Mormon men can get their own planet
 

Only the one that U wouldnt answer.

Mormons just came to my door and I asked them about the getting your own planet thing. First they sorta umm'ed and aaaa'red about it and said well we believe that we can be just like God etc... and I said

OK now come on, can you get your own planet or not?

Now the elders thought that the way I put it made it sound a little silly but they said yes. Yes Mormons can get their own planet like God.

Now I dont know how many times I tried to get a straight answer from facelessman and he ignored my requests, but at least now we know that it is the true doctrine of the mormon church. Just thought I would let everyone know. Once again, I dont hate you, but U should tell the truth.

:D well the way i look it :) Without Going In To Pacific Details Poochie~~ooochie :D GOD LIKE OWNS THE UNIVERESE In Stuff And We Our Like Children Of God So If We Desire A Planent And Have Placed In Heaven Sure But I Really Dont Have A Need A Of A Planent :D Sounds Like To Much Trouble To Me to be an owner of a entire planent

they can have Venus, but NOONE is touching my Mars

:D you can have it if i did want one i want one thats not on the maps you know that was here before or something those plantents are so overated i know there is better one out there with much more liken to my brain of wonders :D

wow, my friend, lets all be mature now. how many times do i have to answer your question. i guess its because you didnt like the first answer. here we go again.
first off let me just say that anyone can have a planet. its just not everyone that will be able to. there are requirements to fulfill. what are they?
matt. 5:5 "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth."
any more questions?

hahahah thats hillarious!!! you are getting funnier in your elder-ly age!

Nope, you know cos U have been told that just like God U can get your own planet and can make cellestial babies to send them to earth etc. Cmon now.

Point is even though U wont tell the truth, at least I got it straight from an elders mouth.

whats with you ppl. you claim to want to understand the truth of the LDS, but when that truth is given, you take it as naught. that is the truth. Christ promised that if we are meek, then we shall inherit the earth. what more do you want? ok ill give more:
"Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is." 1john 3:2

what does the meek inheriting the earth got to do with having your own planet? this is jesus saying that the humble (for God hates pride at least of the selfish variety) will be rewarded in the after life but there is no mention of other planets. the notion that jesus and satan are brothers is totally unbiblical, satan is a created being which jesus is not according to the bible. furthermore what exactly is in it for women here? they get to produce baby after baby? go tell the feminist groups that! LOL

anyhow we'll debate forever and no-one will move....sometimes i wonder why i bother.

PS: I will say that Joseph Smith fails as a prophet cause we now know he made up what "The Book of Abraham" states. It had nothing at all to do with Abraham, the Egyptian litreature he "translated" described an embalming procedure.

I know I shouldn't get involved here because nothing new is going to happen. Let me just start by saying, don't let one speak for all.

Now let me say this. It origianlly stemmed from the biblical teaching of "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." It has been blown way out of proportion since Joseph Smith wrote of it and spoke about it. And Genesis 3:5 says: "For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

Now get it straight: We can become as gods. I AM NOT saying the ONLY Mormons are included in this. This pertains to ALL who inherit the kingdom of God from ANY religion. I don't know why you keep saying that we are avoiding the topic. We tell you this every time you say something about it. Also, MANY LDS people are still confused about the teaching. It has been clarified many times by the president of the church as well as others in high church authority.

You say they hummed and hawed around the subject when I think you're not telling the whole story. They probably said something to the effect of "Well, you see, it's not that simple. It's not as cut and dry like that." and you were once again construing what people say. Ultimatly, one CAN become a creator in the next life. The bible teaches that we will inherit the kingdom of God and can learn EVERYTHING that he knows. Why would that exclude creation? But, as I've told you before, JUST BECAUSE ONE CAN, DOES NOT MEAN ONE WILL.

First, you are right that that teaching is unbiblical, however, you are wrong in saying that we teach it. This is the basis: All was in the beginning with God. Good and evil are neither created or destroyed as they are concepts. God did create Lucifer, as he did all spirits. He also created Jesus as a spirit. Satan wanted to be sent to earth instead of Jesus and he would make everyone do the right thing and return to him. That was not God's way, and Jesus was sent. Lucifer rebelled and was kicked out of heaven. He then became the "fallen angel." He was cut off from ties with God. THEY ARE NOT BROTHERS AND THE CHURCH DOESN'T TEACH THAT. That is only inferred by people as being what it is.

About women. The same thing applies to men. There is no sex after death. People cannot get married to other spirits after death.
Now, let me give you a brief overview of the story of Abraham.
Joseph Smith acquired the mummies from a man named Michael Chandler. He claimed to have recieved them from a man named Antonio Lobollo in his will when he died because he was a relative. Through searches, it it believed that Chandler's wife was actually the relative. Lobollo was an Italian who did archeological work in Egypt. When someone would remove something from an area, they would put their name on it. Since then, the name of "Lobollo" has been found in areas of Egypt. Chandler lived in Philadelphia. He contacted Joseph Smith in Ohio because he was told of a man who translated plates from another language. He traveled to see Smith and sold him the mummies for about $3,000. Joseph left the mummies in his will to his wife Emma. After JS was killed, Emma remarried Colonel Biddham (a colonel in the Confederate Army) and they donated the mummies to a museum in Chicago. In the great Chicago fire, the mummies were destroyed. Prior to that time, the papyrus that was with them were shown to be ultimately translated correctly. Keep in mind that it wasn't until the discovery of the Rosetta Stone that made many translations known. That is happened, and they have not been shown to be false.


Aren't you guys getting tired of this? Or is it that you have nothing better to do with your time than try to argue what you don't know and point out falts in others when you yourselves have imperfections.

Just out of curiosity, what religions do you belong to?


H-D :pimp:

first of all i don't want to be seen as picking on you and facelessman and sincirr probably doesn't either. however i think your church teaches blatant error in fundamental areas of doctrine. btw i belong to a brethern church which is similar to a baptist church if you were wondering. basically a straight-forward teaching of the bible. as for what you said first of all satan is saying there that they can become like gods, in that they'll know good and evil, not that they'ld literally become gods. Satan was right, Adam and Eve did know good and evil in the story but he neglected to mentioned the pain involved in that choice. i'll come back to the papyrus issue a bit later when i've done some more research.

straight forward teaching of the bible, huh? so youre being fed just the milk? when will you get the meat?" i have fed you with milk and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able" 1 cor 3:2. my man, youre still eatin baby's food. when will you grow up to the real man's stuff? it doesnt matter anyway, cause like it says, you wouldnt be able to bear it. well im glad that the Lord still speaks to us in these latter days, and that he's been feeding us with the meat...like man being able to inherit planet.

how about Uranus?

uh huh uh hu he said anus uh huh And What Do Mormon Chicks Get ?? Uh huh HAAAAAAAAAAAAAA :jam: :jam: :jam: Mormons Kick Ass

Do you not even read the posts? :wtf: Faceless and myself have already answered that.


H-D :pimp:

:) haaaaaaaa yes i really must have read right through it it you guys posts are long ones...read over it, :)

nah no-one is going near my rear end! LOL
facelessman you continue to use verses way out of their context and debating you is nigh on impossible. not because you are beating me but because you are bordering on illogical. you won't find men inheriting plants in the bible.....as simple as that.

It seems to me like you're the illogical one when you don't seem to understand the underlying concept: NEITHER MORMON MEN OR WOMEN GET THEIR OWN PLANET. It's a teaching that's been misunderstood and taken out of context, largely in efforts to extort the church and make it sound false. It also seems to me that you are doing that and not believing us when we say we do not get our own planet. You want to put the church down, as many do, but please stop using the same old tired arguments. If you want to put down our faith, please look deeper into it and find a new accusation that no one else has pointed out. Maybe, while you're doing that, you'll even find something you like. Who knows.

God is our Father in heaven, and Jesus is his son. Jesus died and was resurrected so we can live again. When we die, we can go to heaven (that is, if you are judged as good in this life). We then live in heaven for eternity. That's it. Plain and simple.


H-D :pimp:

Ok I have a question just one its off topic but its a simple one ..Why did ? they name it THE CHURCH OF LATTER DAY SAINTS ..

The full name of the church is actually The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
In part, it comes from 1 Corinthians 1:2 which says "Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours."

A more full explanation comes from the Book of Mormon in 3 Nephi 27:8 which says "And how be it my bchurch save it be called in my name? For if a church be called in Moses' name then it be Moses' church; or if it be called in the name of a man then it be the church of a man; but if it be called in my name then it is my church, if it so be that they are built upon my gospel."


H-D :pimp:

This argument puts me in mind of an episode of south park...anyone know which one im talking about?

Well, anyway, i dont think that anyone will inherit their own planet, and i dont think thats the way the mormon religion would want it to be put into context. All human beings collectively inherited this planet, maybe thats the context they tried to put it in. You have to look at all scripture in a broad view, because a lot of it is written in metaphore. If you single out a scripture and look at it as saying one thing, and not looking at the millions of other things it could mean, then you arent exactly open minded in the sense that your religion would prefer that you are.

Well, look at it this way, havent we already become gods? Look at who runs the world, us. We control the fate of eachother, we control what happens in this world, we control who lives, who dies, what animals become extinct, and soon, probably the creation of new animals, cross genetics and such. We are already, in our own right, acting as gods. One person with nuclear warheads could eradicate an entire country, if thats not acting as god, then i dont know what is.

Thank Ya For Clearing That Up

Yes, I do know what episode of South Park you're referring to. I've seen it a few times. And honestly, in the 20 minute episode, there's about 15 seconds of truth in it. The rest is construed teachings and opinions of Parker and Stone.

That's quite right. I couldn't find the scripture that I wanted to post, so I don't remember what the reference is, but the verse starts out "Have I not said, Ye are gods..." and then goes on to talk about how we are gods because our Father is God.

Thanks for what you said. You have a pretty good outlook, IMO.

No prob.


H-D :pimp:

I dont know if I would agree about us being "gods" because our Father is God. Could you please find a verse that says that in the context you are using it in. I just dont want to start getting into something until I have some definite sources. Thanks.



"Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."

Sure dario. This is what it refers to.
Firstly, let me start out by saying that this teaching has been greatly skewed because of people who don't understand it. It is NOT saying that we will be God. That is impossible. God is God, and no one can ever do what he does. Afterall, as it says in Ephesians 4:6, "One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."

With that said, Christ teaches that we are gods in John 10:32-35:
32 Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken.

That is also referenced back to Psalms 82:6-7:
6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.



In Deuteronomy 14:1, it says: "Ye are children of the Lord your God."
Essclesiastes 12:7: "And the spirit shall return to God who gave it."
Hosea 1:10: "Ye are the sons of the living God."
Acts 17:29: "Forasmuch then we are the offspring of God."

These references are some among many of ones that reference us as children of God. Because of this, he is our father and we can be like him, (With emphasis on the word LIKE him), and return to live with him. Matthew 5:48 says "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."
Let me explain it like this: I have a maternal father on this earth, as all living things do, and I am his child. I can be exactly like him, do everything like he does, act like him, talk like him, walk in his footsteps, etc. However, though I can be exactly like him, I can never be him. He is him, and I am me. This is the same thing as with God. Do you understand?

The teaching further continues (as is taught in many denominations) that after death, when we reside with God again, that he will make all things known to us, and we will have a perfect knowledge of EVERYTHING. So shouldn't that include creation? We will know how he created the earth, and in theory, could do it. Such as, if you were to build a house, I could know exactly how you did it, and reproduce the exact same house. Just because we would know how, doesn't mean we will do it. Also, we believe that it is not only Mormons who that applies to. It applies to EVERYONE who inherits the kingdom of God.

Does that help? Is there anything else you would like me to explain on it?


H-D :pimp:

Thank you very much HD. After reading what you said and the verses you included, I would have to agree with what you have written. However, there are many other topics that have been discussed on this forum that I believe are not Scripturally sound. Topics such as Baptism of the Dead, The Book Of Mormon itself, and the planet issue. My belief is that if you have received Jesus into your heart and trust and follow in Him, then you are going to heaven. I don't believe that baptism plays a role in salvation nor do I believe in baptism of the dead. I haven't read The Book of Mormon, but when I read Revelation 22:18-19, I believe The Book of Mormon is an example of this. One thing I do respect about the Mormon religion however, is their determination to evangalize and the hard work that goes into it. If you care to discuss these topics more, I am more than willing to share with you my personal beliefs and convictions.


"The grace of the Lord Jesus be with God's people."

:) i never post my opions here ...i just set back and take it all in ...You Have A The Gift Of And Strife :) Of Sticking To One DOCTRINE And You Do it well ... :) You,ve Almost had me converted :) a time or too ...i dont have any questions ... :) We Are All Trying To Get The Someplace If We Believe The Good Lord Has Prepared Us A Plantent..Or A Lit Room With Lit Flying Mintaure Colored ponys ...Or Beautiful Mermaids For serveants :) ....So I Say Peace Be With YA MORMON DUDE.....1 COR.8.20 NOW YE..Are Full Now Ye Are Rich Ye Have Reigned As Kings Wit Out Us And I Would To God Ye Did Reign That We Also Might Reign With You, For I think That God Hath Set Forth Us The Apostles Last As It Were Apponted Death For We Are Made A Spectale Unto The World And Unto The Angels And To Men We Are Fools For Christ Sake But Ye Are Wise In Christ We Are Weak But Ye Are Strong Ye Are Honourable But We Are Despised Even Unto This Present Hour We Both Hunger And Thirst And Are Naked And Are Buffeted And Have No Certain DWELLINGPLACE. And Labour Working With Our Own Hands Being Reviled We Bless Being Persecuted We Suffer Being Defamed We Entreat We Are Made Of Filth Of The World And Are The Offscouring Of All Things Unto This Day..I Write Not These Things To Shame You But As My Beloved Sons I warn You For Though Ye Have Ten Thousand INSTRUCTORS In Christ Yet Have Ye Not Many Fathers For In Christ Jesus I have Begotten You Through The Gospel Wherefore I beeseech You Be Followers Of Me For This I Cause Have I Sent Unto You Timotheus Who Is My Beloved Son And Faithful In The Lord Who Shall Bring You To Rememberance Of My Ways Which Be In Christ AS I TEACH EVERYWHERE AND IN EVERY CHURCH...Now Some Are Puffed Up As Though I would Not Come To You But I Will Come To You Shortly If The Lord Will And Will Know Puffed Up But The Power FOR THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS NOT IN WORD BUT IN POWER..What Will Ye Shall I come Unto You With A Rod OR IN LOVE AND IN THE SPIRT OF MEEKNESS..... 2 Cor..4.7.18 ..But We Have This Treasure In Earthen Vessels That The Excelency OF THIS POWER MAY BE OF GOD AND NOT OF US....We Are Troubled On Every Side Yet Not Distressed We Are Perplexed But Not In Despair Persecuted But Not Forsaken Cast Down But Not Destroyed Always Bearing About In The Body The Dying Of The Lord Jesus That The Life Also Of Jesus Might Be Manifest In Our Body For Which We Live Always Delivered Unto Death For Jesus Sake That the life Of Jesus Might Be Made Manifest In Our Mortal Flesh..So Then Death Worketh In Us But Life In You We Having The Same Spirt Of FAITH Acording As It Is Written I Believed And Therefore Have I Spoken We Also Believe Therefore We Speak...Knowing That Jesus Shall Rise Present Us With You For All Things Are For Your Sakes That The Abundant Grace Many Redound To The Glory Of God FOR WHICH CAUSE WE FAINT NOT But Though Our Outward Man Perish Yet The Inward Man Is Renewed DAY BY DAY For Our Light Afflictions Which Is But A Moment Worketh For Us A Far More Exceeding And Eternal Weight Of Glory..While We Look Not At Things Which Are Seen But At The Things Which Are Not Seen But At The Which Are Not Seen For The Things Which Are Seen Are Temporal But The Things Which Are Not Seen Are Eternal ...

There are many controversial topics that come up here, and baptism for the dead is one that people have focused on for a long time. I understand where you're coming from, but I believe it to be true. The last post I made for you was basically the foundation of the planet issue. Why people are still so confused about it and think we get our own planet, I don't know. We don't. Plain and simple.

That referece in Revelation is one that comes up quite a lot as well. Basically, there are two ways to look at it.
1) When the Romans organized the Bible, they did not do it in chronological order. They first put in what were believed to be the important gospels (Matt, Mark, Luke, John, and Acts), then put in Romans, as it pertained to them. Revelation was not the last book written in the Bible. Chronologically, it's actually near the beginning. Through archeological work done by Bible scholars, we know that it actually was one of the first written. Keep in mind that John wrote Revelation. The same John that wrote much of the New Testament. Books that come earlier on in the NT were written many years after some others. -- Please note, this is historical fact, and not a Mormon teaching set up to prove us right.

2) John could be talking solely about his book. He didn't want his writings changed. Just as if you were to write a book, and the publisher were to change the story, it would not be your work. John wanted his record to be preserved.

My personal opinion is that the Book of Mormon is not a part of what that references says because it does not add to the Bible in the sence of saying "OK, now you have to do this, this, this, this, and this." It does add another book, but it magnifies what is in the Bible, and accompanies it.

You say you haven't read the Book of Mormon, and my suggestion is maybe you should. You can get one from the missionaries or at an LDS chapel for free if you ask for one. If you would like to focus on it as a historical book instead of a religious book, I suggest that.

There are also believed to be some references in the Bible that reference the Book of Mormon and even Joseph Smith.
1) Isaiah 29:11 – “And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed.”
This is believed to be a reference because a man told that to Joseph Smith when he was translating the Book of Mormon. There were questions of its authenticity, so he took the plates and his translation to a scholar. The scholar looked at them, and wrote a letter saying it was correctly translated. There was a section of the Book that was locked by something, and we still do not have that portion. Because the man couldn’t see them, he ripped up the letter he wrote, and said, “I cannot read a sealed book.”
2) Numbers 11:6 – “And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.”
God and Jesus did appear to Joseph in a vision, and there are accounts of dreams of Joseph that reference seeing God and/or Jesus again.
3) Revelation 2:17 – “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that recieveth it.”
I found this verse the other day, and believe it has to do with the Book of Mormon (aka “hidden manna”) and the stone box that Joseph Smith found the plates in, what he overcame, and that no one knows of it’s truth except those who read it.

There are some others I can’t find right now.

As it says in the Book of Mormon in Moroni 10:4 – “And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.”

Lastly, I would like to thank you for the respectful way you post your questions. It is much better for me to answer sincere questions of asking instead of questions phrased and worded as accusations.

If there is anything at all you would like to discuss, feel free to let me know.


H-D :pimp:

interesting....

Actually, not to set off a bomb here, but Revelation WAS the last book written. Historical data supports this.

But honestly that does not MATTER to me. I don't care when the books of the Bible were written (at least, in relation to each other), that has no impact on me at all. I would like to say though, that if Mormons believe in the Bible, how on Earth can you say Jesus was created? That is just downright unthinkable if you believe in the Bible. And also, when did your church START? Not to bash you or anything, but I believe it was in the nineteenth century... Don't you think that's a LITTLE bit late of a start for a church that claims to be the "Church of Jesus Christ..."?

And yes, I know you are going to tell me about the great apostasy, but I dare you to come up with any evidence of it. Or is this not a topic for general Mormon discussion/debates? If not, forget everything I said, lol

No, data supports that it was written around the same time as the Gospels (Matthew through John).
Jesus was created, because he was created by God, as we all were as spirits. God is Jesus' father. In my opinion, if one hadn't created each other, they both would have been since the beginning, therefore we would have two gods. I could be wrong about that, but it makes sense to me. Jesus was a spirit, created by God, and born of the virgin Mary. Tell me where in the Bible it says that Jesus was not created.

Here's a brief timeline of the beginning of the church:
Dec 24, 1805 - Joseph Smith is born
Early Spring, 1820 - The First Vision
September 21-22, 1823 - J.S. told of the Gold Plates
September 22, 1827 - J.S. obtains the plates and begins translation
June, 1829 - Translation completed
April 6, 1830 - Organization of the church in Fayette Township, New York
April 26, 1838 - Name of the church specified
June 27, 1844 - Martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith at Carthage Jail in Carthage Illinois.

There's a bunch of other stuff in there I skipped, but this is all that's really revelant to this topic.

So the technical "beginning" you're referring to came on April 6, 1830, which was 175 years ago a little over a month ago. How do you mean it's "too late to claim to be the church of Jesus Christ?" I do understand how one can argue that since it is so young, but when is it too late to glorify Christ? Also, take a look at the new churches that spring up all the time claiming to be the truth.

Yes, I will talk about the apostacy. As for evidence, you can look in school textbooks (I would suggest college texts based premodern civilization). Through them, one can see that there was a falling away of major religion, and areas that had no religion at all. Between the time of the death of Christ, up until the Roman empire, there is little to no evidence of the exsistance of religion. When religion started to be revived, it was done with writings that had been done on religion in years prior, and many of the truths that were once believed (truths we see evidence of through archeology and other manuscrips that were kept) were lost or deemed as unimportant. In the area of the "dark ages" there is practically no record of even so much as mortal life as we know it. You can read in the Bible of the "grafting of the olive branch", the "tree of life", and the grafting of the branches to the tree to restore it. Look at it like this: The tree = the church. The branches = all of us. We (the branches) need to be "brought back" to the church (the tree) and will be made a part of it. The tree was kept alive because of the roots (the people who kept religion going in secret in the early days), yet as the Bible also says, the roots had become corrupted over time by those who teach their own doctrine instead of the doctrine of the Lord.


And, yes, this is (or, can be) a thread for Mormon discussion. I'd rather have only one thread where stuff like this can be talked about instead of having a hundred accusation threads pop up in here. So keep the brain-busters coming. So far, everything that we've talked about on this board, I have been able to correct, and set straight our beliefs to those who claim to understand them, yet have no idea whatsoever of how confused they are on the subject.


H-D :pimp:

First off, I am just letting you know that I know VERY LITTLE about Mormons, so unlike my debates with Protestantism where I can come out guns blazing, I am just trying to figure out what you believe, so don't take anything as acrimonious.

Second, what evidence have you to suggest that Revelation was written the same time as the Gospels? All the evidence I have seen and read points toward it being the last of the writings, towards the end of John's life.

Clearly, the Trinity is a difficult subject. We CAN'T understand it fully. But the Bible NEVER claims Jesus was created, and he always claims to be God, and yet at the same time that there is only one God. The only real explanation for this is the Trinity. Even if as humans we can't fully understand it, that doesn't make it impossible.

As for the beginning thing. Jesus founded a CHURCH. He says in Matthew that peter is the rock upon which he will build his "church". The epistles constantly refer to the "church". There was a CHURCH directly after Jesus ascended into heaven. Now, I do not know much about Mormonism, but are you claiming that was a Mormon church? Because if it was, the writings, letters, and books written by men of the early church should be mormon, and I can show you that they aren't.

Also, all the "churches" springing up around now are not Jesus' one true church. How could Jesus found a church that doesn't begin until 1900 years after his existance? Did he leave his followers helpless for so long? I would say no. Also, there most certainly WAS religion during the Roman era, I have no idea what you are reading. Nero's persecution is well documented, and yet you would have us say there is no church? (once again, I reiterate, I am not attacking your position, I am trying to understand it). Various Church Fathers wrote scores of material, including (but not limited to) Clement, Irenaus, Ignatius of Antioch, etc. I can point you toward MANY early church documents, all of which, by the way, support the Trinity, Jesus being the Son of God yet not created, and various other doctrines.

Either way, this has been enlightening, I hope no on takes my questions as personl attacks or anything like that. Cheers.

OK.
All I know about is studies that have been done. However, depending on who did the tests, how they were conducted, etc. different results can be found. There have been people who tested the validity of the Book of Mormon, for example, (both members and nonmenbers) who can find that it is 100% accurate, and others who find it to be 10% wrong based upon travels and whatnot of the people written about it. I'll try to look up more on the subject.
True. I look at verses like Acts 7:55, which states that "But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God." Though, there are also things that claim that Jesus created the earth under the direction of God, so it's a really tough topic to figure out exactly what's going on. Of course, there are also references (ex: John, Hebrews, 1st John, etc) that refer to Jesus as "the only begotten of the Father" which could say that Jesus was the first spirit created.
It wasn't a "Mormon Church" as we know it now, exactly. It was THE Church of Jesus Christ. It was taught and organized by him, and was the origianal Christian church. It didn't become the "mormon" church (as discussed here) until Joseph Smith organized the church in 1830. After Jesus died and ascended into heaven after his resurrection, things were kept going. Like everything with time, it changed. We do believe, however, that our church most closely eminates what the church was like in the time of Christ. It's not 100% the same, and no church ever will be 100% identical.
Don't be so fast to judge new churches as not the truth. Take Lutheranism, for example. It was one of those churches once, when Martin Luther chose to reform the church, it became an offshoot, and eventually grew. Or that guy (I can't remember his name right now) who started the Methodist church. They both, at one time, were very minor and had only a few followers, yet grew with time. I really can't think of any religion (or religious sect) that was not minor and "wrong" at the time they were formed.

If you read in the bible, you can see of periods of time when there was no prophets for an extended period of time. God always guided his church, and sent prophets when they were ready; the willing men and women who desired to serve. We've always had the guide of the Bible during that time, and there was religion on earth that was good, but not exactly what there should have been. People have always been doing the work of God. There a verse (I don't remember where) that says something about making secrets of God known when the world is ready for them. I'll see if I can find it. Or, as it says in Amos 3:7 "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." I believe that from even before the birth of Christ in the New Testament through today and tomorrow that God leads the truth and reveals his secrets.

If you read exactly what I said, it was "up until the time of the Roman empire." The Roman Empire is one of the first big religious revivals that we see where they try to bring back many old beliefs, traditions, and customs. There were previous attempts before that as well, but that is where they really start to stick around.
I agree. You have many good positions on your understanding of religion. A lot moreso than some of the people in here.


H-D :pimp:

Hmmm... I dont like where this is headed.

"Begotten" does not mean created. In fact, the Nicene Creed clearly states Jesus as the eternally begotten of the Father, and yet all Christians who recite the Nicene Creed would definitely say Jesus is not created.

Alright, the Church issue is interesting. You say NO church of today is exactly what Jesus intended? NONE? How is that possible, if you believe his words "the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it"? I definitely believe there is a Church today that Jesus founded two thousand years ago, and I believe I am in it.

I certainly don't believe Lutheranism is the true church, so your example of new churches is faulty, as far as I am concerned. (I'm Catholic by the way, in case you wonder where I am coming from). I believe Jesus established ONE Church meant to live for all time. The Gates of Hell were not going to prevail against it, and it was not going to "change".

Let me explain something: in the Bible, Jesus clearly founds a Church. He also says it will prevail even against the Gates of Hell, AND he says you are either "with Him or against Him". (I don't have the exact scripture quotations but I can find them if need be). So basically, I don't see how you can say that no church today is the exact same as Jesus Church. He founded a Church, and then he let it fall apart or mutate? And by the way, when exactly do you think it fell apart? Because if I know that, I can explain somewhat more effectively.

If you are not in the one church, you are in the wrong church--clearly stated by His "with Him or agaisnt Him". So either you believe the Mormon Church is the only true church or you don't. Assuming, of course, that you do, wouldn't you believe it is the SAME Church that Jesus founded? If not, how can it be the true church?

As for the Trinity, I will give my case for that later, I am running out of time. But I definitely am enjoying this.

A few months ago a couple of Mormons came to my door and started telling me about the Mormon religion. The conversation we had lasted close to an hour. Now a lot of things that the Mormons told me sounded very controversial, but the main one they talked about was the Trinity. They told me that they do not believe that Jesus and God are one. They believed that Jesus and God are separate beings. Is this a mistake or is this really a belief in the Mormon religion?



"Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who had blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ."

I'm not sure about this but I believe Mormosn think Jesus is created, and hence, not God, and hence, can't be ONE with God. I'm sure higher desire will clear that up for you. In relation to the Trinity, I don't see how one could NOT believe in it after reading the following passages:

Matthew 28: 18-19
Matthew 3: 16
Luke 1: 30-35
John 10: 38, 14: 9, 17: 10
2 Corinthians 13:13
Ephesians 2:18, 4: 6
1 Timothy 2: 5
1 Peter 1: 12
1 John 5: 7-8

Also, there are numerous references in the Bible of God being the only God.

Deuteronomy 6: 4-9
Isaiah 40: 25-28, 41: 43: 10-13, 44: 6-8
1 Chronicles 17: 20
Mark 12: 29
1 Corinthians 8: 4-6

So, seeing as the Bible says there is only ONE God, and that Jesus IS God, then the only acceptable explenation is the Trinity.

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer) Actually, not to set off a bomb here, but Revelation WAS the last book written. Historical data supports this.

No, data supports that it was written around the same time as the Gospels (Matthew through John).

Here is my data from a Life Application Bible New International Version.
Matthew: written between A.D. 60-65.
Mark: written between A.D. 55-65.
Luke: written A.D. 60
John: written A.D 85-90 before his exile to Patmos

I just wanted to post real quick the dates that Revelation and the gospels were written. Revelation was written in A.D. 95 from Patmos. I know that we've all been saying, "studies show it was written then and at this time." Find these "studies" and post them so that we can get the facts instead of the rumors.

Well actually, I was thinkingthat Revelation WAS written sometime around 95 A.D. If it was written around 95 A.D., though, that would make it highly likely that it was the last book written, since John, the last living Apostle, died soon thereafter.

Once again, though, the timeline of the books does not have too much influence on the current discussion.

I never said that "bogotten" meant created. I know that it means that he was selected by God in the beginning as "the one." The bible states that he was the first chosen.
Well, I believe that I'm in the right one. Other people believe they're in the right one as well. Who's right? Do only members of one particular religion go to heaven?
Just because I used it as an example does not make it useless. I know you don't believe it, and I don't either, but my point was that what were one time considered as these apostate-type offshoots and untrue, have come to be widely accepted religions and religious sects.
Firstly, I absolutely agree that he founded a church and one who isn't with him is against him. I believe I said something similar earlier. However, HE didn't let it fall apart or mutate, as you say. It was corrupted by men (examples: Acts 8:3, Matt 21/Mark 11/Luke 19). Just because God tells them how it should be ran, doesn't mean they're going to do it. You can see in the bible how Christ's church changed after his crucifixion.
But does the word "church" as used in the bible exactly the same as we use it today? Oftentimes in the bible, where the church is referenced, it is used as "the believers." I do believe that the mormon church is the MOST correct. I believe there is more truth in it than any other church, even though all churches that teach the love of God, Christ-like works, God's saving grace, love of your neighbor, biblical teachings, etc. are good and legit churches. Just out of curiosity, do you know about Gematria?

Let me talk about the verses you posted now:
Matthew 28: 18-19
- All power was given to God in the beginning. As I've said, he is the only begotten of the Father.
- Why would Jesus tell them to baptize them in his name, his name, and his name if he is all three? He says "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

Matthew 3: 16
- Did Christ open the heavens, and make his own spirit decend upon him, and call his voice from heaven?

Luke 1: 30-35
- "Son of the highest"
- "Son of God"

John 10: 38, 14: 9, 17: 10
- The father is in him, just like my father is in me, as I am his son and have learned from him, and I am in him because he raised me. Christ was teaching what God wanted taught. Read the two verses before 38. He mentions "Son of God" and "My Father".

2 Corinthians 13:13
- I don't see what this verse has to do with anything. It just says "All the saints salute you."

Ephesians 2:18, 4: 6
- It is referencing "the Spirit" as the Holy Spirit, by which we all can commune with the father.

1 Timothy 2: 5
- This is a good one. "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." Personally, I think that supports my side of the argument.

1 Peter 1: 12
- Again, the spirit is on earth, as we rely on it and reference it always. It decended upon Christ at his baptism, and leads us today as we follow God's word.

1 John 5: 7-8
- This is good to your side. v 7 does say "the three that bear record in heaven, the father, the word, and the holy ghost: and these three are one." but then the next verse says "...bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." Last time I checked, spirit, blood, and water were all different. Have you ever heard the statement "Working as a team you work as one"? I think that also works for this.


Well, I've been on here for a bit long, and I have to go to an art show opening, but I'll post about the "Trinity vs. Godhead" thing and our stance on it later, as dario requested. (about an hour or so).


-D :pimp: