Please do explain your accusation

[dberrie2020]

Wrong again.
All they were teaching is what is found in 1 Cor. 15:45ff, as I have already shown, glorified man becoming immortal, incorruptible, and impassible.

NOTHING about man becoming independent "Gods".....

My claim--and the Early Church Fathers claim--was man may become deified gods:

SAINT JUSTIN MARTYR (100 TO 165 CE)​

"And when I saw that they were perturbed because I said that we are the sons of God, I anticipated their questioning, and said, Listen, sirs, how the Holy Ghost speaks of this people, saying that they are all sons of the Highest; and how this very Christ will be present in their assembly, rendering judgment to all men. ... the Holy Ghost reproaches men because they were made like God, free from suffering and death, provided that they kept His commandments, and were deemed deserving of the name of His sons, ... all men are deemed worthy of becoming 'gods,' and of having power to become sons of the Highest; and shall be each by himself judged and condemned like Adam and Eve." (Justin Martyr. "Dialogue with Trypho 124." Ante-Nicene Fathers. Ed. Alexander Roberts. Vol. 1. New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1905. 261-262. Print.)

SAINT IRENAEUS OF LYONS (130 TO 202 CE)​

"Now it was necessary that man should in the first instance be created; and having been created, should receive growth; and having received growth, should be strengthened; and having been strengthened, should abound; and having abounded, should recover [from the disease of sin]; and having recovered, should be glorified; and being glorified, should see the Lord. For God is He who is yet to be seen, and the beholding of God is productive of immortality, but immortality renders one nigh unto God. ... because we have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods; ..." (Irenaeus. "Against Heresies 4: 38: 3-4." Ante-Nicene Fathers. Ed. Alexander Roberts. Vol. 1. New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1905. 522. Print.)

"... the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself." (Irenaeus. "Against Heresies 5: Preface." Ante-Nicene Fathers. Ed. Alexander Roberts. Vol. 1. New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1905. 526. Print.)

 

[Markk]

You post more hooey than can be found in a buffalo pasture.

Translated, you can't inject LDS theology into your own belief and assertions because you either do not know it, or agree with it, my guess is both. Exactly what is "hooey" in what I wrote? I broke this down further for you Here .

You are bailing out of this conversation just like in the Book of Abraham thread.

 

[Theo1689]

But they were leaders within the NT church.

Church Fathers

Church Fathers - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Church Fathers, Early Church Fathers, Christian Fathers, or Fathers of the Church were ancient and influential Christian theologians and writers who established the intellectual and doctrinal foundations of Christianity.

Wow, seriously?!
You're quoting from "Wikipedia"?
Clearly you have no respect or credibility.

The ECF's were sola Scriptura, so they recognized SCRIPTURE as definitional, not themselves.

Luther, Calvin, and the other “founding fathers” of Protestantism were disciples of the early church fathers.​

First of all, they were NOT "the founding fathers of Protestantism".
Second of all, this is all OFF-TOPIC, so thank you for admitting that you can't defend Mormonism because you KNOW Mormonism is bankrupt and indefensible.

Finally, Luther and Calvin likewise held to "sola Scriptura", and ONLY accepted the ECF's in so far as the ECF's correctly interpreted Scripture.

 

[dberrie2020]

dberrie said---But they were leaders within the NT church.

Church Fathers

Church Fathers - Wikipedia​

en.wikipedia.org

The Church Fathers, Early Church Fathers, Christian Fathers, or Fathers of the Church were ancient and influential Christian theologians and writers who established the intellectual and doctrinal foundations of Christianity.

Wow, seriously?!
You're quoting from "Wikipedia"?
Clearly you have no respect or credibility.

What is your evidence otherwise?


Introduction to the Early Church Fathers----https://tcdecker.com/2022/01/25/introduction-to-the-early-church-fathers/

One of the things I focus on in my study of these men is how they faithfully transmitted and carried on the teachings that had been handed down to them by Jesus and his Apostles. They were immersed in the scriptures: the Hebrew Bible, the epistles of the Apostles, and the Gospels. They maintained continuity of the faith. And their writings were fresh and vibrant. They didn’t always have the systematic rigor of later Church Fathers, but they were steeped in the life of the faith and you can see it in their lives and in their writings.

 

[Created]

But your cult's "jesus" was born of an exalted human named Elohim who impregnated Mary. Do you deny that? If so, here are your references right from your cult's leaders:

Mormonism says God impregnated Mary by sex

beliefmap.org

Mormons have "another jesus," of which Paul warned. And if you persist in denying the Christian Jesus and praying to the non-existant Mormon god and "jesus," you shall die in your sins.

TRUTH!!!

 

[Created]

Wow, seriously?!
You're quoting from "Wikipedia"?
Clearly you have no respect or credibility.

The ECF's were sola Scriptura, so they recognized SCRIPTURE as definitional, not themselves.


First of all, they were NOT "the founding fathers of Protestantism".
Second of all, this is all OFF-TOPIC, so thank you for admitting that you can't defend Mormonism because you KNOW Mormonism is bankrupt and indefensible.

Finally, Luther and Calvin likewise held to "sola Scriptura", and ONLY accepted the ECF's in so far as the ECF's correctly interpreted Scripture.

Credibility and Mormonism can never be used in the same sentence, it's blasphemy...

 

[Created]

I have explained it, over and over again to you. I can explain it to you, but I cannot make you understand it--or accept it. It is simple and easy to understand.

1. Mormon god--first a man on "an earth", who was not always god, as Smith said, but had to learn how to BE a god, going from one degree of glory to another, until he achieved godhood. But, he was not always god. Jesus was.


2.Jesus Christ--first God, the eternal Word of God, Who then took on the additional nature of man at His Incarnation, though He never ceased being God, but "emptied Himself" of most of His power and heavenly privileges as God, in order to be "born of a woman, born under the Law, to save us from the curse of the Law." But Jesus was ALWAYS GOD and still is, along with being a man, now with a glorified eternal body, such as we will have at the Resurrection from the dead.

If you cannot see that what Jesus did was the opposite of what your supposed god did, then that means you are willfully refusing to see that, in order to keep your "testimony" of your church and "prophet."

I refer to the LDS position as Willful Ignorance.

 

[Bonnie]

I refer to the LDS position as Willful Ignorance.

You could be right--so they can keep the "testimony" of their church, and so-called "prophet."

 

[Theo1689]

I refer to the LDS position as Willful Ignorance.

The Catholics have a more extreme term, "invincible ignorance".

You could be right--so they can keep the "testimony" of their church, and so-called "prophet."

I have a hypothesis that 2 of the many reasons Mormons are unable to see the truth are:

1) they've never been taught how to properly study the Bible; and

2) they assume their view is true, so any alternative position they compare to their own view, and since it doesn't agree with their own view, the alternative must be false. That is the definition of "invincible ignorance".

 

[Janice Bower]

The Catholics have a more extreme term, "invincible ignorance".



I have a hypothesis that 2 of the many reasons Mormons are unable to see the truth are:

1) they've never been taught how to properly study the Bible; and

2) they assume their view is true, so any alternative position they compare to their own view, and since it doesn't agree with their own view, the alternative must be false. That is the definition of "invincible ignorance".

They believe only the parts of the Bible that conform to Mormon teachings. According to them, we are the church of Satan.

Nephi sees in vision the church of the devil set up among the Gentiles, the discovery and colonizing of America, the loss of many plain and precious parts of the Bible, the resultant state of gentile apostasy, the restoration of the gospel, the coming forth of latter-day scripture, and the building up of Zion. About 600–592 B.C.

1 Nephi 13

1 Nephi 13

Nephi sees in vision the church of the devil set up among the Gentiles, the discovery and colonizing of America, the loss of many plain and precious parts of the Bible, the resultant state of gentile apostasy, the restoration of the gospel, the coming forth of latter-day scripture, and the...

www.churchofjesuschrist.org

 

[Janice Bower]

So--I have a couple of questions to clarify what you are asking me:

1) Is your God an exalted man?

2) Did Jesus Christ claim His God and His Father--was God the Father?

My answer to both of those is

I'll await Bonnie's reply on this--she is capable of defending her own claims.



That the perspective of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the Biblical perspective is not the same as the claim of the critics here, is not in question.

Claiming the "exact opposite" is an exaggeration also.

The Biblical text shows Jesus Christ became the "Heir of all things"--which means He did not possess it until some point:

Hebrews 1:1-9---King James Version
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:
4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

As the testimony shows:

Acts 5:30-31---King James Version
30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.
31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

And--to carry that further:

Revelation 3:21---King James Version
21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

That may not be the exact opposite of what the critics claim--but it certainly isn't the same.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints testify Jesus Christ was the God of both the OT and the NT.

 

[dberrie2020]

I have a hypothesis that 2 of the many reasons Mormons are unable to see the truth are:

1) they've never been taught how to properly study the Bible; and

They believe only the parts of the Bible that conform to Mormon teachings.

I'm still waiting on the critic's list of Biblical NT scriptures which isn't also found in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints--as far as salvational doctrines go.

So far--crickets. That's rather revealing, IMO--seeing they claim the LDS are so far off track with the Biblical NT text.

 

[dberrie2020]

My claim--and the Early Church Fathers claim--was man may become deified gods:

SAINT JUSTIN MARTYR (100 TO 165 CE)​

"And when I saw that they were perturbed because I said that we are the sons of God, I anticipated their questioning, and said, Listen, sirs, how the Holy Ghost speaks of this people, saying that they are all sons of the Highest; and how this very Christ will be present in their assembly, rendering judgment to all men. ... the Holy Ghost reproaches men because they were made like God, free from suffering and death, provided that they kept His commandments, and were deemed deserving of the name of His sons, ... all men are deemed worthy of becoming 'gods,' and of having power to become sons of the Highest; and shall be each by himself judged and condemned like Adam and Eve." (Justin Martyr. "Dialogue with Trypho 124." Ante-Nicene Fathers. Ed. Alexander Roberts. Vol. 1. New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1905. 261-262. Print.)

SAINT IRENAEUS OF LYONS (130 TO 202 CE)​

"Now it was necessary that man should in the first instance be created; and having been created, should receive growth; and having received growth, should be strengthened; and having been strengthened, should abound; and having abounded, should recover [from the disease of sin]; and having recovered, should be glorified; and being glorified, should see the Lord. For God is He who is yet to be seen, and the beholding of God is productive of immortality, but immortality renders one nigh unto God. ... because we have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods; ..." (Irenaeus. "Against Heresies 4: 38: 3-4." Ante-Nicene Fathers. Ed. Alexander Roberts. Vol. 1. New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1905. 522. Print.)

"... the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself." (Irenaeus. "Against Heresies 5: Preface." Ante-Nicene Fathers. Ed. Alexander Roberts. Vol. 1. New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1905. 526. Print.)

SAINT CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (150 TO 215 CE)​

"It leads us to the endless and perfect end, teaching us beforehand the future life that we shall lead, according to God, and with gods; after we are freed from all punishment and penalty which we undergo, in consequence of our sins, for salutary discipline. After which redemption and reward and the honours are assigned to those who have become perfect; ... Then become pure in heart, and near to the Lord, there awaits them restoration to everlasting contemplation; and they are called by the appellation of gods, being destined to sit on thrones with the other gods that have been first put in their places by the Saviour." (Clement of Alexandria. "Stromata 7: 10." Ante-Nicene Fathers. Ed. Alexander Roberts. Vol. 2. New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1905. 539. Print.)



Bump for anyone.

 

[Theo1689]

I'm still waiting on the critic's list of Biblical NT scriptures which isn't also found in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints--as far as salvational doctrines go.

First off, you don't get to control the narrative. Our job is to show where the LDS church is in error and is anti-Biblical. WE get to decide how to do that, not you. You don't get to tie our hands behind our backs, and then declare a worthless "victory" for yourself. You got that?

Second of all your "challenge" is ridiculous on its face. You're asking about "scriptures", not doctrines. And since the LDS church has incorporated the KJV Bible into its canon, there are no "Bibical NT scriptures" missing.

But the issue isn't whether verses are "missing" from the Bible. The issue is that Mormons REJECT and don't believe many of the pasages which ARE in the Bible. That's why we are so successful at proving Mormonism false by quoting the Bible.

The other issue, of course, is that Joseph Smith CORRUPTED much of the NT with his "Joseph Smith Translation", making changes that contradict the Biblical teachings, even though he had no knowledge of Greek or any manuscripts to base his "changes" on.

So regarding your "challenge", there are two vitally important issues:

1) all the Scriptures Mormons ignor/reject;

2) Joseph Smith's New Testament corruptions.

So far--crickets. That's rather revealing, IMO--seeing they claim the LDS are so far off track with the Biblical NT text.

So this is hardly "crickets". But then again, you're not interested in truth, you're only interested in "damage control", and controlling the narrative. You seem to think that if you say "crickets" often enough, you can get people to believe you. Well, guess what? If it were true that it was "crickets", you wouldn't have to tell everyone, it would be self-evident.

But here is a somewhat comprehensive llist of errant teachings in the LDS church, both salvific and not as salvific:

Salvific:

1) Mormons are for all intents and purposes atheists. They don't believe in God. They don't believe in a supernatural God who is invisible, can create out of nothing, and can be everywhere at once. They simply believe in an "exalted man", with many of the same limitations that we have.

2) What Mormons CALL "gods", they are active polytheists, and this is contrary to the Bible (both OT and NT) which teaches that only one God exists.

3) Mormons reject the atoning blood of Christ on the cross, thinking it's only given us physical resurrection.

4) Mormons reject the Biblical teaching of salvation/exaltation being based on grace, and "not by works" (Eph. 2:9, 2 Tim. 1:9, Tit. 3:5, Rom. 4:1-6, 11:5-6, etc. etc.), and they have stomped underfoot the blood of Christ, and replaced it with their own "filthy rags" works of "obedience" and "enduring".

5) Mormons believe they can hold the Melchizedek Priesthood, which is in one word, blasphemous.

Non-Salvific

6) They have built physical temples, not realizing that our bodies are the temple.

7) They continue to hold an "Aaronic Priesthood", even though it was made obsolete, and even though most LDS are not Levites.

8) They have false prophets.

9) They have false apostles;

10) They have unmarried, teenaged, immature deacons who do not own houses or have children;

11) They have unmarried, teenaged, immature elders who do not own houses or have children;

12) They demand an "unpaid ministry";

13) They demand anti-Biblical restrictions on food, such as coffee, tea, cola, beer, and wine (and meat, even though they ignore that one, I wonder why?)

 

[dberrie2020]

First off, you don't get to control the narrative. Our job is to show where the LDS church is in error and is anti-Biblical. WE get to decide how to do that, not you. You don't get to tie our hands behind our backs, and then declare a worthless "victory" for yourself. You got that?

Second of all your "challenge" is ridiculous on its face. You're asking about "scriptures", not doctrines. And since the LDS church has incorporated the KJV Bible into its canon, there are no "Bibical NT scriptures" missing.

But the issue isn't whether verses are "missing" from the Bible. The issue is that Mormons REJECT and don't believe many of the pasages which ARE in the Bible. That's why we are so successful at proving Mormonism false by quoting the Bible.

The other issue, of course, is that Joseph Smith CORRUPTED much of the NT with his "Joseph Smith Translation", making changes that contradict the Biblical teachings, even though he had no knowledge of Greek or any manuscripts to base his "changes" on.

So regarding your "challenge", there are two vitally important issues:

1) all the Scriptures Mormons ignor/reject;

2) Joseph Smith's New Testament corruptions.



So this is hardly "crickets". But then again, you're not interested in truth, you're only interested in "damage control", and controlling the narrative. You seem to think that if you say "crickets" often enough, you can get people to believe you. Well, guess what? If it were true that it was "crickets", you wouldn't have to tell everyone, it would be self-evident.

But here is a somewhat comprehensive llist of errant teachings in the LDS church, both salvific and not as salvific:

Salvific:

1) Mormons are for all intents and purposes atheists. They don't believe in God. They don't believe in a supernatural God who is invisible, can create out of nothing, and can be everywhere at once. They simply believe in an "exalted man", with many of the same limitations that we have.

2) What Mormons CALL "gods", they are active polytheists, and this is contrary to the Bible (both OT and NT) which teaches that only one God exists.

3) Mormons reject the atoning blood of Christ on the cross, thinking it's only given us physical resurrection.

4) Mormons reject the Biblical teaching of salvation/exaltation being based on grace, and "not by works" (Eph. 2:9, 2 Tim. 1:9, Tit. 3:5, Rom. 4:1-6, 11:5-6, etc. etc.), and they have stomped underfoot the blood of Christ, and replaced it with their own "filthy rags" works of "obedience" and "enduring".

5) Mormons believe they can hold the Melchizedek Priesthood, which is in one word, blasphemous.

Non-Salvific

6) They have built physical temples, not realizing that our bodies are the temple.

7) They continue to hold an "Aaronic Priesthood", even though it was made obsolete, and even though most LDS are not Levites.

8) They have false prophets.

9) They have false apostles;

10) They have unmarried, teenaged, immature deacons who do not own houses or have children;

11) They have unmarried, teenaged, immature elders who do not own houses or have children;

12) They demand an "unpaid ministry";

13) They demand anti-Biblical restrictions on food, such as coffee, tea, cola, beer, and wine (and meat, even though they ignore that one, I wonder why?)

Theo sure seems to get long winded in saying--he can't come up with a single scripture.

More crickets.

 

[brotherofJared]

They believe only the parts of the Bible that conform to Mormon teachings. According to them, we are the church of Satan.

If this is true, then there must be "parts of the Bible" that don't confirm to our critics' theological teachings and we've seen evidence of that. For example, Jesus taught that no one can enter the kingdom of God without baptism. Our critics often ignore that and actually teach that not only isn't it necessary, they also teach that anyone performing the baptism is good enough.

Now, if churches teach that Baptism isn't necessary when it is, are actually keeping the members out of heaven. That sounds like a doctrine that Satan would teach. Further, if there is only one truth, then anyone teaching anything other than that truth is teaching Satan's propaganda.

Again, it is not the members that are the issue, it is the people to teach the propaganda.

 

[Theo1689]

If this is true, then there must be "parts of the Bible" that don't confirm to our critics' theological teachings

First of all, the argument, 'If Mormons reject parts of the Bible, then the critics must also reject parts of the Bible" doesn't follow, and is nothing but a gigantic non sequitur. This is nothing but BoJ's standard, "I know you are but what am I?" tactic.

and we've seen evidence of that.

No, actually, we haven't.

And here we go again, with the Mormons going OFF-TOPIC and trying to attack Christianity, because they know Mormonism is bankrupt and indefensible, and are therefore unable of defending it.

For example, Jesus taught that no one can enter the kingdom of God without baptism.

And of course, Jesus NEVER taught any such thing.
That's why BoJ can't give a valid Biblical citation.

Our critics often ignore that and actually teach that not only isn't it necessary, they also teach that anyone performing the baptism is good enough.

The Bible NEVER teaches that one needs any kind of "authority" to baptize.
So again, it is the MORMONS who are ignoring the Bible, not the critics.

Now, if churches teach that Baptism isn't necessary when it is,

Well, it is NOT necessary, since salvation is "not by works" (Eph. 2:8-9, 2 Tim. 1:9, Tit. 3:5, Rom. 4:1-6, 11:5-6, etc. etc.). And "baptism" is definitely a "work".

are actually keeping the members out of heaven. That sounds like a doctrine that Satan would teach.

And here we go again... Mormonism is bankrupt, and BoJ can't defend it, so he has to try to demonize what the critics belief.

Notice tha this ENTIRE rant is based on his FALSE claim that "water baptism is required", when he hasn't even demonstrated this to be the case. So his entire hous of cards falls down and is destroyed.

Further, if there is only one truth, then anyone teaching anything other than that truth is teaching Satan's propaganda.

So thank you for the admission that Mormons are the minions of "Satan's propaganda".

 

[Janice Bower]

Theo sure seems to get long winded in saying--he can't come up with a single scripture.

More crickets.

No, you repeatedly ignore biblical truth.

Mormons believe only the parts of the Bible that conform or can be twisted to conform to Mormon teachings.

 

[Janice Bower]

Theo sure seems to get long winded in saying--he can't come up with a single scripture.

More crickets.

Theo repeatedly posts sound biblical truth which you repeatedly ignore. God has already won!

Ephesians Chapter Two!

 

[Janice Bower]

I'm still waiting on the critic's list of Biblical NT scriptures which isn't also found in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints--as far as salvational doctrines go.

So far--crickets. That's rather revealing, IMO--seeing they claim the LDS are so far off track with the Biblical NT text.

Your anti-Christian beliefs prevent you from seeing the LIGHT! Many verses have been posted by many knowledgeable Christians, but you reject them.

Proverbs 30
6 Add thou not unto His words lest He reprove thee and thou be found a liar.

Proverbs 3
5Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.