</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Which we have already established would be very insulting to Latter Day Saints </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What would make you hesitate in being insulting to a Latter-day Saint?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Christian denominations disagree on meaningless interpretations which make no difference in the long run because we all believe that we are saved by the blood of Christ as long as we follow him with no denominational differenced getting in the way. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I find it interesting that you think they disagree on meaningless things. I think you'll find by carefully reading the New Testament, that the writers of it were often very concerned with what you would call "meaningless interpretations." Hebrews 5 and the discussion of God's Authority and how it can be granted unto men is a good example. 1 Corinthians 14 wherein Paul describes the resurrection and what our bodies will be like, is seemingly unimportant and yet Paul felt to emphasize it. 1 Peter 3 & 4 wherein Peter describes how the gospel will be preached to the dead is apparently meaningless to you, but worthy enough for Peter to have written it.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Joel33:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">A simple look at a timeline would show many years that Israel wasn't led by a prophet. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think you'd also find that those periods where they weren't led by a prophet closely coincided with those periods where they fell into idol worship and Apostacy. A Prophet was called to restore them to a true practice of their religion. One could hardly say that Isaiah was successful or that Jeremiah was successful. Isaiah so irritated Israel that they shoved him in a hollow log and cut him in half and Jeremiah they imprisoned. Nonetheless, the pattern exists. A Prophet comes and teaches the truth, for a time the people are obedient but eventually they fall into Apostacy. When the Lord is ready to restore them to a true practice of their faith a new prophet is called.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And if the 12 disciples were so important, why didn't any of them make an effort to see that the tradition was carried forward? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, they did.

The Epistles in the NT are full of warnings about the coming Apostacy. I've already quoted them at length.

Moreover, in fulfilling the Savior's commission to go into all the world and preach the gospel, baptizing in his name, they kind of were spread out. Most of the Apostles whose martyrdoms we know the dates of were martyred between 60AD and 70AD. Many were martyred in places as far flung as Rome, Egypt, Jerusalem, Iran, Syria, and even some rumors of present day England. Travel not being by jet in those days, they were unable to convene to call a new Apostle when one was killed. Concurrently, the increasing wickedness amongst the members of the church and the fact that they were already perverting Jesus and the Apostle's teachings (as evidenced by the multiple warnings against Apostacy) deprived the church generally of the privilege of having Apostles.

Death's of the Apostle's

Original 12:
Peter: crucified upside-down in 67AD
Andrew: hung on a cross for three-days testifying of Jesus Christ died in 69AD
James: beheaded in Jerusalm in 44AD
John: no record of his death
Phillip: Martyred in Hieropolis in at the age of 87 - year?
Bartholemew: martyred 68AD
Thomas: killed with a lance in Modern day India - year?
Matthew: Martyred in Egypt or Parthia - year?
James: Stoned in Jerusalem - year?
Jude (Thaddeus): martyred in modern day IRan - year?
Simon: There is a church tradition which says that he was crucified by the Romans in Caistor, Lincolnshire, Britain and subsequently buried there on May 10, circa 61 A.D. This cannot be confirmed, however, as there is also a strong tradition which says, that having left Britain, Simon, at some point , went to Persia and was martyred there by being sawn in two.
Judas Iscariot: hanged himself in 33 AD - replaced by Matthias

Other Apostles:
Matthias: no record
Paul: beheaded in Rome - year?
James the brother of Jesus: no record
Barnabus: no record

It is plausible that Paul, James, and Barnabus filled the vacancies in the twelve that occured from the earlier Martydoms, such as James in 44 AD, much the way Matthias replaced Judas Iscariot. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">prolly shouldn't have quoted it all, but since it's from the previous page I will

I believe you've got it backwards, they were good when the prophets weren't around and 'apostic' when they were. Very little, if any, fundamental changes in the behaviour of the Israelites came about just because a prophet showed up, otherwise Sodom and Gomorrha wouldn't have bit the dust. Even Moses and the great and wise Aaron couldn't stop the israelites from worshipping idols. Your 2 examples show this as well... if prophets were that... prophetable we'd see the israelites having low numbers of teenage birthrates, promiscuity, divorce, smoking, jaywalking, spitwad throwing, and nose picking the current round of prophets are famous for

And thank you for the rundown in years that disciples were martyred, but being that Christ's ministry was only 3 years, you don't think in the 25-30 years span of the apostles'/disciples' deaths they could have replaced the dieing 12 with someone new? If 12 disciples were that important, God could have called a meeting and replaced them on a daily basis. If the remaining disciples needed to appoint new ones on behalf of God, surely they had the power to do so without all 12 present - otherwise... God knew beforehand that they were going to die, if having 12 disciples leading the church was that important He would have seen fit to replace them... or He would have seen fit for the disciples to go and make leaders/ pastors/ shepherds/ elders and deacons of those who heard the gospel and God called to the ministry.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Ryan:
Now that I have established that please don’t quote it out of context because I want to explain some things. First of all I said in my post that all Christians believe in faith not works. You then seemed to think that Allen contradicted that by saying he believes that baptism is required for salvation. I GUARENTEE you, without having talked to Allen that he believes that there are exceptions to that including the exception of the thief that was next to Christ on the cross. The Baptist doctrine states that true Christians will have the INTENT to be baptized so long as it is available to them. Nobody except Mormons believe in the strict requirement for baptism either before or after death. You both call it Baptism as a Prerequisite for Salvation but they are very different. The intent to baptize is almost granted through logic I just disagree that it should be called a requirement (I agree that it is correct) the actual act of getting wet to get into heaven is a very different idea.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It wasn't me I said I have some friends that believe that, but not I

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Ryan:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
And you're forgetting the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Seventh Day Adventists, among others. They're totally different from everyone else.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes I am excluding cults. Do you mind? Though we can talk about cults if you want. I haven't gone there because it is hard for me to go there without comparing Mormonism to those other religions and asking what a cult is. Which we have already established would be very insulting to Latter Day Saints </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, let's take the gloves off and go ahead and compare them to cults, it would fit there better than mainstream Christianity If you dig into their beliefs, they aren't that far off the hale-boppers

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Ryan:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
And you're forgetting the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Seventh Day Adventists, among others. They're totally different from everyone else.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes I am excluding cults. Do you mind? Though we can talk about cults if you want. I haven't gone there because it is hard for me to go there without comparing Mormonism to those other religions and asking what a cult is. Which we have already established would be very insulting to Latter Day Saints </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, let's take the gloves off and go ahead and compare them to cults, it would fit there better than mainstream Christianity If you dig into their beliefs, they aren't that far off the hale-boppers [/QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm going to go ahead and wait until someone tells me that they actually want me to go there. It could easily become another thread. So far all I have is Joel who is asking why i would want to not insult LDS (I don't want to insult anyone Joel Though it's sometimes hard to be reverent) it has never been my intention to prove that Mormonism is incorrect. I have been doing my best to refute the arguments against Christianity while at the same time peppering rebuttals with challenges and arguments against the other side (as is my habit with debates)

Nonetheless if the people want to talk cults I’ll talk cults. It’s an offer not a threat.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Christian denominations disagree on meaningless interpretations which make no difference in the long run because we all believe that we are saved by the blood of Christ as long as we follow him with no denominational differenced getting in the way. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I find it interesting that you think they disagree on meaningless things. I think you'll find by carefully reading the New Testament, that the writers of it were often very concerned with what you would call "meaningless interpretations." Hebrews 5 and the discussion of God's Authority and how it can be granted unto men is a good example. 1 Corinthians 14 wherein Paul describes the resurrection and what our bodies will be like, is seemingly unimportant and yet Paul felt to emphasize it. 1 Peter 3 & 4 wherein Peter describes how the gospel will be preached to the dead is apparently meaningless to you, but worthy enough for Peter to have written it. [/QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Joel the bible talks about quite a number of things that are not required for salvation. Better examples are excerpts from the book of Luke Detailing a number of random cities that Jesus and Paul went to (separately of course) or bits like Nehemiah 7 that talk about how many people from each tribe returned to Jerusalem.

It's all truth but it’s not all important. That said most of the verses you quoted are not interpreted the way you took them to be outside of Mormonism. Maybe you should study up on what we believe because it is the second time you made this mistake.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Joel33:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The people who followed him heard god but they received no revelation about new doctrine. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">this is false - Peter the chief apostle following Christ's ascension did lead the church by revelation it's in Acts 10. I think that Peter changin Jesus' practice of preaching to Jews only is quite large doctrinal and directional shift for the early church to have taken. Another example - you really don't think the Book of Revelations contains anything that Jesus didn't teach.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, THIS is false. Peter began spreading the word to the gentiles after Jesus had already set a precedent of reaching out to them by doing things like talking with the Samaritan woman at the well and healing the centurion’s servant saying that he has tremendous faith.

Peters vision and direction from god was built upon Jesus’ premise.

Revelation, besides being a revelation of Jesus, not john (rev 1:1 if you don’t believe me) is not a book that doctrine is to be taken out of. It is simply not safe to do so as every major Christian church will tell you (provided you ask someone that knows what they are talking about)

I don’t blame you for not knowing that as you learn it pretty much only in Seminary, and since you are not studying to become a protestant minister I can hardly hold you accountable for that information.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You are saying that every organization that falls into error is dead. And it's doctrine cannot be repaired?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, I'm saying that an organization that has no authority to act in Gods name cannot spawn an organization with authority.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Nobody but y'all believes that concept of authority even exists. that's like me saying that baptism is not required for salvation because we are saved by faith not works!

Do you see the problem? you can't use one baseless belief to justify another in logical argument!


</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> That's funny to hear from you. It describes the Mormon Church. Do you really want me to name all your doctrines that have gone out of style?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Go ahead and name them, just look over the thread first so I don't have to repeat myself. You'd be surprised, I can't think of any supposed controversial LDS doctrine that hasn't been covered.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

Oh I’m sure they have been covered. The point is that they ever existed. I’m surprised you aren't granting this point as we have already been over the Journal of Discourses. There were doctrines in the past that were in error. Many weren't canonized but NONE of the questionable catholic doctrines were canonized so if they were in error so were you.

[QUOTE] [QUOTE] I'm not here to embarrass you.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, apparently you're here to be condescending. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It's possible! But if so then you are here to be sarcastic... so do we really want to travel this path?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Furthermore the fact that the Catholic Church was a group of men with power to alter doctrine and not depend on the bible alone is what lead to this falling away of theirs.

That also describes the Mormon Church.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, it doesn't. The men in the catholic Church had no authority and didn't even have the presence of mind to claim they recieved revelation from God. The Leaders of the LDS church (i.e. the Prophet and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles) do have that authority and not only claim but actually recieve revelation from God - much like the original Apostles did. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">A'hem! Did I Stutter.. in typing...

Is or is not the Mormon Church described as a group of men with power to alter doctrine and not depend on the bible alone?

I don't care what authority you think you have. Jim Jones thought he was Jesus himself. that didn't change the description of HIS religion now did it. If you want a battle of who thinks they have authority I guarantee you won’t wind with your lowly prophet. Satanists think they not only have God’s backing but also Satan’s. Atheists think the highest force in the universe is on their side, themselves.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Do you want more parallels? I can go on all day. Graven images, Gold statues. Huge temples in poor areas where people need aid.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">you're a funny guy - apparently you are unaware that LDS Social Services is unparalleled in their humanitarian service efforts by any other religious based aid organization. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Catholicism is nothing to sneeze at either. Mother Teresa is perhaps the most charitable person in recent history, she’s catholic. It doesn’t change the fact that there are certain justified expenditures, and certain extravagant ones.

Oh yeah, And your statistic is meaningless. You can’t compare the LDS social services to other religious based organizations. It is a organization OF the church not just based on it. There is therefore NOTHING to compare it to. All other religions have many separate groups that work under their own religion. The fact that you guys have one big one doesn’t make you superior.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Saints,</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Saints are what early members of the church were called at the time of the Apostles. We call ourselves the same thing - hardly like the Catholic practice of praying to them. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">First of all Catholics pray THROUGH the saints. But I don't need to defend the Catholics. When I say saints I am not referring to the word saint. If so I would also have to condemn New Orleans Football fans. I am referring to the “canonization” of certain members of a church that are worthy of esteem. Those “saints” are then put on a pedestal to be honored. They are considered Holy. Thus we begin the defunct concept of Righteousness as something to earn. These are the “Saints”

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Old Men leading the church.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If you figure that the Apostles Jesus called were all in their 30's when they were called, and most of them didn't die until around 60 AD or later, I'd say Old Men leading the church is nothing new. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The emphasis there shouldn’t be on the word "old" it was an attempt at being witty (which I’m not so good at) I was attempting to point out the parallel between the Pope and the Prophet. Looking at John Paul Vs Hinkly what we see is that they have is one man in charge of the religion and special. The word Old was for satirical purposes only (the pope is having trouble doing his job now… and his job often only involves walking onto a balcony and raising two fingers)

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sexism,</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Where do you get that? The LDS church actually supports the largest women's organization in the world. Led by women, guided be women, and run by women. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I assume that you are granting that Catholics have sexist doctrines? Because catholic women lead organizations as well...

Lets look at some Mormon doctrine that could be construed as sexist and you tell me what makes Catholics sexist, and we'll compare.

No women in the priesthood
Segregation in Sunday School and "relief society"
Men get to be god while women get to be pregnant…
God has many wives as did Brigham Young and his close followers and… am I correct in saying… Jesus was rumored to have 2 for a while?
Women’s temple recommendation is rescinded upon divorce.
Women do not go on Missions

Is that enough? Beyond that I’ll have to do some research. There’s a book about a certain
Deborah Laake that seems to name quite a few instances of sexism but I can’t attest to it being correct

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> the encouragement of many children,</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What's the problem with having a big family? At any rate, the church explicitly states that the decision to have children and how many is solely between Husband, Wife, and God. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I said encouraged not demanded. Catholics leave it up to the people also. There is not such a big problem with that encouragement. (besides it just being weird)It is reminiscent of cults but that's not an argument. It puts a tax on the family especially the mother and older children but that can work out for the better.

Few of these things listed are necessarily BAD. I’ll explain more below

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Multitude of Rules, marriage only in their churches. Extra eternal choices beside heaven and hell, Planets as heaven (for a while).</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, I think the Book of Revelations is pretty clear on the fact that the Earth will be renewed and Christ will rule and reign personally upon it - there's your planet as heaven Jab. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Where at? I didn't know the book of Revelation was clear on anything!

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">in fact for a time the catholic church even preached that you can become god!</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Interesting that they actually used to teach that prior to when you claim they had fallen away - must have been a true doctrine then, just like the Nicean Creed.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You gotta be kidding me. ::sigh:: OK patience Ryan… patience…

The Nicean Creed… Is not… Doctrine… A creed is a statement of what we belive. The Nicean Creed is a very good one…. This is because it is accurate to what the bible teaches… It includes a trinity…I know that bothers you… But it is not where we get the concept of a trinity from… the concept is from the bible…

The Council of Nicea… Is different from the Nicean Creed… The Council of Nicea compiled the Cannon… Mormons… Use… That… Cannon!

If it’s flawed… Why aren’t you adding any apocryphal books to the cannon?

We also do not believe in a great apostasy. The Catholic Church never “fell away”. We believe in fallible humans… Protestants believe that the fallible humans in the Catholic Church got too much power… and over time… some of the mistakes they made had to be fixed. Martin Luther tried to fix them… They excommunicated him… so a protestant church was started… not because the Catholics fell away like I know you believe, but because the hierarchy refused to change doctrine than men made up

And finally read my lips

WE BELIVE: No… True… Doctrine… Is… From… Outside… The Bible.

So to tell us that something from any church’s records must be true doctrine is asinine at the first level.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
It's interesting that you think paralells between a church that you admit, was once divinely inspired, and a church today that claims divine authority are used to invalidate the LDS church. When in fact, comparisons of the LDS church and the earliest known (pre-Nicea) Christian practices and beliefs have a very high correlation. It seems to me that if a church was once true and fell into decay that a restoration of the truth would indeed bare some resemblance to the fallen church.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thank you. If you recall this was all a response to your statement that you can't take branches off a dead tree. What I have argued is that if the Catholicism was dead from the start. Then the same things that were wrong with it are true of Mormonism. Or in other words: Mormonism appears to be a dead tree!

The goal is that you will recant your statement. I believe that there were always and still are good Christians in the catholic church! And we can split away from them just fine and go back to the bible. You can believe whatever you want. But be careful with what you criticize because it just may also describe you!

I am reminded of a Mets V Dodgers Game this season in which some drunken fans were yelling at one another. About their respective teams. At one point a dodger fan stood up and said “The Only things that come out of New York are Bums and Criminals!” (although he used different verbiage) My father promptly leaned over to that man and said… there is one more thing…

… The Dodgers

In the same way that you should watch out what baseball team you criticize and for what. You should watch what church you criticize.


</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You are right about this </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Jesus’ "church" was not a institution that you could be effused or denied access to. It was people

so in that sense. The People that followed God were a church that was holy because it was god centered.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">except you gloss over the fact that Christ established a distinct organization and hierarchy for this "church" while he was alive. I honestly can't understand why folks accept a church that isn't built on Jesus' model -- Prophets & Apostles. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The reason people accept other hierarchies is that nobody who has not been brought up in Mormon seminary interprets the scripture that way. It just isn't clearly evident coming from the other side. it only works with the power of suggestion just like all those demonic sayings when you play records backwards

Ryan, truly I am horrified. Have my discussions with you really had so little impact? So much of what you've said about my church is a load of bushwack, and you know it, 'cause I've talked with you about it before. Where do you get your information about the Mormon church? Wherever it is, it's wrong.

Graven images? Golden statues? What the heck are you talking about? That is very obviously accusing us of idol worship (even if you didn't mean it, that's what those accusations are connected to (see Exodus 20 if you don't agree)), something you know very well we do not do. That's a ridiculous statement to make. Another logical fallacy - making accusations without any attempt at providing evidence.

And don't worry about embarrassing us by giving us "doctrine that has gone out of style." How 'bout you get to the point so we can logically argue with you, and show you that you're wrong? I know it can be done, because if it couldn't Mormonism would have died a long time ago, not continue to be one of the fastest growing religions in the world for 174 years.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Oh I’m sure they have been covered. The point is that they ever existed. I’m surprised you aren't granting this point as we have already been over the Journal of Discourses. There were doctrines in the past that were in error. Many weren't canonized but NONE of the questionable catholic doctrines were canonized so if they were in error so were you. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You see, the problem with saying that about those "doctrines" is that they were never even practiced. They were stated as the opinion of a few of the people in the church, and left at that. They weren't even widely talked about, especially in the way that non-Mormons want to use them against us (they totally take the quotes out of context and misunderstand what the "doctrine" was, in other words). That's a very different thing than the practice of selling indulgences, or the Spanish Inquisition. A very bad example of comparing the Mormon church to the Catholic church, because the argument just crumbles when examined closer.

You say Christ started the trend of preaching to Gentiles? What then of when Christ commanded His apostles to not preach to the Gentiles in Matthew 10:5-6, and said Himself that "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" in Matthew 15:24? Why, then, is Peter so adamant about not "eating any thing that is common or unclean" in Acts 10 (with a symbolic reference to the Gentiles)? If you read Acts 10 in its entirety it is quite clear that people in general (as well as Peter) were of the opinion that the Gentiles before this instance were not to receive (or could not receive) the gospel, as I think is best evidenced by verse 45 - they were astonished that the Holy Ghost fell on the Gentiles, because they didn't think it was supposed to happen. And why not? 'Cause Christ had commanded them not to preach to the Gentiles. Peter changed the doctrine as he was commanded to by God, just as our church leaders have done (and only twice, I might add, both of which have very good reasons for doing so).

It's also ridiculous to say that current prophets have contradicted the doctrine taught by past prophets. It's simply not true. Only twice has our doctrine been changed (as I just stated, and as has Biblical precendence), and both of those were commandments from God that had very good reasoning.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
Nobody but y'all believes that concept of authority even exists. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not true. As I said earlier, the funny thing is that Martin Luther did, and he was the man that caused the whole Protestant movement. Hmmm...

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Is or is not the Mormon Church described as a group of men with power to alter doctrine and not depend on the bible alone? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The point is that you cannot compare the Mormon Church and the Catholic Church, because Mormons at least claim to have revelation from God (whether or not you believe it), whereas Catholics do not.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It doesn’t change the fact that there are certain justified expenditures, and certain extravagant ones. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Would you explain to me Solomon's temple, then? Why was it plated in gold, if that was an extravagant expenditure? When we build a monument and a house to our God, as a temple is, we make it the best we can, because it's God's house. Is it wrong to give our best to God? If it is then Solomon was also in error. And if you ask the members of our church if they would rather have a temple or some extra food, they would pick the temple. Many, many members of our church in poor countries save all of their extra money for a year or two (even make sacrifices in food or clothing or whatnot) just so they can take one trip to a temple that is really far away. I don't think those poor people you mention think it is an extravagant expenditure - they couldn't be happier that it is there.

So, sexism:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
No women in the priesthood</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You're right, but that was in the Bible. So if you follow the Bible, and that's sexist, than it looks like you should be sexist too. Last Sunday at my church there was a woman who gave a very good talk about how she doesn't feel at all that women are looked down upon because they don't get the priesthood. She feels they are blessed because of it - it boils down to the fact that it takes a mother and a father to run a family, not either/or, and each of them have certain roles to play (the mother is the one that bears children, for instance, and is by nature more nurturing and more loving). That's a God-given fact, not a sexist remark.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
Segregation in Sunday School and "relief society"
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's not true. There is no segregation in Sunday school (the second hour of church - the first hour is one big meeting with everyone). That's separated by age group. The third hour of chuch is when the men go to priesthood meetings, and the women go to Relief Society. Again, this goes back to women not having the priesthood - they kind of don't hold the priesthood, so they don't go to the priesthood meetings.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
Men get to be god while women get to be pregnant…</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Also not true. Men and women together, not separately, become like God. We had a discussion about this just a few days ago - neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord (see 1 Cor. 11:11), and we believe that no one will be exalted without an eternal marriage. And women being pregnant is only something on this earth, while (both men and women, not just men) becoming like God is something way far in the future after we die, so you can't really compare the two.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
God has many wives as did Brigham Young and his close followers and…</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No where in our doctrine does it say that God has many wives. It may have been Brigham Young's personal opinion, but that does not mean it is doctrine. And I think we've already been over the reasons for polygamy, but if you really want me to, we can do it again.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
am I correct in saying… Jesus was rumored to have 2 for a while? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You are horribly incorrect. That is hogwash. There are people in my church (as in every church, I've found) that are of the opinion the Christ was married to Mary Magdelene. Again, that is the opinion of people, not the doctrine of the church. And certainly not two.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
Women’s temple recommendation is rescinded upon divorce.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I honestly don't know enough about that to really say anything, but I would bet that the man's is too, if it's the case for the woman. From what I recall they are stricter towards the man in cases like that than the are towards the woman (though I might be recalling wrong).
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
Women do not go on Missions </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Bushwack. Women do to go on missions. Just off the top of my head, I can think of three from my general area that are out right now. Women aren't encouraged to as strongly as men are, but they certainly do go.

Oh, and marrying only in our churches - also in the Bible. Look at Deuteronomy 7:3-4.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> None of these things are out of the bible. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm sorry, you're very wrong.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
I am referring to the “canonization” of certain members of a church that are worthy of esteem. Those “saints” are then put on a pedestal to be honored. They are considered Holy. Thus we begin the defunct concept of Righteousness as something to earn. These are the “Saints” </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Also bushwack. I suppose you are referring to the claim that some people make that we worship Joseph Smith. That is false. We praise him, and are very grateful for him, because he was a great man, as we are of all of the prophets, and many other great people who did great things. That does not mean they are "canonized." There's no making them a Saint, like the Catholic church does, and there's not even any offical recognition from the church. That whole point of yours is bogus (especially 'cause you were trying to compare us to the Catholic church, which is doesn't work).

One thing about having many children - it is a commandment in the Bible to multiply and replenish the earth.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
You gotta be kidding me. ::sigh:: OK patience Ryan… patience… </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">My sentiments exactly upon reading your accusations about my church.

So, I don't know what your argument is anymore, because your comparison of Mormonism to Catholicism simply does not work. On almost every single point you made you were wrong, either completely or enough to show that Mormon doctrine and Catholic doctrine are not comparable. Care to restate your argument using only statements that are true? And how 'bout you find a more reliable source for Mormon doctrine, 'cause whatever one you had is bushwack.

Lastly,
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
That said most of the verses you quoted are not interpreted the way you took them to be outside of Mormonism. Maybe you should study up on what we believe because it is the second time you made this mistake. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I thought the purpose of debate to see discuss interpretations of the Bible (at least that's one of the purposes), because they are just interpretations of men, not God given interpretations (or so you believe of yours, I believe mine are God given). So why on earth do you expect us to use your interpretations in an argument? We are here to offer you a different interpretation and show you that it is plausible.

And as far as "interpreting by suggestion," I would say that the whole concept of the Trinity (as comes from the Nicean Creed - which did say that God is invisible, immaterial, uncomprehendable, and has no body, parts or passions) can only be interpretated from the Bible by way of suggestion (which suggestion came from the Nicean Creed), because I honestly cannot find where it says that anywhere in the Bible.

Matthew, I haven't read all of your post actually just a few lines. I think you shoule reread Ryan's post. In all bold print I found it a little hard to foolow but I believe the graven images etc. was inreference to the Catholic Church. Much of his post addresses the Catholic Church.

Oh and leaving bushwack out would have been a good thing. See other discussions about words and swearing, cussing and cursing. Just giving equal time to the Mormons now.

About the Catholic Church and where it believes it was legitimized. You say Mormons at least claim revelation from God and the Catholics don't Wrong, just as strongly as any other faith Catholics belive they are the on true Chruch. The Catholic Church is ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC in it's belief and teaching. Just a point I'm familiar with.

That's supposed to be the one true Church. Ran out of editing time before I had read the whole post.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Matthew:
You say Christ started the trend of preaching to Gentiles? What then of when Christ commanded His apostles to not preach to the Gentiles in Matthew 10:5-6, and said Himself that "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" in Matthew 15:24? Why, then, is Peter so adamant about not "eating any thing that is common or unclean" in Acts 10 (with a symbolic reference to the Gentiles)? If you read Acts 10 in its entirety it is quite clear that people in general (as well as Peter) were of the opinion that the Gentiles before this instance were not to receive (or could not receive) the gospel, as I think is best evidenced by verse 45 - they were astonished that the Holy Ghost fell on the Gentiles, because they didn't think it was supposed to happen. And why not? 'Cause Christ had commanded them not to preach to the Gentiles. Peter changed the doctrine as he was commanded to by God, just as our church leaders have done (and only twice, I might add, both of which have very good reasons for doing so).
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">A point of correction - in the early part of Jesus' ministry He limited the disciples to the Galilee most likely because He didn't feel they were ready. These disciples were not yet equipped to cross cultural boundaries. I say that because He felt they *were* ready by the time Matthew 24:14 and 28:19-20 rolled around:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

...

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sounds pretty obvious

Then why was everyone astonished when the Gentiles received the Holy Ghost?

I may be wrong, but I'd think the mormon church would be quite familiar with 'The Great Commission' from Matthew 28:19-20. It wasn't Peter who was astonished, he had the vision earlier Acts 10 in which God told him "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." Those who came with him hadn't had that vision tho...

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Acts+10

"45The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles."

There's nothing in the chapter that says the 'circumcised' were astonished that the gentiles were being preached to, only that they had been baptized with the Holy Spirit.

UKC - Yes, Ryan was saying that they were practices by the Catholic church, but the thing was that he was comparing the Catholic church to the Mormon church, saying all of the things we had in common. I was showing him that we do not have those things in common. And about revelation in the Catholic church - Ryan misunderstood Joel's point, so I clarified. I don't really know enough to argue this point; all I know is how they select the Pope, which is through a big debate by all of the cardinals that takes a really long time. That doesn't sound very much like revelation. Correct me if I'm wrong, though, 'cause I'm no expert on Catholics.

As far as using "bushwack" - in my experience that has not been a curse word. It's a word much like hogwash, meaning basically "ridiculous," or something along those lines. Bushwack, when I've heard it, has more of a lighter tone than anything else, often making people laugh, not used to be angry or as a curse word or anything. If you took it like that or got offended or something, I'm sorry, that was not my intent. Ryan is my good friend, I talk with him a lot, and our debates are not heated. Even though my intent is not offensive, I will not use that word in the future, so as to not be misunderstood.

Allen - I gotta go, I'll get back to you.

You are right. The Princes of the Church (Bishops) gather in a conclave. The debate and vote who they feel the best person to replace the dead Pope. It usually doesn't take all that long since until there is one there is no Pope/Head of the Church. Although much more pwerful so to speak, the Pope is also a bishop. The Pope is Peter's replacement since he was the original head of the Church. Much like all the other things in these threads about praying about/on things and awaiting God's/ The Holy Spirit's advice is what electing a new Pope is like/about. Another way of putting it and maybe by asking a question it could even be more clear. If an Elder, Priest, Minister, Preacher etc. dies, are they not replaced by someone else? That's essetially how it is with the Pope. And, the Pope is in a direct line down from Peter who died and was replaced by... who died and was replaced by...
Does that clear anything up for you?

As for bushwack. No, I wasn't offended. You have nothing to apologize to me for. It's just that whenever oit was inserted/used it was at a time some would have used another word. It's back to the cussing,cursing, swearing thread when I was asking if substituting another word made much if any difference. Funny thing is, right after reading this I went to the next page and there in the thread I mention was someone saying that they sometimes say one thing when they know they mean another. No names, just coincidence. I had done the same sort of thing to another person under much the same conditions and didn't want the Mormons to feel left out.

Actually as in the first instance it was a statement about the other thread. It wasn't actually intended for anyone in particular. It just happened that someone provided me an oportunity to make a point. It was something about a progession step to not even substituting and making a conscious effort not to say certain things. Sound familiar?

I think that's where the problem with internet/any kind of text communication is pretty obvious. There's no tone of voice, so you have to assume you know what the other person means when he writes what he does. Except you're not always right, and so you think that someone meant something that they really didn't. If you had heard my tone of voice you would have known that I was not using bushwack as a substitute for a curse word, so I'm not sure that what you said applies. The reason I used it was pretty much to add a little variety to my vocabulary, so as not to be saying the same thing over and over again - noticed I used ridiculous, hogwash, bushwack, logical fallacy, some others (it's a literary technique, so your writing is a little more interesting). And perhaps, looking back, I could have picked some better words in order to do that.

I just re-read most of my post, and in the first paragraph, you're right, that use looks very much like a substitute for something worse. So I see your point, and I concede (at least in that instance). I was kinda upset because a lot of Ryan's claims were totally unfounded, and quite derogatory. Notice I did say "try" in my post in the other thread - I never said I was perfect.

=( Man... I had my whole post here, finished, and I accidentally clicked something that took me to a different site, and I had to go back and my post was gone... I'll try to put it back as best I can. Here goes...

So, as not to forget about the actual point of this topic, Allen - I see your point. Christ did command His disciples to preach the Gospel to every nation. But if you take it that literally, Acts 10 doesn't make sense. Sure, Peter was not astonished that the Gentiles received the Holy Ghost, but all of the other Jews around him were. If they had been preaching to the Gentiles for all this time, don't you think they'd have had at least one person that accepted their message? But no Gentile had been baptized (see v. 47) or received the Holy Ghost, or else they wouldn't have been astonished. I think it's too much of a stretch to say that they had been preaching to the Gentiles yet not had a single convert. This can be evidenced by how quickly they got converts once they started preaching to them.

So, I would say that when Christ told His disciples to preach to every nation at the end of Matthew, He still intended for them to follow His previous commandment to only preach to the Jews. Remember, the Jews were spread out over all nations, so you can keep both commandments at the same time. It was not until Peter received revelation changing Christ's commandment that they started preaching to the Gentiles.

Further evidence of this can be found in Acts 11. There Peter is reporting back to the rest of the apostles about his experience with the Gentiles. In verse 1 it says that the apostles "heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God." Clearly it is implied in that verse that they hadn't received the word of God beforehand. If you assume they had, the verse doesn't really make any sense. The same can be said of verse 18. But neither are as clear as verse 19:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now, remember that Stephen was martyred in Acts 7, so these people that were scattered because of the persecution that arose left about that same time period. That was before Peter received his revelation in Acts 10 to preach to the Gentiles. So, what we have are people that are preaching only to the Jews, because that was the commandment that they had to follow, not having heard of Peter's revelation. I don't think you can get much clearer than that. Up until Acts 10, when God commanded Peter to change the doctrine, Christ's disciples only preached to Jews, and not to Gentiles.

So this sets a very nice precedent of God changing doctrine through revelation to His prophet, as has been done by modern-day prophets in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Sure, it is not done often - only twice in the history of the church (which is a good thing, because doctrine is not something that is changed lightly) - but it has Biblical precedent. Ryan was incorrect in his statement:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
The people who followed him heard god but they received no revelation about new doctrine. Everything they said was based upon the teachings of Jesus, not revelation. And they certainly didn’t say anything that contradicts what was already set by Jesus.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Peter received revelation about new doctrine, which was contrary to a previous commandment given by Christ. Which is ok, because it was Christ changing His commandments because now the Gentiles were ready to hear the gospel and the Jews were ready to preach it to them. Before they were.

(Just to prevent misunderstanding (and I can't edit my post anymore), the first line of my post should read "So (as to not forget about the actual point of this topic), Allen: I see your point)

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Matthew:
So this sets a very nice precedent of God changing doctrine through revelation to His prophet, as has been done by modern-day prophets in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Sure, it is not done often - only twice in the history of the church (which is a good thing, because doctrine is not something that is changed lightly) - but it has Biblical precedent. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

You won't even concede something this obvious? So, if you reject Jesus' teachings from Matthew 28, does Matthew 24 not work for you either?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If 'all nations' doesn't pass muster, does 'the whole world'?

If you guys aren't willing to at least say "I don't know" when it comes to something this obvious can you please tell me why we are having this discussion? Let me know now and I'll find something more productive to do with my time if this thread can only be 'well... I know He said that, but this is what He really meant...'

I've been praying. I can't believe I’m saying this... But you are right Matthew. And I need to leave this board at least temporarily. It's no good for me spiritually because I wind up getting too caught up in the thrill of the hunt and the urge to win and not enough in the love. I can't seem to be reverent in this environment so I am going to have to work on myself spiritually before I come back here.

There are some things in your post I don’t agree with. That I’d like to defend or refute, but I don’t thing a reply would be a good idea at this time. There are also some points you had that were very valid about what I had said. I simply drew as many lines as I could between the two religions in order to reinforce my argument. I think the argument stands, but it won’t do well for me to reinforce it, it was intended at a refutation to joel’s claim that protestant Christianity was “a branch off of a dead tree” I attempted to disprove that but in the process I went too far. Not only turning defense into attack but turning attack into heavy assault using many logical tactics including fallacies (which work as long as nobody catches you)

So I concede the argument about Catholicism. I still think the churches resemble each other, but even so it doesn’t prove anything. It would only be an implication. Which could only be used for more debate tactic. Mormonism in general I must admit that the LDS seem to have us out- argued (which may be why I came in here so defensively) so I’ll concede that too. I still see flaws in the argumentation but honestly I see more on our side. Maybe when I get myself together I’ll be better able to provide a case but its not going to happen here and now. So I’ll talk to you guys later

I'm sorry, I didn't really notice the verse in Matthew 24, I was so caught up in explaining Acts 10, but it looks much easier to explain than Matthew 28.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So you're saying this verse means Christ was saying the Jews were ready to preach to the Gentiles at the time of Christ? I think you're guilty of "quoting verses out of context," Allen, something you love to accuse us of. If you look in the whole beginning of Matthew 24, what is Christ talking about? He's talking about how people can know when His second coming is close - in verse 3 His disciples ask Him "Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of they coming, and of the end of the world?" Then Christ proceeds to talk about wars, natural disasters, false prophets, persecution of the church, and a few other things. And in the middle of it He says "and this gosple of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come ." When read in context, it is very obvious Christ is using this as a sign of when His second coming is close.

This verse actually hurts your case and helps mine, so thank you for bringing it up. It says that one of the signs of the second coming is that the gospel will be preached unto all nations (something that should be occuring about now, right? 'Cause now we're getting close to the second coming) - it wouldn't make a lot of sense if it was done right at the time of Christ's first appearance on the earth, now, would it? Shouldn't the end have come sometime in 100 AD or so? 'Cause the verse says that the end of the world will come shortly after the gospel is finally preached to all nations.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
If you guys aren't willing to at least say "I don't know" when it comes to something this obvious can you please tell me why we are having this discussion? Let me know now and I'll find something more productive to do with my time if this thread can only be 'well... I know He said that, but this is what He really meant...' </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You're quick to make accusations, Allen. I accidentally looked over a verse because I was busy providing an argument in defense of my interpretation of Acts 10 (which you completely ignored, by the way). You did the very thing you accused me of - my argument was pretty clear. If you wanna settle this topic, just have a look at Acts 11:19, at what actually happened - the gospel was preached only to the Jews before Peter's revelation. You didn't say "I don't know" to that very obvious verse, you just ignored it, and quoted one to me that was out of context without any explanation. Please, Allen, think about it a little more before making these accusations of which you are so fond. And I didn't just say "well... I know He said that, but this is what He really meant...", I actually agreed with what He said, but explained how what He said fits in to the entire context of the Bible, because Acts 10 and 11 are pretty clear on this subject. How do you explain that?

(Oh, and I don't know what that last line on my previous post is supposed to mean - I think I meant "Before this they weren't," or something. "Before they were" doesn't make any sense - sorry)