Don't need a preacher?

:)Joseph Smith answered that in The Lectures of Faith, which were part of the Standard Works until 1929:)
Lectures on Faith

Lecture Five 2. There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing, and supreme power over all things, by whom all things were created and made…. They are the Father and the Son: the Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection and fulness. The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, is a personage of tabernacle, made or fashioned like unto man,
Excellent point. Joseph Smith contradicted himself a lot.

Doctrine and Covenants 130:22
The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's...
 
One would have to show what is found in the Biblical NT, as far as salvational doctrines go--which isn't found in the LDS church--to make that point. I have challenged you and the critics here to please do just that--crickets.

I can easily show where the critic's theology does not match the Biblical NT:

James 2:24---King James Version
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

If what the critics claim here is true, concerning how far the LDS are from the Biblical text--it shouldn't be that hard to fill pages of Biblical scriptures which defy LDS theology--as far as salvational doctrines go.

What do we find?---- Blanks.
Men need to see their fruits(works) to believe they are justified. God is the one Who justifies. Justification by men is not justification before God.

Romans 4
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
 
Thx again, so why are you still evading the question of flesh and bone taught by Evangelicals... who is flesh and bone, who is spirit and how does it fit in with the One God... if you don't know.... just admit you don't know.
both God the Father and Holy Spirit are personages of spirit and Jesus has a flesh and bone body 1 Tim. 2:5
 
Men need to see their fruits(works) to believe they are justified. God is the one Who justifies. Justification by men is not justification before God.
Romans 4
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

That's because Abraham didn't live under the law of works(Mosaic Law)--rather, Abraham lived under the gospel of Jesus Christ--the same gospel Paul was attempting to bring to the Jews--and they rejected, in lieu of the Mosaic Law. Yet--all the time running to "father Abraham" to claim their elite status. I thought Paul's point here was genius, but much misunderstood by the critics.

David lived under the works Paul referred to:

Romans 4
1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? 2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. 3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. 4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. 6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

So--if the critics here want to use Romans4 as scripture to justify faith alone theology--could they please explain to us the preceding verses found in Romans2?

Romans 2:5-11---King James Version
5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good,to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

For me--if Paul's reasoning is used to promote faith alone theology in Romans 4--then Romans 2 is false. There is a fly in the soup, when Romans4 is used as the critics here claim.

And it doesn't end there:

1 Corinthians 7:19---King James Version
19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

Paul--dividing the works of the law--from the gospel.

Anyone care to explain that?
 
See? This is my point. We haven't stolen anything. We deliver a message and those who hear it make up their own minds. The message is even delivered by children,

19-y-o's are "children"?

unpolished and ignorant of the ways of men.

So the Missionary Training Center "unpolishes" them?
Seriously?!

"At the beginning of their service, missionaries usually spend 3–12 weeks at an MTC where they receive training in doctrine, conduct, proselytizing methods, and, when required, a new language."

Doesn't sound "unpolished" to me...

They do not argue.

They're unable to.
But they initiate the contact, already knowing the "script", catching the proselyte unawares, and usually ignorant of what Mormonism teaches and so ill-prepared to address it.

That would be like stealing sheep but leaving the gate open.

No, that would be like you opening the gate, and leading them out.
 
You all have none. Your churches are even close to the church Christ established.

Once again, Mormons derail discussion to attack Christianity, because they are unable to defend Mormonism.

Certainly we have prophets and apostles.

Our prophets are Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Malachi, etc. Maybe you've heard of them? (You probably haven't.)

Our apostles are Peter, James, John, Andrew, Thomas, etc. Maybe you've heard of them? (You probably haven't.)

And before you try to claim that they are "dead":

Matt. 22:32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.”
 
Yes. It is exactly what Jesus said. You guys change it to make the word, paradise, into the word , kingdom of God. That's not what He said. Paradise is a nice place, no doubt. As I have show the word connotes a nice place, but it in no way, explicitly expresses the word heaven. That's your choice.

You are ignorant of Scripture:

2 Cor. 12:2 I know a man yin Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. 3 And I know that this man was caught up into paradise—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows— 4 and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter.
But as has been pointed out several times that the words, this day, presents a problem for your interpretation. On "this day" Jesus did not go to heaven or to His Father, Jesus went the other direction, he went down and he did not ascend into heaven until the third day.

Not mutually exclusive.

I do believe they Jesus was with the thief in paradise on that day. It just wasn't heaven as you seem to believe it was.

He was with the thief, in paradise, the third heaven.
 
So what is your take on the parable of the Ten Virgins?

If you want a non-Mormon's "take", ask it in the appropriate forum.

Is the Bridegroom saying half of the world will not be prepared or just half the Church of believers will be saved?

Ask your question in the appropriate forum.
Or better yet, don't waste our time, since you're obviously not interested in the answer.

So according to this we see that Faith Alone is not going to be enough since those who proclaim faith alone will not be prepared for his coming...

I wasn't aware that Mormons believed in "Faith Alone".
So it seems you are refuting Mormonism.

Again, you are derailing discussion to try to attack Christianity, since you can't defend Mormonism. Pathetic.

Eph. 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

2Tim. 1:9 who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began,

Titus 3:5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,

Rom. 4:1 What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:

Rom. 9:11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

Rom. 11:5 So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.

which means half of all you Christians who propose Sola fide never really committed themselves and are shown for the hypocrites they are... hmm

Personal attack duly noted.
Clearly you are not a true Christian.

I can not judge another of what is in their hearts,

Oops! Too late!
You just did.
 
What a difference a comma makes... " And the Lord said unto him this day, thou shalt be with me in paradise."

You can always tell who the heretics are. They are those who clearly don't care about the truth, and are only interested in arguing for argument's sake. Here we see a Mormon taking an argument from JW's (I've never seen a Mormon argue this in 30+ years), and another Mormon "liking" it.

Anything to make them feel like they've got a "gotcha!" moment.

Fortunately, I've spent many years debating JW's as well, and unlike Mormons or JW's, I've actually STUDIED the Scripture, not just "proof-texted" it like they do.

First of all, notice how this LDS poster BUTCHERS the quote:

Luke 23:43 And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

Now, the expression, "Truly I say to you" (Greek, "Αμήν σοι λέγω"), is found over 75 times in Scripture (Matt. 5:18,26, 6:2, 5, 16, 8:10, 10:15, etc. etc. etc.)

Not ONCE do we see the expression, "truly I say to you TODAY", so the "today" in Luke 23:43 is part of his assertion, "Today you will be with me in Paradise".

Further, it is hopelessly REDUNDANT to tell someone, "I tell you today", since at the moment you're speaking, it's ... TODAY!"
 
Which facts? The one where Jesus told Mary that he had not yet ascended? Or the "fact" that Jesus can be in two places at the same time and still tell Mary he hadn't yet ascended?

If I say, "I have not yet taken the train to Toronto".
That does NOT mean I have never been to Toronto.
It also does NOT necessarily mean that I've never before taken the train to Toronto, since I may be speaking of a specific trip I'm planning.

Jesus was in heaven, with the thief, in paradise, on the day He was crucified.
He simply didn't physically "ascend" there. He was referring to an (at that time) future event in Acts 1:9).

I believe Bonnie and others have ALREADY explained this to you, multiple times.
 
Chuckke, chuckle, no, but Jesus says His Father is spirit..did Jesus lie?

In "spirit" does not mean worshiping in a non-corporeal body, Richard...that is silly. He means to worship God not only with our minds and body, but with our hearts, soul, and inmost spirit. As one of our commentaries on John says, "when God's Truth touched the woman's spirit, her true worship of Him could begin."

It's interesting that we are taught to:

Mark 12:30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’

It actually doesn't say to love God with "all your body".

Jesus' point was that the woman was talking about worshipping God on the mountain, or in Jerusalem, as if you had to go to PHYSICAL places to worship God. Jesus' response was saying that we don't worship in a "physical" place (like a Mormon temple), we worship Him as a SPIRITUAL act, with our Spiritual aspects.

And interestingly enough, Smith messed that up to:

D&C 59:5 “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy might, mind, and strength; and in the name of Jesus Christ thou shalt serve him”

So they removed "soul", and replaced it with "might".
Why?
No Mormons are able to explain this to me.

And "might" and "strength" are synonyms.
So why are BOTH of them listed, as if they are different things?
No Mormons are able to explain this to me.
 
Bonnie Posted..

Chuckke, chuckle, no, but Jesus says His Father is spirit..did Jesus lie?

I see, you're not spirit and you find that humorous... interesting! God is spirit and man returns to God who gave it....
If we are resurrected beings, then our bodies will be corporeal and our spirit as noted will be with us also when we return to the Father...

Apparently you don't understand the difference between:

"is a Spirit",

and,

"has a spirit".
 
Sorry, you did not answer the question about the One God... is the One God Bodily? your above make little to no sense... One God is spirit or Bodily and if Bodily what does that mean...

Once again, you show your ignorance of the Bible:

John 4:24 God is spirit,...

Num. 23:19 God is not man,
Job 9:32 For he is not a man, as I am, that I might answer him,
1 Sam. 15:29 ... the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man

Mormons claim that "gods", including HF, are physical, mortal "men" ("humans") who have "progressed" to become "gods", and that they all have physical bodies.

How ludicrous is that, not only when we see what the Bible teaches, but if that were true, why do the Bible authors make such a big deal about Jesus, being God, coming in the FLESH, as if He didn't have flesh already? Of course, it's because He DIDN'T have flesh already since God is Spirit.

Christianity: God became man.
Mormonism: Man became God.
 
I guess it will make sense if you are stuck on the One God doctrine...

To not be, is to reject the Bible, as Mormons do:

Deut. 4:35 ... the Lord is God; there is no other besides him
Deut. 4:39 ... the Lord is God... there is no other.
Deut. 32:39 ... and there is no god besides me;
2 Sam. 7:22 ... neither is there any God besides thee, ...
2 Sam. 22:32 For who is God, save the LORD?
1 Kings 8:60 ... the Lord is God; there is no other.
1 Chr. 17:20 ... neither is there any God besides thee, ...
Isa. 44:6 ... I am the first, and I am the last; and besides me there is no God.
Isa. 44:8 ... Is there a God beside me? yea,there is no God; I know not any.
Isa. 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me:
Is. 45:21 ... there is no God else beside me;
Isa 45:22 ... for I am God, and there is none else.
Isa. 46:9 ... for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,

Mark 12:32 … for there is one God; and there is none other but he:
1 Cor. 8:4 … and that there is none other God but one.
 
There are lots of ways to interpret Scripture.

ROTFLOL!

This is TOO funny!

When dberrie quotes, "I have not yet ascended to the Father", he seems to think there is only ONE possible way to interpret that. And when you or Richard quote Scripture, you seem to think there is only ONE possible way to interpret that.

But when we quote Scripture which clearly refutes your false teachings, suddenly, "There are lots of ways to interpret Scripture"?
"Denial" is more than a river in Egypt.
Double standards much?

You see, that's the problem with Mormons in this forum. There ARE different ways to interpret Scripture (the right way, and the wrong way). That's why we disagree. But Mormons aren't INTERESTED in "discussing" different interpretations, because that would lead to further clarification, and that utterly destroys Mormonism. So instead, they simply try to hit us over the head with their "proof-texts" ten billion times.

I'm not sure how you conclude that the Holy Ghost is Jesus' father.

That's not what was said.
Are you intentionally misrepresenting the poster, or do you simply have reading comprehension problems. The word, "father" was never mentioned. What was said was an allusion to this Bible verse, which apparently you reject:

Matt. 1:20 But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.

The scriptures are clear that Jesus is the only begotten of the father, not the holy ghost.

Nobody said any differently.

There can be only one biological father and for that conception to take place, the father has to have DNA of the same species as Mary or she could not get pregnant.

Jesus is never called God's "biological father".
And nowhere does Scripture say that the Father "has DNA of the same species as Mary".
You limit God, and forget that He can do miracles.

That eliminates the holy Ghost as being the father because it is a ghost, ergo, no DNA.

No.... This is a problem LDS have inherited from the inconsistent KJV.
The "Holy Spirit" is "pneuma hagios".
"Ghost" is "phantasma".

The Holy Spirit is not a "Ghost", He's a SPIRITUAL being.
And God is not limited to DNA.

What is the power of the Holy Ghost? Can it produce a child? I believe you are reading in to the context. A person can conceive a child. The power of the Holy Ghost is not a person.

This is the second comment which suggests you've left Mormonism for the Jehovah's Witnesses. "The Holy Ghost is not a person"?! Seriously?!

The fact remains, as already stated, within humans, only humans can produce offspring.

So who created Adam?
And notice that Scripture decrees that God CREATED Adam and Eve, He didn't "beget" them.
God is more powerful than you would have the lurkers believe.

Your unwillingness to accept that fact doesn't mean it isn't true. Besides, there is no way you can undo the fact that Jesus IS FULLY HUMAN. Is Jesus not God? We now have a human God.

No, we have God who took on a body of flesh.
Just because someone is born with 11 fingers doesn't make that an innate characteristic of humans, in the same way just because Jesus took on a body of flesh does not make humanity an innate characteristic of deity.

Now do u see the reason, I insist that the correct word to describe these Gods as beings?

Yes, because if you admitted the truth you'd have to reject Mormonism, and your pride will never let you do that.
 
One is flesh and bone, Two are spirit.... very confusing when we actually go to heaven and the one God is both spirit and flesh...oh my!
or maybe you can tell all us LDS how Christ reverts to spirit and if so where does he leave his body... great Science Fiction Movie.
Christians teach Jesus went to heaven in a flesh and bone body

1 Timothy 2:5
 
Back
Top