According to Mormons - God is a "physical being" who resides on a distant planet.
Not sure what is scarier, that this religion believes this or that there are actual followers who accept this as a fundamental truth of their faith. Idiocity knows no limit.
And again could you ppl tell me why you wear magic underwear?
@testskriftene Q'adamawi Haile Selassie is the leader of the Melchezidek Order. I see through your reasoning that our reasonings have many similarities. However, you called Kane "black" because he killed his brother? It seems as though your teachings are trying to be racist. The Bible is a history of Black People. Israel is a nation of Black People. Jesse was a dark skinned man. Thus David & Solomon is also. So before you try to be racist just remember that the Bible is a history of BLACKS PPL!!
Ironic that a mormon post gets flagged as spam and unvoted. So much for open discussion. Check it out. It happens on boards for many of this guy's videos.
Its almost crazy to even argue with morons..I mean mormons. They believe that a guy that found a rock that translated golden tablets he lost. Even though it translated them, they had to change it a couple times. their doctrine has changed with many wives when its politically correct. that they will be gods having spirit sex and making more spirit people, they've put JSmiths teachings above Christs. Lucifer decieved Joseph S. and he decieved all of the morons...mormons.
@SuperCodeman23 You completely misunderstand, where do you get your information from? if you want to get to know someone don't talk to their enemies. and i think you'll find that if you actually asked a missionary or a member of that church and got your facts straight you wouldn't be spitting out bigoted lies. Most of the Facts are in the names : "The Book of Mormon Another testament of Jesus Christ" and "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints". FYI its not Mormon it's Latter-Day Saint
to those of you who think that the church of jesus christ of latterdays saints is false, i can say that in its self is a lie! if you really want to quote things from the bible maybe you should read it more carefully and actually study it with a desire to find which church is really true. if it says there is only one baptism and one true church, well then why are there so many other religions that think that they are right?when the bible says that the true gospel will be "Restored!"
@haretukz by a guy looking through a rock he found digging a well behind his house? The only thing that it has restored is deciet among the people of Earth for Satan. The story of Joseph s. is ridiculous at best, mormons have no tablets, no seer stone, no ancient text, no archeological sites, no proof really. There are thousands of places, artifacts, texts(thousands of years old), that speak the truth of the bible. The bible hasn't changed but the BOM has many times
@SuperCodeman23 FYI The Book of Mormon hasn't changed and it's the most correct book on this earth that you will ever come across, I believe. as for evidence I could tell so many examples but is that really going to convince you, no. "optical" evidence be manipulated anyway to make it plausible or implausible. the only thing that i can suggest is to read it and ask yourself if it is true. The only person you can trust in this confused world is yourself. Trust your heart, your heart doesn't lie.
The Truth Hurts but then it also Heals and Saves ! Ephesians 2:8-9 (King James Version) 8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9Not of works, lest any man should boast.
YOU DO NOT AND CANNOT EARN ANY PART OF YOUR SALVATION !
@mormon25 Well we feel sorry for you dude!!! You belong to a religion that can't even see past the incorrect figures you just presented. Seriously, who cares what your church has? Oh, and try not to think of us as being nasty, just brutally honest. :)
Does anybody else catch the double-talk of the lds? "We believe the Bible to be the Word of God, in as far as it is translated correctly." But yet, Ezekiel 37:16-17, Matthew 16:18, and John 10:16 just so happened to be translated correctly...Hmmm...or could it just be that those scriptures have been grossly taken out of context? Food for thought eh?
amen .. we have direct authority .. remeber the verse .. ye shall know them by their fruits.. 14 million members worldwide . 150+ temples.. .. etc.... lets us just live our faith in peace...and stop theses silly videos againist us.. why dont u just pray and ask if the book of mormon and the church is true.. ?? food for thought eh ?
@mormon25 The book of mormon cannot possibly be true. It teaches heresies such as salvation conditioned upon man's free will, universal atonement. The Holy Scriptures teach that God chose His elect before the world began and that the LORD Jesus came to live and die for these alone. Those who believe are the elect of God who are given this faith as a gift of God. Jesus met ALL OF THE CONDITIONS for the salvation of His people. God's people are saved by the sin atoning blood of the LORD Jesus.
@rpavich "Why on earth would I pray to ask if the Book of Mormon is true? I already have that answer...it's not. It's a piece of 19 century fiction that contradicts the bible as does the D&C and the PoGP...Based on that fact...I don't need to try and get a "burning in the bosom..." I can see that they are false...."
As I told someone else, you aren't even giving it a chance. That's the sign of someone who is generally insecure and unsure. I truly hope that you trust in God, not so-called "facts
So....Steve....have you prayed over the Quran to make sure that it's not true? What about other religious texts the the book of Matthew? Matthew claims to be a latter day LDS prophet and has a "companion book" to the Book of Mormon.
@rpavich I haven't had access to Matthew's book. Tell me how to get a free copy and I would be glad to.
In terms of the Quran, I actually have prayed about it. I wasn't always a dyed in the wool mormon. I practiced Buddism as well as other "New Age" things before coming back to the church. I've been to several Christian churches and think that almost all of them are good. They just don't fill the void within me that the LDS church's gospel ie the gospel of Jesus Christ, does.
@rpavich "How did you know to do that? You weren't LDS at the time." I didn't say that I wasn't LDS, I said I wasn't "dyed in the wool" or stalwart. I grew up LDS, left activation in the church and then returned.
"How much of the Quran have you read? Have you read it in Arabic?" Not all of it. No. Have you?
@rpavich "You had the truth....and you had the confirmation of a burning in your bosom...yet you went and studied the Quran and prayed about it?" Did I say that I had the conviction? No.
I had never tried the word before then. I was a kid. I was challenged by people to "question the church" and "try other things" so I did. I didn't think that I had conviction until I didn't have the gospel in my life. that's when I noticed a void and explored the church again.
@rpavich "You were challenged to question the church?? Certainly not by anyone who is LDS you weren't." Not that I remember. Although I am familiar with several quotes from various leaders telling us to challenge the teaching of the church and see for ourselves if they are true.
"you are indoctrinated from the womb...sing the songs, repeat the same testimony...." That's much like EVERY Christian church I have seen. Not exclusive to LDS church.
@rpavich "Yes...I'm inviting you to read and pray about all religious books ever written....that's your test...."
OK then. How will you help me to do so. Tell you what. You send me a link to a book that I should read and pray about and you read the Book of Mormon again. Sound like a deal?
Do you mind if I ask...what is your history in the church?
But you know and I know that you haven't "continued the search for the truth" now that you are safely back into the LDS church...your comments to me were a smoke screen....
My history is that I've grown up around LDS folks, I was LDS for several years, I've spent a lot of time studying LDS teachings.
Now that I realize that the LDS teachings are false, I have no need to revisit them.
It's not empty because you are smoke-screening your unwillingness to continue to search for the truth now that you've settled into the LDS church again...
Yes...I testified all the things that LDS folks are indoctrinated to testify to...you don't need to hear my testimony...(LDS one) because yours is EXACTLY like it...parroted thousands of times every Sunday like a mantra...
@rpavich "It's not empty because you are smoke-screening your unwillingness to continue to search for the truth now that you've settled into the LDS church again.." It's empty because it's a challenge that 1) You haven't done, 2) you have no willingness to help me accomplish. Therein lies the emptiness. "because yours is EXACTLY like it." How dare you? You have never heard my testimony! How could you possibly know what my testimony is?
"Our conversation is about the inspiration or lack thereof of a religions books/beliefs. Not daily inspirational thoughts from a calendar." Agreed. LDS believe that many people have been inspired by God while not being prophets. This is basic LDS theology.
@rpavich "Do you have any knowledge of what (muslims) believe?"
Please don't talk to me like I'm some high school kid who has no idea what he's talking about. Obviously I know what they believe. There are several sects and two main groups. They vary with several things, obviously I don't believe ALL that they do. I do think that they have "grains of truth" or truthful things in their teachings without having the full truth.
yes...I do which is why I made the comment that I did. Your comment was ludicrous considering that the Quran came into being 600 years+ after the NT was written.
@rpavich The Quran and Islam itself has many beautiful grains of truth. In many ways they are closer to ante-nician Christianity than modern Christianity is. I have faith that one day, all faithful muslims will be saved just as all other faithful people. When they come to the true knowledge of God.
@rpavich Are you talking about the "Book of Jeraneck?" I can find it for sale, but not for free. Do you know where I can access it for free? I only ask because the LDS church gives out Book of Mormon copies (and bibles) for free. Naturally the same would be expected of Matthew.
I asked you to sent it since you were the one who challenged me to read it. If you want a copy of the Book of Mormon, I will gladly get one to you at zero cost to you. After all, why invite you and then not help you.
If it's possible that that's a true book inspired by God then that would be HUGH news...you'd want to know that without letting a measly $5.00 come between you and the truth??
I didn't challenge anything, I'm trying to get you to see how ridiculous your claim is..that I have to pray over the book of Mormon otherwise I'm closed minded.
@rpavich "Why wouldn't you purchase a copy???? " I already said why. An invitation to read the Book of Mormon would be free. Surely you wouldn't ask me to read something only so that I buy it. If you really cherish it, you will allow me to have access to it without cost (given you have the means to do so).
BTW, it's $15 not including shipping and handling.
I'm not saying that you're close-minded. I'm saying that you come across that way. I can't judge how anyone is, I leave that job to God.
Who cares if the BOM is free but to find the truth you have to spend 15.00?????
You MUST BE KIDDING that you think that God's inspired truth could exist in this book yet you'd not be willing to spend the cost of a meal at McDonalds on it.....
Doesn't make sense.
No...you didn't say closed minded...you said "insecure and unsure" which; now that I know you haven't continued to read and pray about all religious texts in the world, are the same by your own standard.
@rpavich "ou haven't continued to read and pray about all religious texts in the world, are the same by your own standard." 1) My own standard is not that one has to study them all. It's that someone who openly attacks a religion without studying it. Have you seen me openly attack another church? That's where the problem lies.
PS $15 at McDonalds?! I'm a dollar menu guy myself.
Yes. Our conversation is about the truth of the book of Mormon and reading it and praying about it now that I have the truth...I haven't "given it a chance" remember? That's what you said...
Now I'm saying YOU haven't give hundreds of religious texts a "chance" ....it's your standard, I'm just applying it consistently.
Let's not shift the subject when it gets uncomfortable.
@rpavich Wrong. Our conversation has been that you attack a book. If you had not read it, then it wold most certainly be "insecure." I haven't given those texts a chance but I don't go trolling videos attacking them. That's the conclusion. If you want to keep beating a dead horse, we can. I'd rather turn this into a useful and productive conversation.
Believe it or not, I truly do care for your life and salvation. I've never met you outside this board, but I want to be able to help you.
@rpavich "But you seem to think that there is a need...I'm just holding you to your own standard....you may begin reading now." But then you say it's wrong for me to not continue a search for truth after going back to the church? Do you see the problem there?
You say that you read it, you prayed, you felt the burning in the bosom. Book of Mormon prophecy fulfilled. Why leave after receiving the exact witness that you were told that you would?
@rpavich Here's the problem with using the bible as the one and only standard: the bible is not consistent. Plain and simple.
You show me a scripture that says one thing, I can show you at least one that says the opposite. The only way that the bible can be used as a standard is 1) with accompaniment of personal revelation (whether or not that's what you call it) and 2) taking the whole bible into a complete context by understanding it's background as well as what's written in it.
@rpavich "Burning in bosom = feeling good" Incorrect. Burning of the bosom = presence of God. That is of course, if you're using the bible as a frame of reference.
Lol...no such thing as "burning in bosom" from the bible....that's an LDS thing.
It's a rigged game...you know it and I know it. You "feel good" about something and so it's good....I pray over the Book of Mormon and I don't get a "good feeling" so I'm not trying hard enough or I'm not sincere enough....
The bible never decides based on feelings, but the written word....the unchanging revelation.
@rpavich "you may begin reading now. " Ok then. Tell me a book to read and how to get it (free). And you can start in 1 Nephi 1. Feel free to IM me on your progress.
Sorry...that's YOUR standard of truth...not mine..
My standard of truth is the bible, and the bible doesn't say to read and pray about the book of mormon or any other book.
It's the standard by which to judge other teachings.
YOU on the other hand have your standard....you must keep reading and praying about every book...and the whole "waaa! I'm not going to search for truth if it's not free! " thing is a joke....
@rpavich ""waaa! I'm not going to search for truth if it's not free! " thing is a joke...." Wow, crying, really. If it's God's truth then it will be made available to those who seek it.
You say that the bible is the standard, ok, which bible?
@rpavich I'm not here to attack the bible. I love the bible and understand the overall context of it. That's why I can appreciate far more than someone who doesn't. The context of the bible relies on 1) prophets and 2) revelation. If a church doesn't have those things, it can't be true. Further, the NT's context is one of a single, unified, church governed by the same prophet leadership. Not a system of beliefs that can interpreted by anyone how they please.
But you did. You questioned it right off the bat when I said it was my final authority....you went right for the "can we trust it?" card....
And don't start with the "gotta have apostles and prophets" card...I'm ex LDS...I know where that teaching comes from and where it doesn't.
It's an LDS assumption designed to rule out all other churches...it didn't come from a contextual, hermeneutical, careful, reading of the biblical text.
@rpavich "(need for prophets) didn't come from a contextual, hermeneutical, careful, reading of the biblical text." How so? Tell me one place in the bible where it explicitly says that there is no for them in the church.
Would we even have the bible today if it weren't for prophets? After all, they did write it for God, correct?
It is the complete context of the bible to have prophets, organized "til all come in a unity of faith" (Eph. 4:11-13)
@rpavich I'm merely using the same logic that you are. The bible does say that there are other books. It does say explicitly that there is a need for prophets until we come to a unity of faith. Yet you will ignore it. It seems your logic is just the same as mine.
so every writing that the bible references means it's a book that should have been included by wasn't?
More stinking LDS thinking....you've been indoctrinated with this stuff for so long you can't see any other answer....
I know it's hard....there seems to be no other answer but give it some thought...really? Just because something is mentioned in the bible means it's part of the inspired canon?
Of course not.
Unless you have a job to do....smear the bible's authority.
@rpavich "so every writing that the bible references means it's a book that should have been included by wasn't?"
I'm just wondering why prophetic books are cited in the bible but are not present. How can the bible be complete if this is the case?
This isn't about "smearing" the bible's credibility. It has no authority because NO BOOK HAS AUTHORITY the bible was written by men who did have it. But the book itself is a compilation of sacred writ, it has credibility, but no authority,
@rpavich "so every writing that the bible references means it's a book that should have been included by wasn't?"
I'm just wondering why prophetic books are cited in the bible but are not present. How can the bible be complete if this is the case?
This isn't about "smearing" the bible's credibility. It has no authority because NO BOOK HAS AUTHORITY the bible was written by men who did have it. But the book itself is a compilation of sacred writ, it has credibility, but no authority,
@rpavich "if (the bible is) not screwed up or altered or "no sufficient" then there is no need for a "latter day revelation" Wrong. We have no record of the OT being altered at the time of Jesus (it very likely was) but there was still a need for a new gospel in His time because people weren't correctly living the law. The same is true today, if people would live the new law correctly and be unified in that faith, then the bible would be sufficient. Sadly, this is not the case.
@rpavich Here's a quick history of Christian canon: 1) is mostly translated as "measurement" or measuring stick" from greek, 2) there are many different Christian canons today (at least 9 unique closed canons), 3) Marcion of Sinope was the first figure recorded in history to have set a canon, he was later considered a heretic, 4) Origen of Alexandria was the next major figure to canonize the scripture, 5) Irenaeus, near 200 ad first had the idea of leaving the gospels as four books...
@rpavich "You have NO IDEA about the canon and how it came to be." I'm only citing historical works. Funny how you are all about using "facts" and "history" until it isn't convenient to your position.
@stevejames1012 "copying incorrect garbage from the internet is time consuming." I just wanted to know what it was like to attack the LDS church by following the same methods.
@rpavich "Cite them....page and reference." I'm not going to waste my time citing every work, pg and reference. Especially since you still refuse to tell me your opinion on the matter. You're trying to put me on the defense and make unrealistic demands when you have yet to follow up on a single one.
But, for the sake fun, here are some of the works: Eusebius' Church History 6.25, Bruce Manning Metzger, "The canon of the New Testament: its origin, development, and significance", p. 141, ...
@rpavich Everett Ferguson, "Factors leading to the Selection and Closure of the New Testament Canon," in The Canon Debate. eds. L. M. McDonald & J. A. Sanders (Hendrickson, 2002) pp. 301, H. J. De Jonge, "The New Testament Canon," The Cambridge History of the Bible (volume 1) eds. P. R. Ackroyd and C. F. Evans (Cambridge University Press, 1970) p. 308, F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Intervarsity Press, 1988) p. 234
Yes...F.F. Bruce is credible....as I said...I was mistaking Nicea for Trent....the comments and cut/paste in reference to Trent is accurate...but not Nicea...but that was my mistake.
The only thing that I would comment is that I'd say that when someone said that the canon was "decided" I'd not say that.
I'd say that men recognized what God had already done....long before...
The fact that the Catholic church had a council that "decided on" certain books inclusion really doesn't make much difference to me considering i believe the Catholic Church to be apostate...i.e. not Christian.
@rpavich I understand. I agree that God set His canon long before any men ever decided what was official. However, I believe that God's canon encompasses far more than what we currently have (including LDS canon) and that we will receive much more from Him.
I believe this because God's word and work are for grander than any human being or group of human beings could ever comprehend.
@rpavich ...6) the canon of Trent was most likely accepted as official canon in the year 393 ad. This was the canon among most Christians for a long time (excluding several groups). However, during this long period (the dark ages) very few people had access to the bible. It was translated by hand. Potentially, many changes were made that we'll never know.
Lol....what a knee slapper....!! Canon of Trent....
You HAD to get this crap off of the internet right? Only some internet source would even think that the canon was a topic of discussion at Trent....
Please stop....you are embarrassing yourself.
I knew before this conversation started that you didn't know anything about the bible...only that you can't trust it so as to make way for more "latter day revelation"...
@rpavich Again, you keep saying that I am so "off" and "wrong" about the biblical canon. You act like it's some error to get up to date information online rather than trust outdated books. newsflash! Nearly all research in any area is done online.
But again I say, please enlighten me since you are obviously an expert on the subject.
It's not the fact that you can get information online that I'm making fun of...it's that not all INTERNET SOURCES are reputable...and you are choosing crap resources who have false information...
But again...LDS folks aren't REALLY interested in the actual history of the bible...only getting any information that will put it in a negative light...
@rpavich ".it's that not all INTERNET SOURCES are reputable" fully agreed. Tell that to anyone who uses online sources to bash the LDS church or any other religion.
"LDS folks aren't REALLY interested in the actual history of the bible" That's a harsh over generalization. Especially considering that there a groups of LDS scholars and teachers who dedicate themselves to it.
@rpavich Just because you say that "lds folks" do something, does not make it the case. I could make similar stereotypical generalizations about Christians but that's not logical or credible.
Again, please enlighten me about biblical canon since you know so much.
I'm only speaking from experience, and knowing many LDS folks...and the behavior you've shown here...
As far as the canon...what do you want to talk about?
I already said that the early church recognized God's canon....and that just because 1500 + years later the Catholic church holds a council makes no difference to me...any more than what the FLDF church does means anything to you....
@rpavich . It also included many books that are now considered "Apocryphal." 7) Martin Luther attempted to remove certain books from the canon, as they did not agree with his view of things. 8) Evangelicals groups set criteria for NT canon. The basic factor for recognizing a book's canonicity for the New Testament was divine inspiration ie revelation.
@rpavich There are currently many different canons associated with separate groups. These include:
Protestant, Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Slavonic orthodox, Georgian orthodox, Armenian Apostolic, Syriac orthodox, Coptic Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, Assyrian church of the East and more.
So I guess I need to rephrase my statement. The bible was not compiled by a council of uninspired men. It was compiled by several councils of uninspired men.
As far as "denominations" within protestantism? You haven't named any specifically so I can't say for sure. I can give you the "not Christian" list if that would help?
LDS = Not Christian
Seventh Day Adventist = Not Christian
Scientologist = Not Christian
Jehovah's Witness = Not Christian
There may be a few more that I'm not aware of....
This is really a bad line of reasoning to go down for the mormon considering that there are 100+ LDS denominations.
@rpavich "This is really a bad line of reasoning to go down for the mormon considering that there are 100+ LDS denominations." Again, this is irrelevant because LDS doesn't claim to be part of a group with other churches ie the Christian Club. The LDS church claims to be, and is, the one and only true church. Any split-off groups from it are just as incomplete as all others.
@rpavich Oh sorry, forgot a few things. The first "infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon" in the Catholic church did not occur until the Council of Trent in the 1500's. 8 books were left out, even though they were confirmed to be divinely inspired by previous leaders. 7 NT books were not accepted as canon (officially) for awhile as well.
@rpavich "the LDS church is actually the offshoot...." That's a matter of opinion as to where the priesthood went. Look at the two churches now and which one still maintains to have this authority. As well as which one Joseph proclaimed would be the continuation of the restored church.
I realize that your posts are long...copying incorrect garbage from the internet is time consuming.
The problem is that you (either honestly or dishonestly) have no idea what you are talking about.
You have no idea about the history and transmission of the bible. You are dead wrong about it.
I know that they really don't care to teach accurate thing about it in the LDS church...I've been there...so maybe that's why....I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
@rpavich "The problem is that you (either honestly or dishonestly) have no idea what you are talking about." Please then, enlighten me since you are obviously an expert on the subject.
@rpavich "Because they've never been accepted as such by the early church"
What's the "early church?"
"Why isn't the book of Jareneck automatically part of the "big 4" of the LDS scriptures?" Because God did not confirm that fact through inspired prophets.
The early church is the church from the Old Testament times (written portion) to the New testament times...that's the church I was referring to.
God did not confirm that fact through inspired prophets?
I beg to differ....Matthew IS a Prophet of the LDS church ....just ask him.
When all we have to go on is our "feelings" or what you'd call "witness"....then it's Matthew the prophet's feelings vs yours.....no outside objective standard by which to judge anything.
@rpavich How can we know that there aren't more books that were accepted by the early church. There are heaps of Ante-Nicean writings that were never included in the bible. These have just as much historical verification as the ones included in the bible.
You have to admit that the modern bible is a collection of books, written by prophets but selected by men. Men who were not inspired nor claimed to have divine inspiration.
Because God has not chosen them to be in His canon...
I realize that this is a hard concept to grasp...but men don't decide the canon...God does...men only recognize what the canon is.
People can write all the books that they want....and people do....but why would you assume that any book that a person writes should be in the bible? Or the book of Mormon for that matter?
It's bad reasoning.
God has guided the church and the use of His canon.
@rpavich "God did not confirm that fact through inspired prophets?" I'm not questioning the books in the bible. I'm questioning the ones that are not. Including many books mentioned in the bible that aren't included. The selection of what is included was chosen by a council of men.
How can you know that there aren't books that are not in the bible that are inspired works and should be canon?
the bible itself speaks of other books, how can you believe in the bible and ignore those scriptures?
Again...you decry what you pretend to venerate...how two faced....but that's another issue.
How can I know that other books shouldn't be in the bible?
I already said it...and this is hard for LDS folks (with their constantly shifting doctrine) to understand...but God has preserved HIS canon...as the author of the Canon HE has the right to define it...and he has....
@rpavich "When all we have to go on is our "feelings" or what you'd call "witness"....then it's Matthew the prophet's feelings vs yours"
We have more than feelings. Anyone who reads the bible with reason and logic can see that there lies a need for other books and prophets. I can provide biblical sources if you like.
Remember...I'm ex LDS so I realize why you have to malign the bible....if it's not screwed up or altered or "no sufficient" then there is no need for a "latter day revelation".....
I realize why you SAY you revere the bible on one hand yet attack it with all you've got on the other....
But the fact remains....it's sufficient...and has been for 2000 years or more (the Old testament canon also)
@rpavich The coming forth of the bible is one of the most beautiful marvels God has performed on this Earth. Just think, only a few hundred years ago, very few people on the planet even had access to, let alone could read it. Now you can get a free one when you stay in hotel. you can access the complete text from your phone. It's amazing, God's word on your droid. It truly is a modern miracle. But why would God stop there?
I'm only making comments because i believe the LDS church to be false, and if you believe what is taught, then you are believing a falsehood and your eternal destiny is Hell...and of course, I don't want that.
@rpavich I never said that God's inspired truth could be in that book. But I never went online and threw up negative posts about it either. I wouldn't attack it unless I was familiar with it. That's the difference.
By your reasoning, you MUST say that God's inspired truth could be there and you are being inconsistent when you don't read it and pray about it.
And plueezzzzee....don't give my the typical "LDS you're attacking me" sob story....it's old.
The LDS church's FOUNDATION is that all other churches are an "abomination" and false...going so far as to say that protestant ministers are in the employ of Satan....
Know them by their fruits? Couldn't agree more. Looking at the actual (not LDS-approved) history, I know to stay away.
14 million? That's supposed to sound impressive? Take into account the world's population, and your membership equates to 0.2% of that. Even Islam has over 1 BILLION, and so does Christianity. Also, roughly half of your membership you boast about isn't even active.
We have prayed. The church and the BoM are wrong.
You're assuming they all have to be Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, or something else. They may not agree on every stinkin' little minute detail, but on the core stuff (Virgin birth, physical death, burial, resurrection of Jesus, one God, etc.), Christians agree.
Regarding the second question...
Check your private messages...Not letting me post the link.
The church, as a whole, are the body of believers all around the world. They are broken up into smaller congregations. In my local congregation, it runs from 250-400, roughly. Not sure of the relevance to the topic.
I will send you a link of an apologist friend of mine who answers your question about all these different "denominations". While the question was posed by an atheist, the answer would fit your category, as well.
@rodwyr "who declared your "core doctrines"?" Christ Himself, through holy scriptures as well as modern prophets who receive direct revelation from God.
"The church, as a whole, are the body of believers all around the world." If it is one body of believers, then why have different doctrines?
As far as membership, the article itself says that studies in Brazil etc. likely have more to do with people not wanting to disclose their faith.
@rodwyr Also in terms of active members, I think that it's true that around 50% are inactive. But not for the reason that you think. While on my mission, I ran into many, many inactive members. The overwhelming majority (I would say at least 85%+) were inactive because of personal disputes or disagreements with other members, bishops etc.
Very few of these people said that they do not believe in the church anymore, in fact, most still do. But they do not attend classes (where roles for ...
@rodwyr ...are taken). I could have been considered inactive many times in my life simply because I didn't go to class because of a screaming child or family illness. I still attended sacrament meeting and fully believed all of the principles of the church, but numerically, I was "inactive."
I watched that video and it was not helpful all. In fact, it didn't answer the question. It answered questions like "Do you think that all of the other congregations are stupid? (word for word by the way).
@rodwyr It's not a matter of "thinking that other denominations are stupid. It's a matter of unity of doctrine. That's what makes a church "one" versus "many."
Obviously many concepts are shared by most. But there are about as many similarities to Judasim or Islam as there are with most of these Christian congregations.
It all goes back to determining what "core doctrines" are. That's why modern revelation through prophets is essential.
...and yet the LDS "prophets" haven't come up with a thing since 1978, smack dab in the middle of the civil rights movement. If it is as essential as you say, why nothing of any consequence for 33 years?
There is unity in the core doctrines...ones that distinguish between true Christians and those who are not. Which doctrines affect salvation? The core doctrines. Things like the nature of God, the physical death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, the Virgin birth (cont'd)
@rodwyr "nd yet the LDS "prophets" haven't come up with a thing since 1978, smack dab in the middle of the civil rights movement"
Are you serious?!?!
Perpetual education fund, small temples, new online presence, improvements in welfare square and worldwide humanitarian efforts, the structure of 70's and stakes, the new conference center, new universities with entirely new, state of the art models of education, new genealogy resources and updates.
That's good works, not revelation. I was speaking strictly of alleged revelation.
The humanitarian efforts by way of financial giving is not as impressive as it sounds. Long story short, it only amounts to maybe 1% of total income in the church. The church buys land, builds malls, apartment complexes, etc. Doesn't exactly wreak of humanitarian aid. I suppose more cash cows for the church, I don't know.
@rodwyr "..(the church's humanitarian work) only amounts to maybe 1% of total income in the church"
1) You can;t possibly know how much the church receives in income. There have been filings in the UK and a few other places where the church isn't very big, but to assume that even know what number that is sounds very presumptuous.
2) THe PEF, Welfare square, helping hands, fast offerings and bishop's storehouse programs alone are expensive enough to cover far more than 1%. That's just to skim..
@rodwyr ...the surface. According to the World Health Organization, over 7.5 million people have access to clean water because of the LDS church. In 2010, the church provided emergency relief to people affected by 119 disasters in 58 countries, since 2002 the church has trained over 193,000 health care workers in impovershed nations neonatal resuscitation techniques, since 2003, the church has given vision care to over 550,000 people, since 2002 the church has provided over 415,000 wheelchairs,
(cont'd) If it's a doctrine that affects salvation, it's considered a core doctrine. Secondary stuff like pre-trib vs. post-trib, pre-millennium vs. post-millennium vs. a-millennium, etc., liberties are allowed. Really, in the LDS church, there's still dissonance within doctrine, like whether or not God sinned EVER. There are topics in the Christian church that are not worth dividing over. Some things, yes...some things, no.
@rodwyr "If it's a doctrine that affects salvation, it's considered a core doctrine. "
Says who? That's the important thing. Who determines what directly affects salvation. Is it through revelation or direct, specific scripture. If not one of those two, then it is of men. Plain and simple. So which is it?
In terms of "doctrinal dissonance" in the church. There is dissonance on things that have not been revealed. These details are nothing in comparison to the extreme leniency and dissonance...
So, God has not revealed to you whether or not He has ever sinned? Yet LDS claim to love the Bible and agree with it to some extent?
The central doctrines of Christianity are determined by the church as a whole. Those central doctrines are agreed upon by virtually every Christian church. It's those doctrines that make the Christian faith Christian and not something else.
@rodwyr You're missing my point. you say that "The central doctrines of Christianity are determined by the church as a whole" but WHAT church? Is the gospel a democracy? Either it is by scripture or revelation (which is modern scripture). Men can't decide what is core and what is not. Even if "the whole church" (meaning thousands of different churches) agree upon certain things. God says what is essential and what is not.
@rodwyr You're missing my point. you say that "The central doctrines of Christianity are determined by the church as a whole" but WHAT church? Is the gospel a democracy? Either it is by scripture or revelation (which is modern scripture). Men can't decide what is core and what is not. Even if "the whole church" (meaning thousands of different churches) agree upon certain things. God says what is essential and what is not.
@rodwyr What you are saying is that all virtually members of Christianity agree that certain doctrines are core, therefore, they are core doctrines. That is the definition of following man and not God. By making that claim, you are either claiming that all of Christians have received revelation directly from God, or that men can decide which doctrines are important.
Do you understand what I am saying (I'm not always great at explaining things)?
James Talmage, "Articles of Faith", p. 7..."The works adopted BY VOTE OF THE CHURCH as authoritative guides in faith and doctrine are four: the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine & Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price". (emphasis mine)
Why is your church allowed to vote on Scripture, and thus doctrine, and not Christianity?
@rodwyr ", God has not revealed to you whether or not He has ever sinned? Yet LDS claim to love the Bible and agree with it to some extent?" I don't see what you're getting at.
Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith had received authority from John the Baptist, I think it's safe to say that he had authority.
"baptism doesn't save anyone." True. Christ does, but we need to accept His gift of grace, baptism is part of that. It's not enough to simply say "I believe," or "I'm born again." that simply...
Baptism does not complete salvation. It does not wash sins away. Jesus had no sins to wash away.
What I was getting at in my previous post was 'Do you really need to go outside the Bible to find out if God ever sinned? Do you really need some special revelation from God to be sure of that?'
Smith and Cowdery were not properly baptized. If John was really alive, as LDS claim, why didn't HE baptize them...or at least baptize one and let him baptize the other?'
@rodwyr "Baptism does not complete salvation. It does not wash sins away. Jesus had no sins to wash away." Of course, LDS don't believe that it does. Only Christ can complete salvation. I understand what you are getting with your post now and agree. I also agree that we as men are far, far from learning all things pertaining to God.
This has been flagged as spam show
According to Mormons - God is a "physical being" who resides on a distant planet.
Not sure what is scarier, that this religion believes this or that there are actual followers who accept this as a fundamental truth of their faith. Idiocity knows no limit.
And again could you ppl tell me why you wear magic underwear?
JohnnyNyberg 1 week ago
Comment removed
ryandolla 2 weeks ago
This man is so full of anger and hate.
JarrenHetfield 1 month ago
@JarrenHetfield anger yes...see Matthew 21:12-13; Mark 11:15-18; John 2:13-22
ssuperbill2 2 weeks ago
@testskriftene Q'adamawi Haile Selassie is the leader of the Melchezidek Order. I see through your reasoning that our reasonings have many similarities. However, you called Kane "black" because he killed his brother? It seems as though your teachings are trying to be racist. The Bible is a history of Black People. Israel is a nation of Black People. Jesse was a dark skinned man. Thus David & Solomon is also. So before you try to be racist just remember that the Bible is a history of BLACKS PPL!!
TheMelchezidekOrder 3 months ago
@TheMelchezidekOrder --- Not Black, just "tanned"....
dleechristy 1 month ago
Ironic that a mormon post gets flagged as spam and unvoted. So much for open discussion. Check it out. It happens on boards for many of this guy's videos.
stevejames1012 5 months ago
Its almost crazy to even argue with morons..I mean mormons. They believe that a guy that found a rock that translated golden tablets he lost. Even though it translated them, they had to change it a couple times. their doctrine has changed with many wives when its politically correct. that they will be gods having spirit sex and making more spirit people, they've put JSmiths teachings above Christs. Lucifer decieved Joseph S. and he decieved all of the morons...mormons.
SuperCodeman23 6 months ago
@SuperCodeman23 You completely misunderstand, where do you get your information from? if you want to get to know someone don't talk to their enemies. and i think you'll find that if you actually asked a missionary or a member of that church and got your facts straight you wouldn't be spitting out bigoted lies. Most of the Facts are in the names : "The Book of Mormon Another testament of Jesus Christ" and "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints". FYI its not Mormon it's Latter-Day Saint
haretukz 6 months ago
to those of you who think that the church of jesus christ of latterdays saints is false, i can say that in its self is a lie! if you really want to quote things from the bible maybe you should read it more carefully and actually study it with a desire to find which church is really true. if it says there is only one baptism and one true church, well then why are there so many other religions that think that they are right?when the bible says that the true gospel will be "Restored!"
haretukz 6 months ago
@haretukz by a guy looking through a rock he found digging a well behind his house? The only thing that it has restored is deciet among the people of Earth for Satan. The story of Joseph s. is ridiculous at best, mormons have no tablets, no seer stone, no ancient text, no archeological sites, no proof really. There are thousands of places, artifacts, texts(thousands of years old), that speak the truth of the bible. The bible hasn't changed but the BOM has many times
SuperCodeman23 6 months ago
@SuperCodeman23 FYI The Book of Mormon hasn't changed and it's the most correct book on this earth that you will ever come across, I believe. as for evidence I could tell so many examples but is that really going to convince you, no. "optical" evidence be manipulated anyway to make it plausible or implausible. the only thing that i can suggest is to read it and ask yourself if it is true. The only person you can trust in this confused world is yourself. Trust your heart, your heart doesn't lie.
haretukz 6 months ago
When I read the bible and Bom and prayed I felt that it was false
bobbyraejohnson 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Truth Hurts but then it also Heals and Saves ! Ephesians 2:8-9 (King James Version) 8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9Not of works, lest any man should boast.
YOU DO NOT AND CANNOT EARN ANY PART OF YOUR SALVATION !
darizzle7 1 year ago
Ur all so nasty ..I feel sorry for you all ..
mormon25 1 year ago
@mormon25 Well we feel sorry for you dude!!! You belong to a religion that can't even see past the incorrect figures you just presented. Seriously, who cares what your church has? Oh, and try not to think of us as being nasty, just brutally honest. :)
willeilers1 1 year ago
seriously dude! Lose the beard! You were looking like Bon Jovi there for awhile! Now you're looking more like Moses.
Osirisrules 1 year ago
Does anybody else catch the double-talk of the lds? "We believe the Bible to be the Word of God, in as far as it is translated correctly." But yet, Ezekiel 37:16-17, Matthew 16:18, and John 10:16 just so happened to be translated correctly...Hmmm...or could it just be that those scriptures have been grossly taken out of context? Food for thought eh?
akg771959 1 year ago
Shawn! Lose the beard!
AgApE010 1 year ago
amen .. we have direct authority .. remeber the verse .. ye shall know them by their fruits.. 14 million members worldwide . 150+ temples.. .. etc.... lets us just live our faith in peace...and stop theses silly videos againist us.. why dont u just pray and ask if the book of mormon and the church is true.. ?? food for thought eh ?
mormon25 1 year ago
@mormon25 The book of mormon cannot possibly be true. It teaches heresies such as salvation conditioned upon man's free will, universal atonement. The Holy Scriptures teach that God chose His elect before the world began and that the LORD Jesus came to live and die for these alone. Those who believe are the elect of God who are given this faith as a gift of God. Jesus met ALL OF THE CONDITIONS for the salvation of His people. God's people are saved by the sin atoning blood of the LORD Jesus.
Testallthings 1 year ago 3
@mormon25
Lol...stop the silly videos....that's funny.
Why on earth would I pray to ask if the Book of Mormon is true? I already have that answer...it's not.
It's a piece of 19 century fiction that contradicts the bible as does the D&C and the PoGP.....
Based on that fact...I don't need to try and get a "burning in the bosom..." I can see that they are false....
rpavich 1 year ago 3
@rpavich Actually within the last few years they have found some solid evidence for the book of mormon man.
ILikeToAruge 1 year ago
@ILikeToAruge
That's Mormon wishful thinking...
I've seen the Mormon evidence...it makes Bigfoot's existence look real.
rpavich 1 year ago
@rpavich "Why on earth would I pray to ask if the Book of Mormon is true? I already have that answer...it's not. It's a piece of 19 century fiction that contradicts the bible as does the D&C and the PoGP...Based on that fact...I don't need to try and get a "burning in the bosom..." I can see that they are false...."
As I told someone else, you aren't even giving it a chance. That's the sign of someone who is generally insecure and unsure. I truly hope that you trust in God, not so-called "facts
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@stevejames1012
So....Steve....have you prayed over the Quran to make sure that it's not true? What about other religious texts the the book of Matthew? Matthew claims to be a latter day LDS prophet and has a "companion book" to the Book of Mormon.
Have you prayed to see if that's true?
rpavich 4 months ago
@rpavich I haven't had access to Matthew's book. Tell me how to get a free copy and I would be glad to.
In terms of the Quran, I actually have prayed about it. I wasn't always a dyed in the wool mormon. I practiced Buddism as well as other "New Age" things before coming back to the church. I've been to several Christian churches and think that almost all of them are good. They just don't fill the void within me that the LDS church's gospel ie the gospel of Jesus Christ, does.
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@stevejames1012
You can google prophet matthew and get it. Simple.
You prayed to see if you'd get a "burning in the bosom" about the Quran? How did you know to do that? You weren't LDS at the time.
How much of the Quran have you read? Have you read it in Arabic?
You were a full fledged Muslim?
This sounds like a lot of hog wash.
Are you planning on praying over the Batsheva-Gita?
How about the Jehovah's Witness version of the bible? Have you prayed to see if their changes were true?
rpavich 4 months ago
@rpavich "How did you know to do that? You weren't LDS at the time." I didn't say that I wasn't LDS, I said I wasn't "dyed in the wool" or stalwart. I grew up LDS, left activation in the church and then returned.
"How much of the Quran have you read? Have you read it in Arabic?" Not all of it. No. Have you?
Are you inviting me to pray about these books?
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@stevejames1012
Ahh...my mistake....but now I'm really confused.
You had the truth....and you had the confirmation of a burning in your bosom...yet you went and studied the Quran and prayed about it?
Why would you pray about it? The Quran never instructs that.
You haven't read the Quran?
Then how can you say it's not the truth (which makes LDS teachings false)?
Yes...I'm inviting you to read and pray about all religious books ever written....that's your test....
rpavich 4 months ago
@rpavich "You had the truth....and you had the confirmation of a burning in your bosom...yet you went and studied the Quran and prayed about it?" Did I say that I had the conviction? No.
I had never tried the word before then. I was a kid. I was challenged by people to "question the church" and "try other things" so I did. I didn't think that I had conviction until I didn't have the gospel in my life. that's when I noticed a void and explored the church again.
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@stevejames1012
You were challenged to question the church?? Certainly not by anyone who is LDS you weren't.
You grew up LDS and you didn't "pray about" the book of Mormon?
I don't believe it. I know how it goes...you are indoctrinated from the womb...sing the songs, repeat the same testimony....
Naaa....that's not true.
rpavich 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rpavich "You were challenged to question the church?? Certainly not by anyone who is LDS you weren't." Not that I remember. Although I am familiar with several quotes from various leaders telling us to challenge the teaching of the church and see for ourselves if they are true.
"you are indoctrinated from the womb...sing the songs, repeat the same testimony...." That's much like EVERY Christian church I have seen. Not exclusive to LDS church.
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@rpavich "Yes...I'm inviting you to read and pray about all religious books ever written....that's your test...."
OK then. How will you help me to do so. Tell you what. You send me a link to a book that I should read and pray about and you read the Book of Mormon again. Sound like a deal?
Do you mind if I ask...what is your history in the church?
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@stevejames1012
How will I help you????
That's a real knee slapper!!
But you know and I know that you haven't "continued the search for the truth" now that you are safely back into the LDS church...your comments to me were a smoke screen....
My history is that I've grown up around LDS folks, I was LDS for several years, I've spent a lot of time studying LDS teachings.
Now that I realize that the LDS teachings are false, I have no need to revisit them.
rpavich 4 months ago
@rpavich "How will I help you???? That's a real knee slapper!!" Obviously it's an empty invitation then. Why even offer it?
While LDS, did you ever pray about it? Did you feel the Spirit while in the church? Did you testify that you had felt it?
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@stevejames1012
It's not empty because you are smoke-screening your unwillingness to continue to search for the truth now that you've settled into the LDS church again...
Yes...I testified all the things that LDS folks are indoctrinated to testify to...you don't need to hear my testimony...(LDS one) because yours is EXACTLY like it...parroted thousands of times every Sunday like a mantra...
Indoctrination.
rpavich 4 months ago
@rpavich "It's not empty because you are smoke-screening your unwillingness to continue to search for the truth now that you've settled into the LDS church again.." It's empty because it's a challenge that 1) You haven't done, 2) you have no willingness to help me accomplish. Therein lies the emptiness. "because yours is EXACTLY like it." How dare you? You have never heard my testimony! How could you possibly know what my testimony is?
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@stevejames1012
How could I possibly know what your testimony is?
Because I've heard...oh....a thousand LDS testimonies and they all parrot the same things...wanna hear one?
"I TESTIFY TO YOU, I KNOW THE BOOK OF MORMON IS TRUE. I KNOW JOSEPH SMITH WAS A PROPHET OF GOD. I KNOW THE MORMON CHURCH IS TRUE."
How's that? Close? Oh I know...you have your twists and little changes but the basic content is the same. It's drilled into every LDS kid from birth.
rpavich 4 months ago
"Our conversation is about the inspiration or lack thereof of a religions books/beliefs. Not daily inspirational thoughts from a calendar." Agreed. LDS believe that many people have been inspired by God while not being prophets. This is basic LDS theology.
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@stevejames1012
Yes..and that's one of the many inconsistencies of the LDS faith...lol...
Let me know when you've read all of the religious texts of the world, prayed about them, and gotten the answer...then we can talk more.
rpavich 4 months ago
@rpavich "Do you have any knowledge of what (muslims) believe?"
Please don't talk to me like I'm some high school kid who has no idea what he's talking about. Obviously I know what they believe. There are several sects and two main groups. They vary with several things, obviously I don't believe ALL that they do. I do think that they have "grains of truth" or truthful things in their teachings without having the full truth.
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@stevejames1012
yes...I do which is why I made the comment that I did. Your comment was ludicrous considering that the Quran came into being 600 years+ after the NT was written.
The two are apples and oranges.
rpavich 4 months ago
@rpavich The Quran and Islam itself has many beautiful grains of truth. In many ways they are closer to ante-nician Christianity than modern Christianity is. I have faith that one day, all faithful muslims will be saved just as all other faithful people. When they come to the true knowledge of God.
Send me Matthew's book, I'll give it a chance.
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@stevejames1012
If this is your comment then you don't know anything about the Quran or the Muslim faith.
Do you have any knowledge of what they believe?
PS: Grains of truth? What's that supposed to mean?
Our conversation is about the inspiration or lack thereof of a religions books/beliefs. Not daily inspirational thoughts from a calendar.
rpavich 4 months ago
@stevejames1012
Send you matthew's book?
This just gets nuttier by the minute.
rpavich 4 months ago
@rpavich Are you talking about the "Book of Jeraneck?" I can find it for sale, but not for free. Do you know where I can access it for free? I only ask because the LDS church gives out Book of Mormon copies (and bibles) for free. Naturally the same would be expected of Matthew.
I asked you to sent it since you were the one who challenged me to read it. If you want a copy of the Book of Mormon, I will gladly get one to you at zero cost to you. After all, why invite you and then not help you.
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@stevejames1012
Yes....my mistake...it's the book of Jeraneck.
Why wouldn't you purchase a copy????
If it's possible that that's a true book inspired by God then that would be HUGH news...you'd want to know that without letting a measly $5.00 come between you and the truth??
I didn't challenge anything, I'm trying to get you to see how ridiculous your claim is..that I have to pray over the book of Mormon otherwise I'm closed minded.
PS: I'm Ex LDS no need to send me a BOM.
rpavich 4 months ago
@rpavich "Why wouldn't you purchase a copy???? " I already said why. An invitation to read the Book of Mormon would be free. Surely you wouldn't ask me to read something only so that I buy it. If you really cherish it, you will allow me to have access to it without cost (given you have the means to do so).
BTW, it's $15 not including shipping and handling.
I'm not saying that you're close-minded. I'm saying that you come across that way. I can't judge how anyone is, I leave that job to God.
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@stevejames1012
Who cares if the BOM is free but to find the truth you have to spend 15.00?????
You MUST BE KIDDING that you think that God's inspired truth could exist in this book yet you'd not be willing to spend the cost of a meal at McDonalds on it.....
Doesn't make sense.
No...you didn't say closed minded...you said "insecure and unsure" which; now that I know you haven't continued to read and pray about all religious texts in the world, are the same by your own standard.
rpavich 4 months ago
@rpavich "ou haven't continued to read and pray about all religious texts in the world, are the same by your own standard." 1) My own standard is not that one has to study them all. It's that someone who openly attacks a religion without studying it. Have you seen me openly attack another church? That's where the problem lies.
PS $15 at McDonalds?! I'm a dollar menu guy myself.
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@stevejames1012
Good one...now we shift the conversation.....
Yes. Our conversation is about the truth of the book of Mormon and reading it and praying about it now that I have the truth...I haven't "given it a chance" remember? That's what you said...
Now I'm saying YOU haven't give hundreds of religious texts a "chance" ....it's your standard, I'm just applying it consistently.
Let's not shift the subject when it gets uncomfortable.
rpavich 4 months ago
@rpavich Wrong. Our conversation has been that you attack a book. If you had not read it, then it wold most certainly be "insecure." I haven't given those texts a chance but I don't go trolling videos attacking them. That's the conclusion. If you want to keep beating a dead horse, we can. I'd rather turn this into a useful and productive conversation.
Believe it or not, I truly do care for your life and salvation. I've never met you outside this board, but I want to be able to help you.
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@stevejames1012
Lol...no...you said I was insecure because I haven't gone back and read the BOM and prayed about it (which is what I said)
I have read the BOM....and (surprise!) prayed about it....and (surprise!!) felt really good about it (burning in the bosom)
But then I said that now that I realize that it's false, and that I was taught false doctrine...no need to revisit.
But you seem to think that there is a need...I'm just holding you to your own standard....you may begin reading now.
rpavich 4 months ago
@rpavich "But you seem to think that there is a need...I'm just holding you to your own standard....you may begin reading now." But then you say it's wrong for me to not continue a search for truth after going back to the church? Do you see the problem there?
You say that you read it, you prayed, you felt the burning in the bosom. Book of Mormon prophecy fulfilled. Why leave after receiving the exact witness that you were told that you would?
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@stevejames1012 ;
Easy...
Burning in bosom = feeling good
I realized that the heart is deceitful and my "feelings" about things can change...
What could be the standard then? It would have to be something outside of myself...some unchanging standard....
The Bible. I check all against the written revelation of God....that's my standard of truth.....not how good something makes me feel.
rpavich 4 months ago
@rpavich Here's the problem with using the bible as the one and only standard: the bible is not consistent. Plain and simple.
You show me a scripture that says one thing, I can show you at least one that says the opposite. The only way that the bible can be used as a standard is 1) with accompaniment of personal revelation (whether or not that's what you call it) and 2) taking the whole bible into a complete context by understanding it's background as well as what's written in it.
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@stevejames1012
I would guess that you can...but not in context you can't.
I can do the same to any email you've sent by pulling it apart and taking things out of context...so....sorry...that doesn't wash with me.
rpavich 4 months ago
@rpavich "Burning in bosom = feeling good" Incorrect. Burning of the bosom = presence of God. That is of course, if you're using the bible as a frame of reference.
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@stevejames1012
Lol...no such thing as "burning in bosom" from the bible....that's an LDS thing.
It's a rigged game...you know it and I know it. You "feel good" about something and so it's good....I pray over the Book of Mormon and I don't get a "good feeling" so I'm not trying hard enough or I'm not sincere enough....
The bible never decides based on feelings, but the written word....the unchanging revelation.
rpavich 4 months ago
@rpavich "you may begin reading now. " Ok then. Tell me a book to read and how to get it (free). And you can start in 1 Nephi 1. Feel free to IM me on your progress.
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@stevejames1012
Sorry...that's YOUR standard of truth...not mine..
My standard of truth is the bible, and the bible doesn't say to read and pray about the book of mormon or any other book.
It's the standard by which to judge other teachings.
YOU on the other hand have your standard....you must keep reading and praying about every book...and the whole "waaa! I'm not going to search for truth if it's not free! " thing is a joke....
rpavich 4 months ago
@rpavich ""waaa! I'm not going to search for truth if it's not free! " thing is a joke...." Wow, crying, really. If it's God's truth then it will be made available to those who seek it.
You say that the bible is the standard, ok, which bible?
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@stevejames1012
Which bible?
The 66 books of the protestant canon.
Now, go ahead and attack the book that you claim to recognize as inspired...
This is so typical of LDS folks...pretend to hold the bible up as inspired but attack it when any doctrine is threatened....
But besides that...go ahead on your next comment or question.
rpavich 4 months ago
@rpavich I'm not here to attack the bible. I love the bible and understand the overall context of it. That's why I can appreciate far more than someone who doesn't. The context of the bible relies on 1) prophets and 2) revelation. If a church doesn't have those things, it can't be true. Further, the NT's context is one of a single, unified, church governed by the same prophet leadership. Not a system of beliefs that can interpreted by anyone how they please.
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@stevejames1012
But you did. You questioned it right off the bat when I said it was my final authority....you went right for the "can we trust it?" card....
And don't start with the "gotta have apostles and prophets" card...I'm ex LDS...I know where that teaching comes from and where it doesn't.
It's an LDS assumption designed to rule out all other churches...it didn't come from a contextual, hermeneutical, careful, reading of the biblical text.
rpavich 4 months ago
@rpavich "(need for prophets) didn't come from a contextual, hermeneutical, careful, reading of the biblical text." How so? Tell me one place in the bible where it explicitly says that there is no for them in the church.
Would we even have the bible today if it weren't for prophets? After all, they did write it for God, correct?
It is the complete context of the bible to have prophets, organized "til all come in a unity of faith" (Eph. 4:11-13)
Is there a unity of faith?
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@stevejames1012
That's the worst logic I ever heard....let me also make the same argument for the existence of pepperoni pizzas in outer space.
Me:
"There are pepperoni pizzas in space? The bible doesn't say that...."
You:
How so? Tell me one place in the bible where it explicitly states that there are no pepperoni pizzas in space"
See?
rpavich 4 months ago
@rpavich I'm merely using the same logic that you are. The bible does say that there are other books. It does say explicitly that there is a need for prophets until we come to a unity of faith. Yet you will ignore it. It seems your logic is just the same as mine.
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@stevejames1012
so every writing that the bible references means it's a book that should have been included by wasn't?
More stinking LDS thinking....you've been indoctrinated with this stuff for so long you can't see any other answer....
I know it's hard....there seems to be no other answer but give it some thought...really? Just because something is mentioned in the bible means it's part of the inspired canon?
Of course not.
Unless you have a job to do....smear the bible's authority.
rpavich 4 months ago
@rpavich "so every writing that the bible references means it's a book that should have been included by wasn't?"
I'm just wondering why prophetic books are cited in the bible but are not present. How can the bible be complete if this is the case?
This isn't about "smearing" the bible's credibility. It has no authority because NO BOOK HAS AUTHORITY the bible was written by men who did have it. But the book itself is a compilation of sacred writ, it has credibility, but no authority,
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@stevejames1012
More LDS misconceptions...you are so immersed in your indoctrination you have no idea what Christianity teaches about even the basics.
I think you are lying through your teeth when you said that you'd investigated "all the other religions"...you can't even get Christianity right....
The authority and power is in the message itself. The bible is authoritative over all true believers because of it's words being authoritative.
You are wrong again...can we quit now?
rpavich 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rpavich "so every writing that the bible references means it's a book that should have been included by wasn't?"
I'm just wondering why prophetic books are cited in the bible but are not present. How can the bible be complete if this is the case?
This isn't about "smearing" the bible's credibility. It has no authority because NO BOOK HAS AUTHORITY the bible was written by men who did have it. But the book itself is a compilation of sacred writ, it has credibility, but no authority,
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@rpavich "if (the bible is) not screwed up or altered or "no sufficient" then there is no need for a "latter day revelation" Wrong. We have no record of the OT being altered at the time of Jesus (it very likely was) but there was still a need for a new gospel in His time because people weren't correctly living the law. The same is true today, if people would live the new law correctly and be unified in that faith, then the bible would be sufficient. Sadly, this is not the case.
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@stevejames1012
Wrong wrong wrong....the NT wasn't written because the people weren't "living the law"
More LDS indoctrination....
Don't you even know ANYTHING about that which you say you investigated?
rpavich 4 months ago
@rpavich Here's a quick history of Christian canon: 1) is mostly translated as "measurement" or measuring stick" from greek, 2) there are many different Christian canons today (at least 9 unique closed canons), 3) Marcion of Sinope was the first figure recorded in history to have set a canon, he was later considered a heretic, 4) Origen of Alexandria was the next major figure to canonize the scripture, 5) Irenaeus, near 200 ad first had the idea of leaving the gospels as four books...
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@stevejames1012
WRONG WRONG WRONG on the canon...did you get this off the internet???
You have NO IDEA about the canon and how it came to be.
You have been so indoctrinated by the church you just parrot the party line....l
rpavich 4 months ago
@rpavich "You have NO IDEA about the canon and how it came to be." I'm only citing historical works. Funny how you are all about using "facts" and "history" until it isn't convenient to your position.
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@stevejames1012 "copying incorrect garbage from the internet is time consuming." I just wanted to know what it was like to attack the LDS church by following the same methods.
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@stevejames1012
Really...?
What HISTORICAL works were you pulling from?
Cite them....page and reference.
rpavich 4 months ago
@rpavich "Cite them....page and reference." I'm not going to waste my time citing every work, pg and reference. Especially since you still refuse to tell me your opinion on the matter. You're trying to put me on the defense and make unrealistic demands when you have yet to follow up on a single one.
But, for the sake fun, here are some of the works: Eusebius' Church History 6.25, Bruce Manning Metzger, "The canon of the New Testament: its origin, development, and significance", p. 141, ...
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@stevejames1012
yes...I realized that I was thinking not of Trent...but of Nicea when i said that the canon wasn't discussed....my mistake...
And I agree with dr. Metzger and have his work.....
what do you want to discuss?
rpavich 4 months ago
@rpavich Everett Ferguson, "Factors leading to the Selection and Closure of the New Testament Canon," in The Canon Debate. eds. L. M. McDonald & J. A. Sanders (Hendrickson, 2002) pp. 301, H. J. De Jonge, "The New Testament Canon," The Cambridge History of the Bible (volume 1) eds. P. R. Ackroyd and C. F. Evans (Cambridge University Press, 1970) p. 308, F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Intervarsity Press, 1988) p. 234
Sound credible enough for you?
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@stevejames1012
Yes...F.F. Bruce is credible....as I said...I was mistaking Nicea for Trent....the comments and cut/paste in reference to Trent is accurate...but not Nicea...but that was my mistake.
rpavich 4 months ago
@rpavich I guess you could tell me if there is anything outside of what I have cited about the biblical canon, that would be appreciated.
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@stevejames1012
Not sure what you are saying?
rpavich 4 months ago
@rpavich I'm just trying to make sure that I didn't miss anything on my analysis of biblical canon.
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@stevejames1012
Well...no...I don't think you did.
The only thing that I would comment is that I'd say that when someone said that the canon was "decided" I'd not say that.
I'd say that men recognized what God had already done....long before...
The fact that the Catholic church had a council that "decided on" certain books inclusion really doesn't make much difference to me considering i believe the Catholic Church to be apostate...i.e. not Christian.
rpavich 4 months ago
@rpavich I understand. I agree that God set His canon long before any men ever decided what was official. However, I believe that God's canon encompasses far more than what we currently have (including LDS canon) and that we will receive much more from Him.
I believe this because God's word and work are for grander than any human being or group of human beings could ever comprehend.
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@stevejames1012
I guess that's where (one of the places) we differ.
Have a good day.
bob
rpavich 4 months ago
@rpavich ...6) the canon of Trent was most likely accepted as official canon in the year 393 ad. This was the canon among most Christians for a long time (excluding several groups). However, during this long period (the dark ages) very few people had access to the bible. It was translated by hand. Potentially, many changes were made that we'll never know.
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@stevejames1012
Lol....what a knee slapper....!! Canon of Trent....
You HAD to get this crap off of the internet right? Only some internet source would even think that the canon was a topic of discussion at Trent....
Please stop....you are embarrassing yourself.
I knew before this conversation started that you didn't know anything about the bible...only that you can't trust it so as to make way for more "latter day revelation"...
And now you've proven it over and over.
Just stop.
rpavich 4 months ago
@rpavich Again, you keep saying that I am so "off" and "wrong" about the biblical canon. You act like it's some error to get up to date information online rather than trust outdated books. newsflash! Nearly all research in any area is done online.
But again I say, please enlighten me since you are obviously an expert on the subject.
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@stevejames1012
It's not the fact that you can get information online that I'm making fun of...it's that not all INTERNET SOURCES are reputable...and you are choosing crap resources who have false information...
But again...LDS folks aren't REALLY interested in the actual history of the bible...only getting any information that will put it in a negative light...
Been there...done that.
rpavich 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rpavich ".it's that not all INTERNET SOURCES are reputable" fully agreed. Tell that to anyone who uses online sources to bash the LDS church or any other religion.
"LDS folks aren't REALLY interested in the actual history of the bible" That's a harsh over generalization. Especially considering that there a groups of LDS scholars and teachers who dedicate themselves to it.
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@rpavich Just because you say that "lds folks" do something, does not make it the case. I could make similar stereotypical generalizations about Christians but that's not logical or credible.
Again, please enlighten me about biblical canon since you know so much.
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@stevejames1012
I'm only speaking from experience, and knowing many LDS folks...and the behavior you've shown here...
As far as the canon...what do you want to talk about?
I already said that the early church recognized God's canon....and that just because 1500 + years later the Catholic church holds a council makes no difference to me...any more than what the FLDF church does means anything to you....
rpavich 4 months ago
@rpavich . It also included many books that are now considered "Apocryphal." 7) Martin Luther attempted to remove certain books from the canon, as they did not agree with his view of things. 8) Evangelicals groups set criteria for NT canon. The basic factor for recognizing a book's canonicity for the New Testament was divine inspiration ie revelation.
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@rpavich There are currently many different canons associated with separate groups. These include:
Protestant, Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Slavonic orthodox, Georgian orthodox, Armenian Apostolic, Syriac orthodox, Coptic Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, Assyrian church of the East and more.
So I guess I need to rephrase my statement. The bible was not compiled by a council of uninspired men. It was compiled by several councils of uninspired men.
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@rpavich So are these orthodox churches not Christian?
How about the different sects within the Protestant movement?
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@stevejames1012
No...they are not....
As far as "denominations" within protestantism? You haven't named any specifically so I can't say for sure. I can give you the "not Christian" list if that would help?
LDS = Not Christian
Seventh Day Adventist = Not Christian
Scientologist = Not Christian
Jehovah's Witness = Not Christian
There may be a few more that I'm not aware of....
This is really a bad line of reasoning to go down for the mormon considering that there are 100+ LDS denominations.
rpavich 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rpavich "This is really a bad line of reasoning to go down for the mormon considering that there are 100+ LDS denominations." Again, this is irrelevant because LDS doesn't claim to be part of a group with other churches ie the Christian Club. The LDS church claims to be, and is, the one and only true church. Any split-off groups from it are just as incomplete as all others.
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@rpavich Oh sorry, forgot a few things. The first "infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon" in the Catholic church did not occur until the Council of Trent in the 1500's. 8 books were left out, even though they were confirmed to be divinely inspired by previous leaders. 7 NT books were not accepted as canon (officially) for awhile as well.
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@stevejames1012
Lol...like I said....the Catholic church isn't Christian...you are arguing what I'd argue also...
rpavich 4 months ago
@stevejames1012
PS: Whatever the Catholic church decided in the 1500's is of no interest to me.....they are as much a false church as the LDS church 500 years later.
Anyone can come along anytime and claim anything.....
Example: Why shouldn't I listen to the folks of the FLDS? They claim to be the authentic church and the LDS church is actually the offshoot....
?
rpavich 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rpavich "the LDS church is actually the offshoot...." That's a matter of opinion as to where the priesthood went. Look at the two churches now and which one still maintains to have this authority. As well as which one Joseph proclaimed would be the continuation of the restored church.
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@rpavich Sorry that my posts are so long. feel free to respond as long as you like and take your time to be as thorough as you please.
Also, if you would like to see biblical references to lost scripture, I'll be glad to oblige.
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@stevejames1012
I realize that your posts are long...copying incorrect garbage from the internet is time consuming.
The problem is that you (either honestly or dishonestly) have no idea what you are talking about.
You have no idea about the history and transmission of the bible. You are dead wrong about it.
I know that they really don't care to teach accurate thing about it in the LDS church...I've been there...so maybe that's why....I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
rpavich 4 months ago
@rpavich "The problem is that you (either honestly or dishonestly) have no idea what you are talking about." Please then, enlighten me since you are obviously an expert on the subject.
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@rpavich "The 66 books of the protestant canon." Why not the Catholic canonical books which are more extensive? Why not the apocryphal books?
Who declared the 66 books of the protestant canon to be the only collection of books from God?
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@stevejames1012
Why not the Catholic canon?
Because they've never been accepted as such by the early church...I believe God is the author of the canon, and men just recognize that fact.
Why isn't the book of Jareneck automatically part of the "big 4" of the LDS scriptures?
Because the church has the right to recognize it's canon...that's why, and just because someone writes a book doesn't mean it's included....
rpavich 4 months ago
@rpavich "Because they've never been accepted as such by the early church"
What's the "early church?"
"Why isn't the book of Jareneck automatically part of the "big 4" of the LDS scriptures?" Because God did not confirm that fact through inspired prophets.
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@stevejames1012
The early church is the church from the Old Testament times (written portion) to the New testament times...that's the church I was referring to.
God did not confirm that fact through inspired prophets?
I beg to differ....Matthew IS a Prophet of the LDS church ....just ask him.
When all we have to go on is our "feelings" or what you'd call "witness"....then it's Matthew the prophet's feelings vs yours.....no outside objective standard by which to judge anything.
rpavich 4 months ago
@rpavich How can we know that there aren't more books that were accepted by the early church. There are heaps of Ante-Nicean writings that were never included in the bible. These have just as much historical verification as the ones included in the bible.
You have to admit that the modern bible is a collection of books, written by prophets but selected by men. Men who were not inspired nor claimed to have divine inspiration.
Does this not concern you at all?
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@stevejames1012
Because God has not chosen them to be in His canon...
I realize that this is a hard concept to grasp...but men don't decide the canon...God does...men only recognize what the canon is.
People can write all the books that they want....and people do....but why would you assume that any book that a person writes should be in the bible? Or the book of Mormon for that matter?
It's bad reasoning.
God has guided the church and the use of His canon.
rpavich 4 months ago
@rpavich "God did not confirm that fact through inspired prophets?" I'm not questioning the books in the bible. I'm questioning the ones that are not. Including many books mentioned in the bible that aren't included. The selection of what is included was chosen by a council of men.
How can you know that there aren't books that are not in the bible that are inspired works and should be canon?
the bible itself speaks of other books, how can you believe in the bible and ignore those scriptures?
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@stevejames1012
Again...you decry what you pretend to venerate...how two faced....but that's another issue.
How can I know that other books shouldn't be in the bible?
I already said it...and this is hard for LDS folks (with their constantly shifting doctrine) to understand...but God has preserved HIS canon...as the author of the Canon HE has the right to define it...and he has....
We just recognize it as such.
rpavich 4 months ago
@stevejames1012
Quote:
"The selection of what is included was chosen by a council of men."
Really which council?
Let's see if yoiu've done your homework or you are just another LDS drone who regurgitates what he reads on the internet....
Go ahead...which council were you referring to?
rpavich 4 months ago
@rpavich "When all we have to go on is our "feelings" or what you'd call "witness"....then it's Matthew the prophet's feelings vs yours"
We have more than feelings. Anyone who reads the bible with reason and logic can see that there lies a need for other books and prophets. I can provide biblical sources if you like.
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@stevejames1012
Right....
Remember...I'm ex LDS so I realize why you have to malign the bible....if it's not screwed up or altered or "no sufficient" then there is no need for a "latter day revelation".....
I realize why you SAY you revere the bible on one hand yet attack it with all you've got on the other....
But the fact remains....it's sufficient...and has been for 2000 years or more (the Old testament canon also)
rpavich 4 months ago
@rpavich "But the fact remains....it's sufficient...and has been for 2000 years or more (the Old testament canon also)"
Which canon? It has changed several times.
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@stevejames1012
No...it hasn't...the "canon" has never changed...you keep mentioning non-christian groups and their canon and I reject that.
God's canon has never changed.
Do you want me to start measuring the LDS church by what the FLDS church does? (or any of the other 100+ LDS denomiations have done?
Would that be accurate? Of course not...
But you are so blinded in your question to smear the bible (again...you have to) that anything goes.
rpavich 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rpavich "God's canon has never changed." Obviously, but man's interpretation of it has.
"you keep mentioning non-christian groups and their canon and I reject that."
Which ones?
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@rpavich The coming forth of the bible is one of the most beautiful marvels God has performed on this Earth. Just think, only a few hundred years ago, very few people on the planet even had access to, let alone could read it. Now you can get a free one when you stay in hotel. you can access the complete text from your phone. It's amazing, God's word on your droid. It truly is a modern miracle. But why would God stop there?
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@stevejames1012
Oh no...not that old rehash of an argument "why would god stop there?"
Ex LDS here....been there done that...heard it all...said it all....got the T shirt.
Save your scripted LDS arguments for those who haven't heard them.
I realize that you believe them because they've been drilled into you like a...well...like a cult does, since you were a toddler....but I don't.
rpavich 4 months ago
@rpavich I trust that you hold those same feelings toward me. Otherwise you wouldn't be here. I may be wrong.
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@stevejames1012
I'm only making comments because i believe the LDS church to be false, and if you believe what is taught, then you are believing a falsehood and your eternal destiny is Hell...and of course, I don't want that.
rpavich 4 months ago
@rpavich I never said that God's inspired truth could be in that book. But I never went online and threw up negative posts about it either. I wouldn't attack it unless I was familiar with it. That's the difference.
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@stevejames1012
By your reasoning, you MUST say that God's inspired truth could be there and you are being inconsistent when you don't read it and pray about it.
And plueezzzzee....don't give my the typical "LDS you're attacking me" sob story....it's old.
The LDS church's FOUNDATION is that all other churches are an "abomination" and false...going so far as to say that protestant ministers are in the employ of Satan....
You remember that don't you?
rpavich 4 months ago
@mormon25
Where do you get YOUR authority?
Know them by their fruits? Couldn't agree more. Looking at the actual (not LDS-approved) history, I know to stay away.
14 million? That's supposed to sound impressive? Take into account the world's population, and your membership equates to 0.2% of that. Even Islam has over 1 BILLION, and so does Christianity. Also, roughly half of your membership you boast about isn't even active.
We have prayed. The church and the BoM are wrong.
rodwyr 1 year ago 7
@rodwyr You say that "Christianity" has over one billion members. To which church do these belong? How many are there in YOUR church?
Do you have a source saying the 50% of the members aren't active?
stevejames1012 5 months ago
@stevejames1012
You're assuming they all have to be Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, or something else. They may not agree on every stinkin' little minute detail, but on the core stuff (Virgin birth, physical death, burial, resurrection of Jesus, one God, etc.), Christians agree.
Regarding the second question...
Check your private messages...Not letting me post the link.
It includes links to other articles.
rodwyr 5 months ago
@rodwyr That doesn't answer either of my questions. Let me repeat: To which church do these belong? How many are there in YOUR church?
You can't lump all of these together and here's why: You say that "on the core stuff... Christians agree." Who declared these to be the "core stuff?"
In order for this argument to hold water, one of two things must exist:
1) a SPECIFIC list in the bible of these things as the fundamentals, or
2) modern revelation must be received to declare these to be the core.
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@stevejames1012
The church, as a whole, are the body of believers all around the world. They are broken up into smaller congregations. In my local congregation, it runs from 250-400, roughly. Not sure of the relevance to the topic.
I will send you a link of an apologist friend of mine who answers your question about all these different "denominations". While the question was posed by an atheist, the answer would fit your category, as well.
BTW, who declared your "core doctrines"?
rodwyr 4 months ago
@rodwyr "who declared your "core doctrines"?" Christ Himself, through holy scriptures as well as modern prophets who receive direct revelation from God.
"The church, as a whole, are the body of believers all around the world." If it is one body of believers, then why have different doctrines?
As far as membership, the article itself says that studies in Brazil etc. likely have more to do with people not wanting to disclose their faith.
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@rodwyr Also in terms of active members, I think that it's true that around 50% are inactive. But not for the reason that you think. While on my mission, I ran into many, many inactive members. The overwhelming majority (I would say at least 85%+) were inactive because of personal disputes or disagreements with other members, bishops etc.
Very few of these people said that they do not believe in the church anymore, in fact, most still do. But they do not attend classes (where roles for ...
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@rodwyr ...are taken). I could have been considered inactive many times in my life simply because I didn't go to class because of a screaming child or family illness. I still attended sacrament meeting and fully believed all of the principles of the church, but numerically, I was "inactive."
I watched that video and it was not helpful all. In fact, it didn't answer the question. It answered questions like "Do you think that all of the other congregations are stupid? (word for word by the way).
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@rodwyr It's not a matter of "thinking that other denominations are stupid. It's a matter of unity of doctrine. That's what makes a church "one" versus "many."
Obviously many concepts are shared by most. But there are about as many similarities to Judasim or Islam as there are with most of these Christian congregations.
It all goes back to determining what "core doctrines" are. That's why modern revelation through prophets is essential.
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@stevejames1012
...and yet the LDS "prophets" haven't come up with a thing since 1978, smack dab in the middle of the civil rights movement. If it is as essential as you say, why nothing of any consequence for 33 years?
There is unity in the core doctrines...ones that distinguish between true Christians and those who are not. Which doctrines affect salvation? The core doctrines. Things like the nature of God, the physical death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, the Virgin birth (cont'd)
rodwyr 4 months ago
@rodwyr "nd yet the LDS "prophets" haven't come up with a thing since 1978, smack dab in the middle of the civil rights movement"
Are you serious?!?!
Perpetual education fund, small temples, new online presence, improvements in welfare square and worldwide humanitarian efforts, the structure of 70's and stakes, the new conference center, new universities with entirely new, state of the art models of education, new genealogy resources and updates.
These are all things that have happened in ...
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@stevejames1012
That's good works, not revelation. I was speaking strictly of alleged revelation.
The humanitarian efforts by way of financial giving is not as impressive as it sounds. Long story short, it only amounts to maybe 1% of total income in the church. The church buys land, builds malls, apartment complexes, etc. Doesn't exactly wreak of humanitarian aid. I suppose more cash cows for the church, I don't know.
rodwyr 4 months ago
@rodwyr "..(the church's humanitarian work) only amounts to maybe 1% of total income in the church"
1) You can;t possibly know how much the church receives in income. There have been filings in the UK and a few other places where the church isn't very big, but to assume that even know what number that is sounds very presumptuous.
2) THe PEF, Welfare square, helping hands, fast offerings and bishop's storehouse programs alone are expensive enough to cover far more than 1%. That's just to skim..
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@rodwyr ...the surface. According to the World Health Organization, over 7.5 million people have access to clean water because of the LDS church. In 2010, the church provided emergency relief to people affected by 119 disasters in 58 countries, since 2002 the church has trained over 193,000 health care workers in impovershed nations neonatal resuscitation techniques, since 2003, the church has given vision care to over 550,000 people, since 2002 the church has provided over 415,000 wheelchairs,
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@rodwyr ...my lifetime (since 1985) and this is a tiny portion of the list.
Not every revelation is groundbreaking, earth-shattering news. Although many of that small list of things could be considered as such.
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@stevejames1012
(cont'd) If it's a doctrine that affects salvation, it's considered a core doctrine. Secondary stuff like pre-trib vs. post-trib, pre-millennium vs. post-millennium vs. a-millennium, etc., liberties are allowed. Really, in the LDS church, there's still dissonance within doctrine, like whether or not God sinned EVER. There are topics in the Christian church that are not worth dividing over. Some things, yes...some things, no.
rodwyr 4 months ago
@rodwyr "If it's a doctrine that affects salvation, it's considered a core doctrine. "
Says who? That's the important thing. Who determines what directly affects salvation. Is it through revelation or direct, specific scripture. If not one of those two, then it is of men. Plain and simple. So which is it?
In terms of "doctrinal dissonance" in the church. There is dissonance on things that have not been revealed. These details are nothing in comparison to the extreme leniency and dissonance...
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@stevejames1012
So, God has not revealed to you whether or not He has ever sinned? Yet LDS claim to love the Bible and agree with it to some extent?
The central doctrines of Christianity are determined by the church as a whole. Those central doctrines are agreed upon by virtually every Christian church. It's those doctrines that make the Christian faith Christian and not something else.
rodwyr 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rodwyr You're missing my point. you say that "The central doctrines of Christianity are determined by the church as a whole" but WHAT church? Is the gospel a democracy? Either it is by scripture or revelation (which is modern scripture). Men can't decide what is core and what is not. Even if "the whole church" (meaning thousands of different churches) agree upon certain things. God says what is essential and what is not.
stevejames1012 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rodwyr You're missing my point. you say that "The central doctrines of Christianity are determined by the church as a whole" but WHAT church? Is the gospel a democracy? Either it is by scripture or revelation (which is modern scripture). Men can't decide what is core and what is not. Even if "the whole church" (meaning thousands of different churches) agree upon certain things. God says what is essential and what is not.
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@rodwyr What you are saying is that all virtually members of Christianity agree that certain doctrines are core, therefore, they are core doctrines. That is the definition of following man and not God. By making that claim, you are either claiming that all of Christians have received revelation directly from God, or that men can decide which doctrines are important.
Do you understand what I am saying (I'm not always great at explaining things)?
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@stevejames1012
James Talmage, "Articles of Faith", p. 7..."The works adopted BY VOTE OF THE CHURCH as authoritative guides in faith and doctrine are four: the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine & Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price". (emphasis mine)
Why is your church allowed to vote on Scripture, and thus doctrine, and not Christianity?
rodwyr 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rodwyr "Why is your church allowed to vote on Scripture, and thus doctrine, and not Christianity?"
Scripture does not equal doctrine. The bible has loads of doctrine, both true and untrue.
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@rodwyr ", God has not revealed to you whether or not He has ever sinned? Yet LDS claim to love the Bible and agree with it to some extent?" I don't see what you're getting at.
Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith had received authority from John the Baptist, I think it's safe to say that he had authority.
"baptism doesn't save anyone." True. Christ does, but we need to accept His gift of grace, baptism is part of that. It's not enough to simply say "I believe," or "I'm born again." that simply...
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@rodwyr ...does not produce/receive/demonstrate faith. Faith requires works. Even devils' believe in Christ, but we must accept Him fully.
I have a question, does one need to love God to be saved?
stevejames1012 4 months ago
@stevejames1012
Baptism does not complete salvation. It does not wash sins away. Jesus had no sins to wash away.
What I was getting at in my previous post was 'Do you really need to go outside the Bible to find out if God ever sinned? Do you really need some special revelation from God to be sure of that?'
Smith and Cowdery were not properly baptized. If John was really alive, as LDS claim, why didn't HE baptize them...or at least baptize one and let him baptize the other?'
rodwyr 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rodwyr "Baptism does not complete salvation. It does not wash sins away. Jesus had no sins to wash away." Of course, LDS don't believe that it does. Only Christ can complete salvation. I understand what you are getting with your post now and agree. I also agree that we as men are far, far from learning all things pertaining to God.
stevejames1012 4 months ago