"Preposterous" is putting it mildly, if it doesn't line up with Biblical scripture, then it's not Christian. That goes for any "modern day revelation", not just mormon teachings.





Biblical scripture states plainly and succintly that Jesus always was, from *the* beginning, prior to the creation of the heavens and the earth, since Biblical scripture states He created both and the inhabitants of both (angels and humans/their spirits within). The beginning means the beginning, prior to everything He created.

So, when Biblical scripture doesn't support mormon teachings, mormons ignore it and choose their 'modern revelation' over the Bible?

uno mas - mormons believe God was once man and became God through whatever process mormons believe... and humans can become God by the same process?

Well, you see, Modern Revelation in the LDS church certainly doesn't conflict with the Bible.

Rather, when Mormons point out how the Bible supports LDS beliefs that stem from Modern Revelation, Evangelicals simply reject the LDS interpretation of the scripture.

My point is that the Bible is inconclusive and many different interpretations of various scripture are entirely valid - valid doesn't necessarily mean correct. Simply that it is reasonable to extract various interpretation from scripture and as long as that's the case, you can't use the Bible to prove or reject most Christian Religions.

There is ample support for LDS doctrines of the pre-existence in the Bible, I cited many of them earlier and the response from Nabster was that my interpretation was invalid. That's simply not the case.

There is also Biblical evidence that we are to become perfect, like God, that "we are gods" according to Jesus, and "heirs of God and joint-heirs with Jesus Christ".

I'm still trying to understand how you all think that being an heir means anything other than inheriting all that the God has.

How do you know what it means? The Bible isn't clear.

It seems to me it is quite clear, definitely clearer than any other interpretation of it. How do you interpret this scripture?



Obviously the emphasis is mine, but it seems like the mormon interpretation isn't clear what "is" is...

Young's Literal Translation, while not in today's english, gives us possibly a bit more insight for those who think other translations may be reading into it a bit:



Collosians 1:15-17 (YLT) - (The Bible text designated YLT is from the 1898 Young's Literal Translation by Robert Young who also compiled Young's Analytical Concordance. This is an extremely literal translation that attempts to preserve the tense and word usage as found in the original Greek and Hebrew writings.)

Again, how do mormons interpret this scripture? It would seem clear to the average person, no "modern revelation" needed.

One more: the good old King James Version, for those who believe "if it was good enough for Peter and Paul..."

Let's take the YLT translation.

For something or someone to be described as having been "born" the language necessarily implies that Jesus sprung forth from someone/something else that was there before him. The rest of this needs little clarification and Mormons do agree that Jesus was the agent whereby God created all things.

Absolutely not, the question I posed was, "The Beginning of what?"

If we are talking about the beginning of the earth then great, fine.

Even if we are talking about the beginning of heaven, I'm with you, as Christ was the first creation of God and participated in the creation thereafter.

The Bible simply is not clear on multiple issues...

The nature of God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost. Folks get mad at Mormons and say we believe in a different Jesus, but among the accepted Christian faiths there are at least two different versions of Jesus. One where Jesus and God are the same being and a second one where Jesus and God are separate beings.

There are multiple forms of Baptism.

Multiple different understandings of the relationship between Faith and Works.

Multiple different theories on the Gifts of the Spirit.

All of these are simply brushed to the side in the name of Christian brotherhood, but when it comes to Mormons the most minute of differences is analyzed, dissected and torn apart. It's truly a double standard.

I believe it's all because y'all are uncomfortable with the idea that God speaks to man. But he did, and he never stopped throughout the history of the Bible, so why would he stop now.

John 21:25 If one of those additional books was actually written, wouldn't you, as a believer in Christ, want to read it?

come one. collossians 1:18 , only a few verses later, says "...firstborn of the dead..." it is a phrase used to describe THE FIRST. Not literally "born". GOod example again of Mormon improper translation for BOM benefit.

NOw concerning other books written of Jesus....they are not in the Bible and therfor not infallible. So they are not needed. GOd did put His word in completeness in "the Bible".Man has not polluted or changed or messed up the WOrd. This is where we differ and one reason we consider Mormonism less than christian. YOU guys believe the bible is fallible. And then mixz in the other stuff...it isnt just one item that is controversial that we evangelicals have a problem with.
It has nothing to with difference in Baptism or the holy spirit. it is about fundamental truth differences. We believe the bible is perfect - you dont. FUndemental.

nab

Whether or not the Bible is fallible is the only issue that isn't really in question.

My bible says "firstborn from the dead" which is clearly a reference to the resurrection.

So I still disagree

God has forgiven the sins of the whole world. Even the people in Hell(Outer darkness) are forgiven for their sins.

2 Corinthians 5:18 &19 "All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation

1 Timothy says that God is the Savior of ALL MEN, especially those who believe.


That doesn't mean that everyone will recieve the gift of unconditional forgiveness.
Faith, which is worked into us through the Holy Spirit, and includes contrition (sorrow for sin) and repentance(turning to Jesus for assurance of forgiveness)is the hand that recieves the forgiveness won by Jesus on Calvary. Our faith doesn't "cause" our forgiveness, it merely recieves it. We are not saved "by" faith. We are saved by Jesus. We are saved "through faith," not "by faith".

Those who teach we must earn forgiveness by meeting conditions aren't repentant(havn't turned to Jesus for assurance of the forgiveness won at calvary).Instead, they will end up like Judas-He had sorrow over sin but didn't turn to Jesus for assurance he was forgiven. As a result, he commit suicide. Those who don't trust that in Jesus they have been already forgiven are committing spiritual suicide.
God doesn't forgive us based on our faith, our contrition, our repentance our overcoming sin, etc. For if he did, we would be saved by what we do (works) and we would boast of doing these things more than those who went to Hell(Outer darkness).

God forgives us only because he loves us and also because of what Jesus has done for us. That leaves no room for boasting.

The "IFS" in scripture (for example 1 John 1:9) do not make what follows(confession) a condition to forgiveness. For instance in the sentence: "If we get up at noon, the sun will be shining brightly" Clearly the sun shines wether or not they get up at noon. So "if" doesn't imply that the sun won't shine if they don't get up at noon for the sun would be shining wether or not they got up at noon. It is simply saying the two things will be found together.


Repentance means to turn from evil to God.

Turn from evil- Which means to turn from depending in your ability to earn God's forgiveness. Your not good enough to earn it. And because your not good enough to earn it you deserve only punishment in outer darkness...

To God- to believing that in Jesus you have been forgiven.



If you would but love God, it matters not what you do because if you love God you will desire to do what God asks of you.

Which of the following would produce a love for God in you?

1)To know God loves you and has forgiven you. You can walk through life with a clear conscience and with peace and joy until you join God in the celestial kingdom which is your inheritance even now.

2)To know God demands you to weep and wail and overcome all your lust, greed, anger and selfishness, rudeness and all the other sins you havn't overcome yet. He wants you to remain in a state of guilt and under his condemnation. He says: "Earn my love buddy or your outta here! No celestial kingdom for you!!!"

Those who believe in God #2 can't understand how a doctrine of faith alone will actually lead to Godliness in the believer. Instead they always think that it will lead to it not mattering what we do. They say: "if you are already forgiven, then won't you just go ahead and do what you want, wether or not it is a sin?" But they think like this only because they do not yet love God themselves. Joel, you yourself have repeatedly brought up this point. What this means is that you yourself(Mormons) do not yet love God. How do I know this? Well it is simply this (but you are still blind to it): You go about improving your life for reasons other than love for God and that is exactly why you can't understand how we could do things simply out of love for God.

If you truly loved God according to the true meaning of the word, and went about improving your life because of that alone, you wouldn't even question us about this! You would know exactly how it is possible for a person to go about improving their lives out of love for God without having conditions attached to it.




The Lutheran position by contrast: In order to change, we must first be forgiven.

It is faithlessness to believe you are not yet forgiven. It is the unforgivable sin! Turn before it is too late. Believe!



Luther said it well when he made comparisons in every day life with the forgiveness we already have :


"Even he who does not believe that he is free and his sins forgiven shall also learn, in due time, how assuredly his sins were forgiven, even though he did not believe it...He who does not accept what the keys give recieves, of course, nothing. But that is not the key' fault. Many do no believe the gospel, but this does not mean that the gospel is not true or effective. A king gives you a castle. If you do not accept it, then it is not the King's fault, nor is he guilty of a lie. But you have decieved yourself and the fault is yours. The King certainly gave it it. (LW 40, 366f)

And those who decieved themselves and didn't believe they were forgiven without condition, did not recieve what was given. They went to outer darkness.

Hugs!

Echo - if we do not forgive others who sin against us, or we have unforgiveness in our heart, are we still forgiven our sins and does God hear our prayers? I know the answer just wondering WELS stance based on some statements made above.

JOEL## - BORN??? the word born you used to mean birth or beginning of time or earth...
My point is IT DOESNT MEAN BORN....firstborn of the dead MEANS FIRST - NOT BORN in the literal meaning of birth or beginning...yes i was shouting.
so disagree if you will, but your interpretation is loose at best and you are using the term "first born" to mean literal creation and beginning and it does not.

this thread is exhausting, i dont know how you continue with me allen or echo. You have my respect in that manner for sure

"Being an heir" could mean many many things... and unless you are an only child, it usually means sharing in the properties, titles, debts and obligations upon the passing of someone. Paul is discussing the persecution the early church members were going through and reminding them that "being an heir" means we share in the persecution Jesus went through while here as well. ..."we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory".

mormons have to stretch awful hard to get that to mean we get to become God.

So here it is almost 6 years ago that I posted this question. yesterday I actually hid in my bathroom in an effort to avoid the two Mormon boys ringing my bell yet again.

Six years later...

They did leave me an offer to receive a free copy of Another Testament of Jesus Christ tho....

Embie,

You should have taken them up on it. and if you didn't you can still get a free copy here

Echo,

I do love God. Does the fact that my love for God makes me feel badly when I sin, cause a problem? The world would be a better place if more people felt badly when they sinned and decided to change.

However, since I do love God, it would seem that you're wasting your time with me. Because if that is all that is required to be saved, by your standard, I'm there.

I won't point out, that even the version of repentance you discuss could easily be called a dreaded "work".

Allen,

I think it's actually a stretch to say that "sharing in Christ's glory" is anything other than becoming like him and like God.

But at least you admit Which would imply that it could also mean becoming like God.

To be clear, the Mormon position is that we do share in God's glory, never surpassing him or supplanting him as our God.

Nabster,

Colossians 1:13-18



Read it again, first it talks of Christ being the firstborn up in verse 15, then it is clearly referring to the resurrection in verse 18 where it says that his the "firstborn from the dead; that in all things (including the resurrection) he might have preeminence." Now I obviously added the bit in parentheses.

Now, would you agree with me that Echo is at least as far out there as you consider me to be?

nobody touched on the obvious double standard I pointed out.



I wish that you would.

Oh and by the way, the last gal on American Idol last night was so obviously a Mormon, I couldn't stop laughing.

And Mitt won in Michigan and has double the delegates of the other candidates at this point and more Republicans have voted for him as the nominee than any other candidate.

Mormons are making it to "Hollywood" on AI, taking a legitimate shot at the White House and the currently the Senate Majority leader. Clearly, our evil plan is working.

(all of the above was said as an attempt at humor, it should not be construed that there exists any such evil plot directed and controlled by the LDS church in Salt Lake City, UT.)

mwahahaha aha>>>>
evil doers.

Doctrinal differences bother me... Why Baptists leave out Acts chapter 2 as relevant for today. I dont understand...but they believe in same Jesus and infallible Bible and same God.
WHy some denominations believe God and Jesus are seperate and some believe he is one with God, I dont know either. but I do know they believe in the same attributes and again infallible Bible, and same Jesus. Personally, I dont care if He is one being or three. He clearly acts as three. Scripture supports triune yet same. HE IS GOD IS AND HOLY SPIRIT IS. They are and were from the onset. Our minds cant comprehend God in His fullness. So we accept the fact that there are some unsanswered questions. I dont have to have answers for every detail in the Bible. I will NEVER know everything there is to know.
I accept that. Mormons are looking for MORE revelation to try and explain some things that are not readily explainable.

ANyway , while I may differ or "issues" with another evangelical denomination, I dont see them as so different that doctrinal we disagree. When their Jesus and tehir rituals and their practices step outsd=ide of logical scripture then I am out.
Mormonism steps out for me and cannot embrace any of it, that is "contradcitory to my faith. Likeyl same for you. Funny thing is I am a "full gospel" christian. I dont leave any part of the BIble. You think I am missing out on additional revelation. (not full gospel). Funny No?

very funny

However, don't you find the fact that other Christians ignore parts of the Bible, as though those parts are either fallible or imperfect, equally as bothersome as you find us Mormons?

yes. Because they are mitigating who Jesus is. Tghe fllness thereof.

I don't think they're "ignoring parts of the Bible" but interpret the same Biblical scripture differently... some things they believe were for a time when Jesus and the original disciples walked the earth. That's not my belief, but it's not enough of a difference that I think they're missing out on salvation because of it. I believe in most Christian denominations there is, as my pastor would say, "strength in our similarities and freedom in our differences".

That's just another tangent tho... back to one of the subjects at hand:

John 1 and Collosians 1 speak of Jesus/God being there "in the beginning" prior to the creation of anything. The scripture doesn't say They had a beginning - in the whole context of the Bible God/Jesus/HolySpirit are eternal - no end, but also no beginning. They always were, they didn't just attain their position as you were trying to allude to. The bolded all's from the scripture posted referred to just that, all, not just this neighborhood, not just this galaxy, not just the stuff since Adam, but all from before too. The scripture didn't leave room for interpreting it to mean there may be something else they don't have a hand in.

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature —have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."



While it is our goal as Christians to become more "Christ-like", to think we will become God (or even another God) doesn't address the absurdity of the size of the gap from here to there. Our nature is human, His nature is divine; He has always been perfectly God, there is no 'God patch' we can earn as boyscouts.

We cannot get there from here.

We all have sinned and fallen short. He never sinned. Trying a series of secret handshakes isn't going to bridge that gap. "All our righteous acts are like filthy rags" - our only hope is in Jesus.

absolutely, nothing that I do will suffice in the Mormon concept of salvation. It is Jesus that saves.

Is believing in a different salvation outcome then sufficient reason to dismiss a religion? We believe in the same process, just a different outcome.

yet Jesus clearly says that we "are gods"

Stepping a bit off topic for a moment but just to clarify a point made by the Nabsta... Baptists surely believe in the validity of Acts 2, however, to Allen's point, they believe that the gift of the Holy Spirit was given temporarily for that period in History, but not necessarily relevant for today. Some Christian denominations believe that if you do not speak in tongues or show the physical manifestation of the Holy Spirit in your life than you are not truly saved. I think the Baptist position is that salvation itself is a gift and does not come with any prerequisites, just faith and grace. Hence, accepting that Acts 2 is of course the truth, it isn't necessarily a requirement for today.

OK, back to the plight of the Mormons... (Just a joke Joel)