that population whom God has chosen to be saved--a.k.a. "justified". That subset is called the "elect". The rest of the earth's population are the "non-elect". One's classification in one of these two groups, is wholly unrelated to both a) one's actions, and b) one's decision to believe/exercise faith. Yes... We are helpless in our sinful nature to course correct... Eph 2:1 "And you were dead in your trespasses and sins." Eph 2:4-5 " But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us,5even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)" So... Who has made us alive.. God has.. 3. One can be a member of the "elect"--a.k.a. "saved", a.k.a. "justified", but still not be sanctified. Sanctification is a process that never completes in this world, God's call on our life is effectual (no doubt) but it does not have to be immediate. “Like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word, so that by it you may grow” (1 Peter 2:2). Peter encourages us to do the right thing but each of us have differing levels of cooperation and conviction. last thought.. If sin being present in the individual can cancel out being justified how is anyone saved? Sanctification is aspiring to genuine holiness but never realizing its culmination. (in this world).. 4. We evangelize, not because we expect to accomplish anything of ourselves; but because Jesus commanded us to. Its obedience and heavenly reward are two big motivations.. there are other benefits too. Jesus commanded us to evangelize, because He hopes that the "elect"/"justified"/"saved" will also be sanctified; and sanctification comes through (at minimum) making a conscious decision to accept God's word/true doctrine as it is preached through servants like Paul, Apollos, etc. God allows us to play a role in the construction of His church.. that is preaching the gospel and making disciples of those who respond. But how does God envision this process? Romans 10:13 " WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.” 14How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? 15How will they preach unless they are sent? God is using us to call out to the elect who respond. It's helpful to lead them in prayer to acknowledge the new beginning point of their life. In reality God chose this person long before "the foundations of the world". 5. The non-elect will always be the non-elect without regard to what they do, what they believe, whether they exercise faith, and whether they are ever evangelized. They were basically instruments of damnation from the moment of their creation. Insert Romans 9.. whole chapter... I cannot support how you phrased that.. let God say it... The most offensive text in the bible... most people cant even read it... Romans 9 "Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? 22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. "... God said it... Most people reject it out of hand... I think it's a test of trust.... Isaiah 55:9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. Genesis 18:25 "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” I support Gods clear text even though it offends my fleshly wisdom.. I trust that He can resolve what I cannot. Good nite! Mickydo I'll have some follow-up questions on this paradigm, but could you first let me know whether the above is an accurate restatement of your position? OK, so let me sum-up one more time (and I'm not trying to play "gotcha", I just want to be sure we're on the same page). I've bolded a couple of phrases insofar as I'm not sure I'm correctly/fairly stating your position: God created all people on the earth. Those people fall into two categories: The elect, and the non-elect; who each fall into their respective categories solely because that's the way God made them. Neither faith nor works have anything to do with this initial "sorting"; and at the Final Judgment the elect will be saved in heaven whereas the non-elect will suffer damnation and the eternal wrath of God. However, those people who are in the subset of the "elect" may, if they heed Jesus' call and exercise faith in Him, receive divine power to live Christian lives in a way they never could have done without Him; and at the Final Judgment they will attain a state of holiness or "sanctification". This is why we evangelize. If this is an accurate statement of your position, then we obviously disagree about what gets a person into that initial category of "elect"--you seem to attribute it to predestination; while as a Mormon I would attribute it to the individual's making a conscious and sincere choice to exercise faith in Christ. (See here for LDS scholar Ben Spackman's take on Faith/Works in the context of Paul's writings generally; and here for his take on the epistle to the Romans specifically--certainly not official LDS; but I think they harmonize quite well with my understanding of LDS teaching.) In Mormon teaching, God does give to some people--in fact, to all people--a "Spirit of Christ": an innate sense of right and wrong and an affinity for the divine. As creatures of free will, Mormonism teaches that each individual is capable of either cultivating or quashing that spirit. But differences aside, I think we agree on two things: 1. That once one makes it into that group of the "elect", they are saved. Their works may not match their faith, but they will at least be spared from eternal burnings. This gift is, essentially, free (for the asking, in Mormonism. Please note that I'm trying to speak Evangelicalese here; words like "elect" and "saved" tend to be used somewhat differently within Mormonism and carry different connotations for us). 2. That even once we recognize that we are among that "saved" group, we can eventually achieve a holier state by allowing the seed of faith to germinate and grow, the fruit of which should be a Christian lifestyle and (after resurrection) a state of final sanctification. But even in this process, the focus should be on Christ and not on the individual's works; because a) Jesus is the One who ultimately got the ball rolling (through the call of election, or "spirit of Christ" in Mormon parlance) and b) Jesus is the source of the power that lets us make our own pitifully small contributions in this process. I think, if you read Joseph Smith's 7th Lecture on Faith through this lens, you'd probably find a lot to like. I do have a follow-up question for you, though: Under your paradigm, it would seem that it is both useless and theologically inaccurate for a Christian evangelist (or apologist) to warn those who reject the Gospel, that they may face damnation. Because such antagonists would either be a) a member of the non-elect, who couldn't have been saved under any circumstances; or b) simply a member of the elect who isn't responding to the call--and thus will miss out on sanctification--but who is still justified and will escape hellfire by Jesus' good grace. Is this accurate? Edited September 30, 2016 by Just_A_Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickydo Posted September 30, 2016 Author Report Share Posted September 30, 2016 Hi Jane doe.., I thank you Mike for the effort you put into this long answer. Unfortunately it seems to get lost in the length and doesn't actually address my question-- which is why I specifically asked for a direct short answer. Why you mind answering my question directly in a single sentence? Long answer .. because I'm tryin to be accurate... Heres shorter answer. I dont see God forcing faith on anybody in the bible or in our world. As far as heaven question goes.. I think one of my strengths is eschatology. Christendom has three basic systems of belief for end times scenario...Each would deal with your question about heaven pretty differently. I hold to dispensational pre-millennialism.. thats the term given to it. It holds to a more literal view of biblical texts. Heaven is actually a bit down the road.. Next major step in God's plan for humanity is the rapture, followed by a tribulation period, and then Christ's 1000 year reign on earth, and then great white throne judgement..... and finally heaven... Hard for me to answer about heaven because of the intervening steps till we get to that point. you see? Hey.. I discovered "fair Mormon podcast the other night.. I listened to several hours... I had to shut it down cuz I hit the brain overload point... I cannot believe how much there is to Mormonism... its really vast. The bible alone is a lifetimes worth of work... You all have the bible plus the other three books plus the additional historical information plus the statements of the prophets... Im sure theres more. Its a pretty big enchilada... but Ill tell you I still think the Catholic enchilada is bigger. I ask you if you have a Mormon expertise for couple reasons.. Folks that have an expertise explain the area of expertise better, tend to have a bigger picture of all the moving parts of it and the natural interest helps them want to communicate it. Not everyone does have a particular thing they get into deep.. jus askin. peace Mickydo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jane_Doe Posted September 30, 2016 Report Share Posted September 30, 2016 22 minutes ago, mickydo said: Hi Jane doe.., I thank you Mike for the effort you put into this long answer. Unfortunately it seems to get lost in the length and doesn't actually address my question-- which is why I specifically asked for a direct short answer. Why you mind answering my question directly in a single sentence? Long answer .. because I'm tryin to be accurate... Heres shorter answer. I dont see God forcing faith on anybody in the bible or in our world. Then would you agree that a person's choice to accept God's gift is essential for their salvation? Yes accepting God's get is an action. 23 minutes ago, mickydo said: As far as heaven question goes.. I think one of my strengths is eschatology. Christendom has three basic systems of belief for end times scenario...Each would deal with your question about heaven pretty differently. I hold to dispensational pre-millennialism.. thats the term given to it. It holds to a more literal view of biblical texts. Heaven is actually a bit down the road.. Next major step in God's plan for humanity is the rapture, followed by a tribulation period, and then Christ's 1000 year reign on earth, and then great white throne judgement..... and finally heaven... Hard for me to answer about heaven because of the intervening steps till we get to that point. you see? I specifically left my question vague in that regard, acknowledging the variety of different post-mortal views. My focus was not to ask what your post-mortal views were but rather to focus on the role one's choice has in salvation. The LDS view is quite different from any other sect (I would actually name that as one of the 5 unique things about the LDS faith. 23 minutes ago, mickydo said: Hey.. I discovered "fair Mormon podcast the other night.. I listened to several hours... I had to shut it down cuz I hit the brain overload point... I cannot believe how much there is to Mormonism... its really vast. The bible alone is a lifetimes worth of work... You all have the bible plus the other three books plus the additional historical information plus the statements of the prophets... Im sure theres more. Its a pretty big enchilada... but Ill tell you I still think the Catholic enchilada is bigger. Mike, thank you for my evening smile. Piece of advice about studying Mormonism before you jump into the deep end: you really need to understand the basics before covering the advance topics. Obviously that's pretty much true for any subject, but you'll be amazed how many people try to enroll in theological Calculus before finishing algebra... 23 minutes ago, mickydo said: I ask you if you have a Mormon expertise for couple reasons.. Folks that have an expertise explain the area of expertise better, tend to have a bigger picture of all the moving parts of it and the natural interest helps them want to communicate it. Not everyone does have a particular thing they get into deep.. jus askin. Note: LDS is not a faith that views being a disciple of Christ as being a theology multiple choice test (aka 100% book knowledge). Rather, being a disciple of Christ involves your whole self: learning about book-based theology, but also applied faith and theology (aka go out practice through doing). We should give our minds, our actions, our hearts, and everything else to Christ. Anyway, to actually answer your question.... honestly I don't think I've ever been asked that one before, and I don't have a ready answer. I'm really strong in charity and understanding other people & faiths and conversing there (though I admit this conversation has not been a good example of that). Accepting Christ is also a big theological point with me. I'm also strong in family history (which is an applied theological point). I'm HUGE on symbolism (that's just how I think). Listening to God is another big point. Honesty is a huge point with me. Conversely, church history bores me terribly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickydo Posted September 30, 2016 Author Report Share Posted September 30, 2016 Hello Just a guy, Ill just change it to my liking... God created all people on the earth. Those people fall into two categories: The elect, and the non-elect; who each fall into their respective categories solely because that's the way God made them. Neither faith nor works have anything to do with this initial "sorting"; and at the Final Judgment the elect will be saved in heaven whereas the non-elect will suffer damnation and the eternal wrath of God. However, those people who are in the subset of the "elect" may, if they heed Jesus' call and exercise faith in Him, receive divine power to live Christian lives in a way they never could have done without Him; and at the Final Judgment they will attain a state of holiness or "sanctification". This is why we evangelize. God created all people on the earth. Those people fall into two categories: The elect, and the non-elect; who each fall into their respective categories solely according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved..(Eph 1:5) God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls(Rom 9:11; and at the Final Judgment the elect will be saved in heaven whereas the non-elect will suffer damnation and the eternal wrath of God. However, those people who are in the subset of the "elect" may, if they heed Jesus' call and exercise faith in Him, receive divine power to live Christian lives in a way they never could have done without Him; and at the Final Judgment they will attain a state of holiness or "sanctification". This is why we evangelize. Sorry bout all the strike through... ugh,, End times is way different than that.. we have not talked about at all yet. Getting back to how a person is saved... soteriology. One of the pieces I most want to get right is Mormon soteriology or doctrine of salvation. we've already been doing that.. Ill read this Ben Spackman take on it... thank you very much I'm interested in that...Question... why do you say "it's certainly not official LDS"? Why certainly not? ... it's close right?.. i'd like to get as close to official as i can. To answer your question... That last paragraph... If I choose to warn someone that they may face damnation.. (which would be rare and I would have to have a relationship with the person)... think of it as bringing light to a dark place. It may help them be spared judgement if that is their end. If they are elect then at least it defines an acceptable limit to what I will tolerate in the relationship and provides a deterrent. God knows how we are wired up as he does the wiring. Deterrents work for us... so God provides them in His word... For instance strong belief in doctrine of hell deters bad behavior for some at least. Christians are salt and light.. or at least supposed to be... Just the presence of the church in the world restrains evil. The expansion of evil just in our lifetime is directly proportional to the failure of the Christiandom to live up to its calling both institutionally and individually. back to your question.. and I think you will agree with this... In living out the walk of a Christian we have far more to think about with regard to walking in the spirit, walking in obedience and honoring God with our life choices... whether an individual is elect or not... only comes up in forums with other doctrine geeks... Thanks for the links.. im gonna go read. Mickydo Just_A_Guy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted September 30, 2016 Report Share Posted September 30, 2016 (edited) 10 hours ago, mickydo said: Hello Just a guy, Ill just change it to my liking... . . . God created all people on the earth. Those people fall into two categories: The elect, and the non-elect; who each fall into their respective categories solely according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved..(Eph 1:5) God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls(Rom 9:11; With all due respect, you don't really seem to be disputing that the elect and the non-elect were assigned to their categories through no doing of their own; you seem here merely to be reinforcing that we, as the creation, have no right to call the justice of our Creator into question. Fair statement? Quote and at the Final Judgment the elect will be saved in heaven whereas the non-elect will suffer damnation and the eternal wrath of God. However, those people who are in the subset of the "elect" may, if they heed Jesus' call and exercise faith in Him, receive divine power to live Christian lives in a way they never could have done without Him; and at the Final Judgment they will attain a state of holiness or "sanctification". This is why we evangelize. Sorry bout all the strike through... ugh,, End times is way different than that.. we have not talked about at all yet. Getting back to how a person is saved... soteriology. Well, I was talking about the very end state of mankind--after the rapture and tribulation and millennium. I don't see what eschatology really has to with that discussion, unless you're suggesting that erring doctrinally only creates adverse consequences during the end times but has no eternal significance. Quote One of the pieces I most want to get right is Mormon soteriology or doctrine of salvation. we've already been doing that.. Ill read this Ben Spackman take on it... thank you very much I'm interested in that...Question... why do you say "it's certainly not official LDS"? Why certainly not? ... it's close right?.. i'd like to get as close to official as i can. Mormonism, by its structure, has a pretty broad leadership corps (whom we call "general authorities"). At any given time there is a Church president, two "counselors" (or assistants), and twelve "apostles". We revere every one of those individuals as "prophets, seers, and revelators". Since Mormonism was founded there have been sixteen Church presidents, I-don't-know-how-many counselors, and an even hundred apostles. A handful of these figures have said some pretty "out there" things that the Church had to disassociate itself from. It's easy for a Protestant to downplay some of Luther's or Calvin's more extreme statements; but for a Mormon to distance himself with something Brigham Young said as a "prophet, seer and revelator"--that's quite a tightrope to walk! Mormonism tends to resolve this conundrum by distinguishing between what is "official Mormon doctrine" versus what is "individual speculation". The terms are pretty nebulous and ill-defined; but the general concept is that something is more reliable if it has been directly published by the Church (and therefore screened by the Church's "correlation committee", which includes several apostles); or if coincides well with what other general authorities have said. The other thing you need to bear in mind is that Mormonism, as an institution, doesn't really do "theology" in any academic sense. (I'm currently reading Terryl GIvens' Wrestling the Angel, which talks about this in some detail and offers some reasons as to why this is.) By way of example: Here is a link to a BYU database that includes every "General Conference" (we have two general conferences per year) sermon from 1942 through the present, as well as an extensive collection of early LDS discourses from 1839 through 1886 and a collection of sermons/writings of Joseph Smith. The database is searchable; and as it turns out--"eschatology" yields exactly one hit (a General Conference sermon from 1956), and "soteriology" doesn't turn up at all. That doesn't mean we don't talk about these concepts; but we don't couch them in traditional theological terms. The vocabulary is very, very different. Spackman, by the way, is not a "general authority" at all. He's just a Mormon grad student at Claremont--tremendously well-read, very readable, and (on a personal note) a friend of a friend. That's why I shy away from calling his writings "official LDS". Quote To answer your question... That last paragraph... If I choose to warn someone that they may face damnation.. (which would be rare and I would have to have a relationship with the person)... think of it as bringing light to a dark place. It may help them be spared judgement if that is their end. If they are elect then at least it defines an acceptable limit to what I will tolerate in the relationship and provides a deterrent. God knows how we are wired up as he does the wiring. Deterrents work for us... so God provides them in His word... For instance strong belief in doctrine of hell deters bad behavior for some at least. But if I understand your paradigm correctly, what is the eternal significance of deterring bad behavior? Quote back to your question.. and I think you will agree with this... In living out the walk of a Christian we have far more to think about with regard to walking in the spirit, walking in obedience and honoring God with our life choices... whether an individual is elect or not... only comes up in forums with other doctrine geeks... I agree with your practical approach here; but the touchy spot--for Mormons--is that we've spent almost two centuries focusing on applied religion; and the result has been that we pretty consistently get told that we're going to wind up in Hell because we're relying on our own works to save us. Edited September 30, 2016 by Just_A_Guy Jane_Doe and jerome1232 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted September 30, 2016 Report Share Posted September 30, 2016 (edited) On 9/28/2016 at 5:50 PM, Larry Cotrell said: Galatians 1:6-12 "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." I'll start with the Old Testament, the content in the old testament is the same as the Tanakh. The books are in a different order, which doesn't change the teachings. The Jewish people have taken very good care of documents for thousands of years. Consider the Masoretes. If they made one single mistake, they would have to completely start over again. (I have been to Qumran as well as the Shrine of the Book; it's amazing and I highly recommend going if you get a chance and haven't been before) To compare the transmission of texts to the game telephone is not even close to accurate. The ancient Jews were extremely careful with the texts. The stories in the Old Testament are backed up by archaeology as well as prophetic consistency. Next is the New Testament. With the New Testament, we have manuscripts that are much closer to the time of the actual events. This moves into your other question: how do we know that the claims about Jesus are really true. One great example of this is how the empty tomb was discovered by women. Here's what people thought of a woman's testimony at the time: “But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex, nor let servants be admitted to give testimony on account of the ignobility of their soul; since it is probable that they may not speak truth, either out of hope of gain, or fear of punishment” (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 4.8.15). “Any evidence which a woman [gives] is not valid (to offer), also they are not valid to offer. This is equivalent to saying that one who is Rabbinically accounted a robber is qualified to give the same evidence as a woman” (Talmud, Rosh Hashannah 1.8). If this story had been made up, men would have been used because they would have been more credible witnesses at the time. Another example of the criterion of embarrassment is the fact the Joseph of Arimathea's tomb was used to bury Jesus. This is significant because he was a member of the Sanhedrin and early Christians were very opposed to the Sanhedrin. Again, if they had made up the story, they wouldn't have chosen to have him buried in the tomb of the Sanhedrin, whom they "hated." There are examples similar to this all throughout the gospels, and the whole Bible. As to what is not in our Bible, there are many books (some added to the Catholic Bible) that do not belong because they are pseudepigraphal. One example of this is Wisdom of Solomon, which is a great book, but was not written by Solomon. There are also many New Testament examples of this such as The Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Mary Magdalene, Gospel of Peter, and The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, just to name a few. However, none of these were written by the claimed authors. I am aware of the letter written to Abgar V (assuming that is what you are referring to). I believe that this is pseudepigraphal as well. Even though politics and religion are both topics that interest me greatly – I am sorry to admit that your response looks more like political talking points than well researched and determined beliefs. Perhaps it is my profession (Industrial automation, robotics and artificial intelligence) but when humans are involved there are and always will be errors. As careful as you may think the Masoretes were in preserving the ancient Holy Scripture texts it turns out that the Masoretes were among the worse; not just in terms of the ancient Biblical text but in comparisons to all the written texts of antiquities – the Dead Sea Scriptures have demonstrated that even the dreadfully un-respected and careless Samaritans (especially un-respected by the Jews and early Christians) actually are among the best preserved and maintained Biblical texts that have been passed down to our modern time. It is like the parable of the Good Samaritan has come back to haunt the modern Pharisees and Scribes. Unlike you I am convinced that anything sacred that is preserved in any human society (Christian or otherwise) is only by the providence of G-d directly intervening in the otherwise natural affairs of men (regardless of how careful anyone thinks humans are capable.) The foundations of modern Christianity was laid against a foundation of the Masoretes is a historically proven flaw. What is odd to me is that just about every other (non-Christian) society has preserved not only their own religious text over time better than Traditional Christians– but they preserved the sacred texts of other religions as well (Islam an exception). Many claim the Christians had nothing to do with the destruction of the great libraries of Alexandria and Babylon but both libraries endured over a thousand years of every other possibility that could have responsible for destroyed the very important texts but as soon as the Christians came to power – the sacred library was mysteriously destroyed and the Christians, newly to power, only response was; “It wasn’t us” despite a preponderance of evidence otherwise. History records the coming of Christians into power as the single most backward step of enlightenment in human history preserved for our time. A basic tenet of the LDS religion is that with the death and passing of the Apostles of Jesus from human society that mankind fell into Apostasy – a famine of the “Word” and ordinances of G-d. A time well named by historians with the title of “The Dark Ages” as mankind took a giant step backwards in enlightenment – not just in a step backwards in knowledge of divine things and ordinances but in the definitions of the law and treatment of our fellow men as made legal by the legislation of Christian societies – all came with Traditional Christianity coming into power in our Western Society. When you assume that scripture is the authority and all that is necessary to prepare mankind for the second advent of Christ – I see your arguments a repeat of history as the mission of the first advent of Christ unfolded and the traditions of the Pharisees and Scribes resisted because of their belief in their traditions and interpretations of scripture. And as we are told in Ecclesiastes – Quote “The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done; and there is no new thing under the sun.” The Traveler Edited September 30, 2016 by Traveler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Cotrell Posted September 30, 2016 Report Share Posted September 30, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, Traveler said: Even though politics and religion are both topics that interest me greatly – I am sorry to admit that your response looks more like political talking points than well researched and determined beliefs. My response was more from a secular perspective. Here's my response from a religious perspective: Matthew 16:18 "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." The power of the devil cannot prevail against God. I know that you won't agree with this, but I believe that God can and has kept His church in tact since the time of Jesus' appearance on Earth. I believe that God has kept the Bible intact as well. I admit that there are verses that were added to the Textus Receptus (thus are in the King James) that aren't in original manuscripts however, these verses don't change doctrine. Many quote other verses and many of these additions restate something already said to clarify the point. The bottom line is that I believe that the Bible has been kept intact by God because nothing can stand in the way of His will. I wanted to clarify because you said that you want to know why people believe things rather than what they believe. Edited September 30, 2016 by Larry Cotrell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jane_Doe Posted September 30, 2016 Report Share Posted September 30, 2016 8 minutes ago, Larry Cotrell said: I know that you won't agree with this, but I believe that God can and has kept His church in tact since the time of Jesus' appearance on Earth. This belief makes little sense coming from a Protestant. I believe that God has kept the Bible intact as well. I admit that there are verses that were added to the Textus Receptus (thus are in the King James) that aren't in original manuscripts however, these verses don't change doctrine. How are these two statements not contradictions? Either the Bible has changed or it hasn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Cotrell Posted October 1, 2016 Report Share Posted October 1, 2016 1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said: This belief makes little sense coming from a Protestant. What I mean by "Jesus' appearance on Earth" is that Jesus is eternal. He has always existed but appeared on Earth around 0-33 AD. John 1:1-5 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. I'm not saying that he was once a man or anything like that. (I'm not trying to debate anything, I'm just trying to clarify what I meant) 1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said: How are these two statements not contradictions? Either the Bible has changed or it hasn't. What I mean is that God hasn't allowed for any doctrinal changes to take place. For example, there has been nearly 4,000 changes to the Book of Mormon since it was originally published in 1830, but I would be willing to bet that you would say none of those change any beliefs, ideas, or doctrine. The Bible may not be word for word exactly the same as it was thousands of years ago, but no ideas have been changed. It still teaches the same things. And most importantly, it is still the word of God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted October 1, 2016 Report Share Posted October 1, 2016 3 hours ago, Larry Cotrell said: My response was more from a secular perspective. Here's my response from a religious perspective: Matthew 16:18 "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." The power of the devil cannot prevail against God. I know that you won't agree with this, but I believe that God can and has kept His church in tact since the time of Jesus' appearance on Earth. I believe that God has kept the Bible intact as well. I admit that there are verses that were added to the Textus Receptus (thus are in the King James) that aren't in original manuscripts however, these verses don't change doctrine. Many quote other verses and many of these additions restate something already said to clarify the point. The bottom line is that I believe that the Bible has been kept intact by God because nothing can stand in the way of His will. I wanted to clarify because you said that you want to know why people believe things rather than what they believe. I do respect your belief - I just wonder why. Why do you believe the church (which Christian church) has remained intact? How have you validated your belief? No one writes letters now days that are believed to be scripture? - It would seem the caliber of leaders has not remained remotely intact. I realize that many believe stuff just because that is what they want to believe - which is every one's right. And as I said before - I am far more interested in the process by which you came to believe what it is you believe. Like a math problem - you may think the answer is five and indeed the proper answer may be five but I am interested in how you came to your conclusion not your conclusion. What is your process of determining what you believe? If someone says or interperts something different - how do you determine which is the more accurate? If it just has to be in the Bible - then it would seem that what-ever can be demonstrated to be in the Bible should be what you believe and you should not have to explain anything - just tell people to read the Bible and come to their own conclusion. Maybe to you it does not matter which Christian sect a person believes - So I wonder - why would you discuss your interpretation of the Bible or your particula place of worship to be any better than anyone elses? The Traveler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Cotrell Posted October 1, 2016 Report Share Posted October 1, 2016 (edited) 5 hours ago, Traveler said: What is your process of determining what you believe? If someone says or interperts something different - how do you determine which is the more accurate? If it just has to be in the Bible - then it would seem that what-ever can be demonstrated to be in the Bible should be what you believe and you should not have to explain anything - just tell people to read the Bible and come to their own conclusion. Maybe to you it does not matter which Christian sect a person believes - So I wonder - why would you discuss your interpretation of the Bible or your particula place of worship to be any better than anyone elses? Generally, when I'm discussing things with people of other Christian sects, I do say, "If you want to know what I believe, read the Bible." However, I don't consider Mormonism a Christian sect ( I'd rather not argue back and forth about whether or not it is because we would never agree on that, I'm just trying to help you understand why I believe what I believe). The reason I can't say to a Mormon, "Read the Bible, that's what I believe," is because the same verse might mean something completely different to you based on other "modern scriptures and revelations" that I don't accept. To respond to your other statement, I would say that it does not matter what Christian sect someone is a part of as long as they have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and don't believe in other gods, universalism (the belief that everyone goes to heaven), or something major like that. One of the main things that separates LDS to me, is the belief that men can become gods. (Again I only say this because you emphasize that you want to know why I believe what I believe) And to answer your last statement, I go to a Foursquare church but I don't think my place of worship is any better than that of the Baptist, Assembly of God, Lutheran etc. However, I would say my church is "better" than a Unitarian universalist Church because they teach a false gospel. I think that the main difference between Christian sects is how people like to worship, what they want services to be like, and minor doctrinal differences. Where it gets rocky is how you and I would define Christian sect. It all goes back to the question of who is a true Christian. We all think we're true Christians, so there's no plumb line that we could all agree on. Again, I don't mean any of this with disrespect, I'm just trying to communicate why I believe what I believe because you asked. Edited October 1, 2016 by Larry Cotrell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bytebear Posted October 6, 2016 Report Share Posted October 6, 2016 (edited) See, not to go so deep, but I find that Joseph Smith's revelations clarifies my understanding of the Bible. Eternal progression (man becoming "gods") to me is crystal clear in the Bible, but needed a prophet to bring back plain and precious truths. Even the term "saints" usage in LDS fits the usage of the Bible. I have a friend who was a former pastor and we occasionally discuss theology. I brought up the "laying on of hands to receive the Holy Ghost" He wasn't all that familiar with the concept, and was kind of shocked when he did an internet search and found it was pretty much right there in the Bible, clear as day (as confirmed by non LDS theological sources). Again, I don't want to get into a discussion on the specific doctrines, but it seems to me the Bible confirms Joseph Smith's role as a prophet because he simply was so spot on with so many Biblical concepts. I could go down a laundry list of themes, like degrees of heaven, baptism for the dead, spirit prison/paradise, faith/works/grace, the Godhead, etc. etc. Edited October 6, 2016 by bytebear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Cotrell Posted October 6, 2016 Report Share Posted October 6, 2016 (edited) 18 minutes ago, bytebear said: See, not to go so deep, but I find that Joseph Smith's revelations clarifies my understanding of the Bible. Eternal progression (man becoming "gods") to me is crystal clear in the Bible, but needed a prophet to bring back plain and precious truths. Even the term "saints" usage in LDS fits the usage of the Bible. I have a friend who was a former pastor and we occasionally discuss theology. I brought up the "laying on of hands to receive the Holy Ghost" He wasn't all that familiar with the concept, and was kind of shocked when he did an internet search and found it was pretty much right there in the Bible, clear as day (as confirmed by non LDS theological sources). Obviously I can't speak for everyone, but I haven't met any Christians that don't believe in the laying on of hands. This is something most of us evangelicals do, just to clarify. 18 minutes ago, bytebear said: See, not to go so deep, but I find that Joseph Smith's revelations clarifies my understanding of the Bible. Eternal progression (man becoming "gods") to me is crystal clear in the Bible, but needed a prophet to bring back plain and precious truths. I won't get into an argument with you about Eternal progression, but what Biblical verses do you believe support this view? To say that you could become a god some day is a pretty big claim. Edited October 6, 2016 by Larry Cotrell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bytebear Posted October 6, 2016 Report Share Posted October 6, 2016 (edited) I usually go to the Topical Guide in the scriptures for this one. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/man-potential-to-become-like-heavenly-father?lang=eng&letter=m let them have dominion: Gen. 1:26 . ( Moses 2:26 . ) man is become as one of us: Gen. 3:22 . ( Moses 4:28 . ) be holy: for I … am holy: Lev. 19:2 . ( 1 Pet. 1:16 . ) thou hast made him a little lower than the angels: Ps. 8:5 . madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands: Ps. 8:6 . Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High: Ps. 82:6 . Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father: Matt. 5:48 . ( 3 Ne. 12:48 . ) spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have: Luke 24:39 . Is it not written in your law … Ye are gods: John 10:34 . ( Ps. 82 ; D&C 76:58 . ) we are the offspring of God: Acts 17:29 . heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ: Rom. 8:17 . changed into the same image from glory to glory: 2 Cor. 3:18 . if a son, then an heir of God through Christ: Gal. 4:7 . Till we all come … unto a perfect man: Eph. 4:13 . be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live: Heb. 12:9 . when he shall appear, we shall be like him: 1 Jn. 3:2 . him that overcometh will … sit with me in my throne: Rev. 3:21 . I particularly like Rev 3:21, where we are promised that we will sit on God's throne. Can't be more godlike than to be given his seat of authority. Edited October 6, 2016 by bytebear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Cotrell Posted October 6, 2016 Report Share Posted October 6, 2016 6 minutes ago, bytebear said: I usually go to the Topical Guide in the scriptures for this one. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/man-potential-to-become-like-heavenly-father?lang=eng&letter=m let them have dominion: Gen. 1:26 . ( Moses 2:26 . ) man is become as one of us: Gen. 3:22 . ( Moses 4:28 . ) be holy: for I … am holy: Lev. 19:2 . ( 1 Pet. 1:16 . ) thou hast made him a little lower than the angels: Ps. 8:5 . madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands: Ps. 8:6 . Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High: Ps. 82:6 . Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father: Matt. 5:48 . ( 3 Ne. 12:48 . ) spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have: Luke 24:39 . Is it not written in your law … Ye are gods: John 10:34 . ( Ps. 82 ; D&C 76:58 . ) we are the offspring of God: Acts 17:29 . heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ: Rom. 8:17 . changed into the same image from glory to glory: 2 Cor. 3:18 . if a son, then an heir of God through Christ: Gal. 4:7 . Till we all come … unto a perfect man: Eph. 4:13 . be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live: Heb. 12:9 . when he shall appear, we shall be like him: 1 Jn. 3:2 . him that overcometh will … sit with me in my throne: Rev. 3:21 . I particularly like Rev 3:21, where we are promised that we will literally sit on God's throne. Can't be more godlike than to be given his seat of authority. Thanks for posting these. Blackmarch 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jane_Doe Posted October 6, 2016 Report Share Posted October 6, 2016 35 minutes ago, Larry Cotrell said: I won't get into an argument with you about Eternal progression, but what Biblical verses do you believe support this view? To say that you could become a god some day is a pretty big claim. Here's also a nice essay on the subject: https://www.lds.org/topics/becoming-like-god?lang=eng Blackmarch and jerome1232 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackmarch Posted November 1, 2016 Report Share Posted November 1, 2016 On September 19, 2016 at 9:34 AM, mickydo said: hello people, I am studying Mormonism. My background is Catholic and then charismatic for a little while. I read something somewhere about Mormons believing the bible was "revered" but was corrupted by monks. This idea about the bible was part of a list of things that I think had something to do with wisdom? I cant find this list of like ten things now. It was a Mormon list not a internet thing. What I want to get at is what role does the bible play in the practical life of a Mormon. What are the corrupted parts of the bible that should be avoided according to Mormonism? Did Joseph Smith say the bible was corrupt? If so where does He say that in His writings? Thanks a bunch Mike The bible has the greatest collection of christs sayings and doings in mortality as well as the chronicler of the atonement that are contained in one place. That alone makes it extremely important. A native american prophet saw in vision that the book from the jews that would come across the ocean would have some important parts missing ( recorded in the book of mormon), and that because parts were missing many would stumble ( look at the history of the ancient christian church). Joseph smith pretty much adopted that. Now if that is what you mean by corrupted then yes.... If you mean corrupted as to be so twisted as to be a total or almost total pack of lies, then no thats not what they said. one also has to realize that this is not a simple issue for the bible is not one book, it is a collection of books. That was voted on by a council long after the apostles were dead.... And even then there was still quite a bit of contention over what was scripture and what wasnt ( see history involving the apocrypha) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anddenex Posted November 1, 2016 Report Share Posted November 1, 2016 1 hour ago, Blackmarch said: A native american prophet saw in vision that the book from the jews that would come across the ocean would have some important parts missing ( recorded in the book of mormon), and that because parts were missing many would stumble ( look at the history of the ancient christian church). Joseph smith pretty much adopted that. Now if that is what you mean by corrupted then yes.... If you mean corrupted as to be so twisted as to be a total or almost total pack of lies, then no thats not what they said. Is this authentic -- native american prophet? I have hear contradicting voices and would like to know source? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackmarch Posted November 1, 2016 Report Share Posted November 1, 2016 Whups wrong nephi. My bad sorry. Correction-an ancient prophet who had left jerusalem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.