organgrinder
Well-known member
At least he made the attempt.... finally. However, he didn't EXPLAIN it.
So far, dust is all you guys have been saying. No substance. Pretty pathetic apologists for your "restored" church"
The prophesied Restoration
- Thread starter dberrie2020
- Start date
So far, dust is all you guys have been saying. No substance. Pretty pathetic apologists for your "restored" church"
Richard7
Well-known member
Yep, and maybe now you will teach us... maybe! chuckle.
brotherofJared
Well-known member
So, are you saying that Christian religions didn't exist before the reformation?
Apparently, you aren't aware of history in which there was a reformation.
organgrinder
Well-known member
Mormonism forum, Ralf. You are to explain the Gospel to us. You talk about it but can't explain it. Enlighten us.
Richard7
Well-known member
What else can I add, I did the job and you have shown me where I'm right or wrong.... yes we do debate here, that means a conversation and so far you have not entered in... oh my!
organgrinder
Well-known member
You have given nothing. No EXPLANATION of what the Gospel is. Saying something is the gospel and EXPLAINING the gospel is different. You should be able to figure that out. The onus is on YOU. Mormonism forum. Remember?
Richard7
Well-known member
You did not explain anything about my explanation, as far as I'm concerned its good until you show me how wrong I am... you even stated I did better then most. No I can't figure out even what this thread is about... its silly, chuckle.
organgrinder
Well-known member
Keep diverting. Learn what EXPLAIN means. What you posted didn't EXPLAIN anything. Explain the Gospel. If you gave that answer you posted to anyone, they wouldn't understand squat. They would-- and rightly so-- be wanting more. Is that how you answer questions as an LDS priesthood holder?
Richard7
Well-known member
I gave a Priesthood answer... since you don't know anything about our doctrine, who are you to judge my answer?
organgrinder
Well-known member
So a "priesthood answer" is a non-explanatory response. Got it. I suppose you give a lot of those type of answers on a host of other subjects.
Richard7
Well-known member
Yep I do, after all the Priesthood of God is the authority to act in His name by way of righteousness and purity... I strive to act accordingly with lots of repenting.
Josheb
Well-known member
No, there's no logic to that goal-post moving abuse of Luke. Jesus fulfilled the prophet's prophecies, even those of the prophets who lived after Calvary and one of them plainly stated anyone preaching a different gospel was cursed.
Galatians 1:8-9
But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!
The would be Joseph Smith.
2 Corinthians 11:4-5
For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully. For I consider myself not in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles.
That would be the LDS.
We also know those who prophesy things that don't come true are not prophets of God and should not be followed.
Deuteronomy 18:22
When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.
That too would be Joseph Smith.
Mormonism was a restorationist movement that was apocalyptic. Most of the new sects that arose in that century shared those two traits. I have already covered this in previous posts in this thread. The predictions of Campbell, Miller, and Smith did NOT come true. Their views of "restoration" did not comport consistently with the example provided in the New Testament. They were wrong on both counts, and demonstrably so.
Last edited:
organgrinder
Well-known member
Got it. No response is an answer. Better save that one. Lurkers should be reminded of that.
Magdalena
Well-known member
So you justify your behavior here every day by saying, “It’s ok because I repent a lot?”
Richard7
Well-known member
What has logic to do with spiritual revelation, I suppose that must be foreign to you... Show me on scripture that ever stated Christ fulfilled the prophet's prophecies that point to the demise of prophets forever. God does not lie nor change.
"As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began." (Luke 1:70)
Goes both ways, Christians teach a non biblical triune God. We can argue that all day long and we still won't agree. Just as much as you consider us praying to the wrong God, well good buddy, we feel the same way about Christians. Loggerhead on the one.
I agree, and since most religions don't have prophets or apostles, you're safe there. The fact is that after 2000 yrs and the world in the condition it is, what a better time to have a God that is not dead and actually speaks today... just saying!
Yep, don't follow a false God or a false Prophet.... I agree... and you know how the Book of Mormon came about and if so would be able to bury Mormonism and shut us down, correct? no, you can't and won't be able too.
The Book of Mormon is a real stumbling block for the uninitiated.
So where do we teach the destruction of the world that you can't find in Revelation, Isaiah and Daniel... chuckle... EDITED--RULE 22 VIOLATION
Last edited by a moderator:
Richard7
Well-known member
Yep folks, no more responses is needed... he has pretty much shown that his expertise in the Doctrine of God or Christ in his own mind is the only answer. Yet we don't know what it is... chuckle. Just like God is a mystery so is organgrinder who is a enigma ( or difficult to understand)
Josheb
Well-known member
Well, aside from the fact you've just contradicted yourself.... God is a God of reason. Not only is God a God of reason, He invites us to reason with Him, and He does so in the books of the prophets (Isa. 1:18). Both Moses and Paul (both prophets) implicitly and explicitly spoke about false prophets, providing us with rational metrics by which valid versus false teachings hiding under the guise of "spiritual revelation" could be recognized.
Ad hominem duly noted as another example of pathetic ungodly fallacy of the flesh and given the response it warrants.
Richard7
Well-known member
Chuckle, You slay me with your misunderstanding of Logic, common sense versus spiritual truths. God never invites anyone to reason with the truth (God) Spiritual revelation, is easy to determine for by its fruits you will recognize them... nothing good can come out of evil and a false prophet does not good...
Matthew 7
15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.
That my friend is not logic, its Gods words and we can't reason with that... chuckle.
Well to you it may be, but from your posting its obvious the scriptures and doctrine are foreign to you...
Josheb
Well-known member
What's the topic of this op?
Josheb
Well-known member
No, just drawing attention to the fact you're off-topic and trolling. Happens A LOT in this board.
You are on record making self-contradictory claims. You're on record abusing scripture. You're on record hijacking your brothers op, and apparently for the sole purpose of making someone look bad. Perhaps you weren't aware that's what you were given the opportunity to reveal about yourself.
I am not under any obligation to engage any of that beyond making it apparent, noting it for the fallacious act of the flesh it is, and then moving on. If my resolve in this matter is doubted simply examine how often brotherofJared is engaged. He was asked the exact same thing I'm asking you now and he's consistently shown an inability, not merely an unwillingness, to post op-relevantly with manners and respect. I encourage and exhort you not to be that guy.
Now, if you have anything op-relevant to post I'll read it and consider replying. Otherwise, I don't collaborate with what you're bringing to the thread.
This op first began in a completely different thread. It is the author's practice, his modus operandi, to constantly start new threads whenever discourse becomes difficulty for him. The verses cited in the op don't actually speak of a restoration of the Church like that being asserted in the op. The use of a translation that uses the word, "restitution" is commendable because modern apocalyptic restorationist sects all got it wrong and none of them got their original predictions correct. Secular definitions should not be used if, when, and/or where they contradict with scripture. The Church, from its inception has always been a messy place and in need of reform, and that's one of the many ways where modern restorationists sects get their ecclesiology wrong. ALL of us should be cautious, if not skeptical and/or rejecting, of ANYONE who says the body of Christ is corrupt and they know how it should look. This is especially the case whenever and wherever their version does not comport consistently with the precedent established in the New Testament. I've evidenced all of this with scripture and the facts of history where applicable.
Shouldn't have to repeat any of it with someone interested in furthering the conversation topically.
You're also already on record refusing to answer the question, "What's the topic of this op?"
If you've got something op-relevant to post, then do so. Otherwise, having said my piece about this op and seeing no one is interested in that conversation, I'll be moving on.