Magdalena
Well-known member
From God, yes. I’m ok with not knowing all the reasons or mysteries. Because I trust Him.It looks to me like you believe what you're told without even knowing why.
From God, yes. I’m ok with not knowing all the reasons or mysteries. Because I trust Him.It looks to me like you believe what you're told without even knowing why.
Sad.From God, yes. I’m ok with not knowing all the reasons or mysteries. Because I trust Him.
Wow. That’s a really demonic statement. I don’t think it even deserves a response. I’ll ask Him to remove that influence from you.Sad.
If you trust him and he says that you can ask and receive, but you don't know why he would put a child in an abusive relationship and then condemn him because he died before he could learn of God. Either you didn't ask and reacted the way sheep would, or you you did ask and found out once again that your God can't really be trusted. Which is it?
And this is exactly what this Mormon has repeatedly done on this forum. You cannot reason with someone who wants to be unreasonable and contrary, especially to the written word of God (the Bible).Yes, God has no obligation to answer to me.
If the Sergeant says, "Jump!"
The private doesn't say, "Why should I?"
If God says, "ALL have sinned".
The sinner doesn't say, "PROVE it!"
I believe God.
You don't.
And that's the bottom line.
Hmmm. What happened here? Did you finally decide to read the post you were replying to? That influence exists in the world and God put those people in those situations.Wow. That’s a really demonic statement.
Sad.
If you trust him and he says that you can ask and receive,
but you don't know why he would put a child in an abusive relationship and then condemn him because he died before he could learn of God.
Either you didn't ask and reacted the way sheep would, or you you did ask and found out once again that your God can't really be trusted. Which is it?
That is true. So do I. Some things are not meant to be known, this side of heaven. But we are to trust Jesus Christ in all things.From God, yes. I’m ok with not knowing all the reasons or mysteries. Because I trust Him.
So here's my question.That is true. So do I. Some things are not meant to be known, this side of heaven. But we are to trust Jesus Christ in all things.
So here's my question.
If something conflicts in the Bible - mysteries are ok,
but if something conflicts in Mormonism - it's a cult, bad, false, etc.
Can't Mormon critics see the double standard?
We were responding to this statement... “It looks to me like you believe what you're told without even knowing why.”So here's my question.
If something conflicts in the Bible - mysteries are ok, but if something conflicts in Mormonism - it's a cult, bad, false, etc.
Can't Mormon critics see the double standard?
You need context to understand that those who ask shall receive?Well, we would first need to discuss the CONTEXT and specific meaning of that passage.
Well, the reason you gave is that he sinned. I just want to know what sin you think he committed. You seem to be unable to answer that question.I certainly have a decent understanding (IMO) of why.
It is relevant to this discussion and the discussion is here. I'm not going to argue with your answer if it has some logical basis. but if you believe it because a book said it, then that's just sad. And i accept that too, but it's still sad.But it's not relevant to Mormonism, so not appropriate for discussion here.
It appears to me that all of this is beyond your ability to reason. IOW, it's outside your understanding and that's sad too.Is this is the Mormon understanding?
The Bible conflicts with the idea that there is only one God in existence. But that conflict is okay. You all are willing to accept that even though the Bible abounds with passages that reveal other Gods do, in fact, exist.There is nothing in the Bible that "conflicts" with Christianity.
There is TONS in the Bible that "conflict" with Mormonism's teachings of:
1) plural gods;
Again, The Bible abounds with the necessity of works, but those conflicts are ignored in favor of what you all prefer to believe.2) works required for salvation/exaltaion;
That's your interpretation. None of us have ever said it was a virtue. but it is necessary. And the Bible teaches that it is necessary. But that conflict isn't important.3) polygamy a virtue;
And yet there was no death in the world when marriage was instituted. And God specifically stated that no man could separate the two, yet you think that death can. Yet another conflict that's okay with you all.4) marriages continuing past death;
5) teenaged, immature, unmarried "elders" and "deacons";
The Bible conflicts with the idea that there is only one God in existence.
Again, The Bible abounds with the necessity of works,
And yet there was no death in the world when marriage was instituted. And God specifically stated that no man could separate the two, yet you think that death can.
BrotherofJared said:
So that statement came from trying to explain Rom 3:23 when BoJ is essentially asking (or rather proving per Theo's request) "What sin can a baby commit?"We were responding to this statement... “It looks to me like you believe what you're told without even knowing why.”
When it comes to what God says, we believe It on faith without always knowing the reasons behind what He told us.
That's if you choose to believe that the LDS Church is a cult, and everything Joseph Smith said was a prophetic utterance, which many believing Mormons don't. The simple principle of personal revelation refutes all that. Else, why need personal revelation at all if the prophet will tell you what to believe?When Joseph Smith didn’t know, understand, or like the things God said in the Bible, he made up his own reasons/doctrines that conflict with the Bible, and claimed God told him.
So that statement came from trying to explain Rom 3:23 when BoJ is essentially asking (or rather proving per Theo's request) "What sin can a baby commit?"
Theo's answer is essentially - I don't know, the Bible says so.
Ok. To me, I think Theo's response is fair.
Yet, according to our Christian Mormon critics - for the Mormon position to be right, Mormons must have a justifiable explanation to be acceptable.
BoJ could simply said - "the prophet said so." and the rationale is just as strong or weak.
Mormons used to believe what their prophets said. They were supposed to speak for God on earth. The prophets spoke for the church and the doctrine. Personal revelation was for your own life. And personal revelation didnt trump what the prophets said. If you got a different answer, yours was wrong. Not the prophets.On both sides of the issue - It's an appeal to authority, and an argument from absence. But, this since this is a religious discussion, "God of the gaps" is a valid answer. Hence, @brotherofJared, this is why I say "less is more".
That's if you choose to believe that the LDS Church is a cult, and everything Joseph Smith said was a prophetic utterance, which many believing Mormons don't. The simple principle of personal revelation refutes all that. Else, why need personal revelation at all if the prophet will tell you what to believe?
So you're claiming the Bible doesnt contradict itself?Except were talking about God and His word. Not mormon prophets. Mormons claim to believe in God’s word... until they don’t.
Yet, it still has to qualify as doctrine to be considered doctrine.Mormons used to believe what their prophets said. They were supposed to speak for God on earth. The prophets spoke for the church and the doctrine. Personal revelation was for your own life. And personal revelation didnt trump what the prophets said. If you got a different answer, yours was wrong. Not the prophets.
Like I've said before, the Prophets and apostles govern the Church.If modern Mormons don’t think they have to believe the prophets, then why have them?
So again, this is based on the assumption no contradictions in the Bible. Yet, there are.It’s like with the Bible... you believe your prophets until you don’t. Its like believing in nothing.
No, I said we trust God. We don’t throw Him under the bus when we don’t understand something or don’t have all the answers. And we don’t make them up ourselves.So you're claiming the Bible doesnt contradict itself?
Yet, it still has to qualify as doctrine to be considered doctrine.
Like I've said before, the Prophets and apostles govern the Church.
So again, this is based on the assumption no contradictions in the Bible. Yet, there are.
Or Aaron, why need a singular prophet at all if everyone has personal revelation which can vary widely? OT prophets were used by God to speak to the people. When speaking in the name of the Lord they were to be believed. Here, from what I can see in your church and these statements, is what the prophet speaks in the Lord's name is to be believed provided it agrees with personal revelation. Some do and some don't. Is that a fair assesment?So that statement came from trying to explain Rom 3:23 when BoJ is essentially asking (or rather proving per Theo's request) "What sin can a baby commit?"
Theo's answer is essentially - I don't know, the Bible says so.
Ok. To me, I think Theo's response is fair.
Yet, according to our Christian Mormon critics - for the Mormon position to be right, Mormons must have a justifiable explanation to be acceptable.
BoJ could simply said - "the prophet said so." and the rationale is just as strong or weak.
On both sides of the issue - It's an appeal to authority, and an argument from absence. But, this since this is a religious discussion, "God of the gaps" is a valid answer. Hence, @brotherofJared, this is why I say "less is more".
That's if you choose to believe that the LDS Church is a cult, and everything Joseph Smith said was a prophetic utterance, which many believing Mormons don't. The simple principle of personal revelation refutes all that. Else, why need personal revelation at all if the prophet will tell you what to believe?
Ok. To me, I think Theo's response is fair.
Yet, according to our Christian Mormon critics - for the Mormon position to be right, Mormons must have a justifiable explanation to be acceptable.
BoJ could simply said - "the prophet said so." and the rationale is just as strong or weak.
That's if you choose to believe that the LDS Church is a cult, and everything Joseph Smith said was a prophetic utterance, which many believing Mormons don't. The simple principle of personal revelation refutes all that. Else, why need personal revelation at all if the prophet will tell you what to believe?